Re: Mueller Optics

[Mags]

Just got my scope back today. Here are the answers from questions brought up in my other Mueller Optics thread.

1. The scope Mueller had and posted the pic of is indeed mine.
2. The scope does have incredible ring marks, I don't know how I missed them.
3. Mueller did not take apart the scope, and the scope arrived as I shipped it to them.

So this is what I learned.

1. If you receive a damaged item send it back to the retailer immediately.
2. Mueller scope tubes are pretty weak, I only used 15 in pounds to torque down my rings.
3. Buy a scope with a "no BS warranty" next time.

I still have a few questions running around in my head. One of which is what kind of scope tube crushes so easily? The other thing I am wondering is I think Mueller confused my defect of something in the glass with the crushed tube. Mueller needs to post better mounting instructions if they are going to classify the tube as abused. The mount manufacturer also did not include mounting instructions for the scope, it just had instructions on mounting the base to the rifle. I certainly don't think 15 in pounds is excessive.

The scope is mountable and usable, I will use it until better glass arrives. I will also post better pics of the ring marks and my mount a little later. (it is kind of late here)

 

[Sky]

Well sorry Mags. Hope something goes good for u!

 

[MCMXI]

Mags, good for you for following up with this. Is there any way that the scope came from MidwayUSA already damaged? If I were in your shoes, I'd call MidwayUSA and ask them if the scope was previously sold, returned and restocked. Explain the whole story and they might exchange this one for you. At this point you have nothing to lose. And as for the 15 in-lb ... I still don't believe for one second that a one-piece mount would damage a tube with 15 in-lb of torque. I torque all of the screws on my LaRue and GG&G mounts to 18 in-lb.

Good luck.

 

[benzy2]

Another question I have would be about the pattern of the crush/pinched tube. Does it line up with the mount you have? Being a one piece mount I would think it would be easy to line up the ring marks to verify if they were from you mount or not. At least that would help determine if you/your mount was the cause of the damage or if it was something else. It wouldn't verify if it was an issue from midway or if it was an issue of mix up at Mueller, but it would eliminate or verify if it was something you happened to do.

 

[Mags]

Her are the pics:

Bottom of scope aft end.


Bottom of scope forend.


Here is the defect in the scope the whole reason I sent it in. The spec in the bottom left quadrant.


This is the mount.


This is another view of the mount, in this picture it explains the depressions on the scope tube. The top screws must apply downward force somehow when tightened. You can see the lines in the bottom of the mount that was imprinted into the scope.

 

[Mags]

Another question I have would be about the pattern of the crush/pinched tube. Does it line up with the mount you have?

Yep they sure do line up.

 

[CraigC]

1. If you receive a damaged item send it back to the retailer immediately.

That should be pretty well self-explanatory.

2. Mueller scope tubes are pretty weak, I only used 15 in pounds to torque down my rings.

As I said before, one dude with a problem with one scope is statistically insignificant. Their reputation is stellar. You're just one dude who damaged his scope tube. Nothing more. Mueller scopes do not have weak tubes and the sky is not falling.

3. Buy a scope with a "no BS warranty" next time.

Yes, some folks need "foolproof" warranties.


The "BS" here that you're trying to avoid is that YOU damaged YOUR scope (at which point the internal defect is irrelevant) and then expected the manufacturer to take responsibility for it.

I might also ask that if the scope tube is so "weak", then why did it only damage at the front ring and not the rear as well? Could it be that either the mount is out of spec or that you improperly torqued the front screws?

I also find it very interesting how many folks in the original thread placed more credibility on statements made by an anonymous internet poster than the manufacturer. To the point of accusing said manufacturer of cooking up pictures from a printed manual. And it gives me no small pleasure to point out that those folks were DEAD WRONG. I also noticed that at no time did anyone question the mount itself. I might also point out that if Mags concedes to sending Mueller a scope that HE damaged, then he admits to voiding the written warranty and that this whole ruckus was indeed, his own doing. The bottom line is that a highly reputable optics manufacturer's name was dragged through the mud and that the whole thing basically amounts to a moronic debacle. Stupid and libelous.

 

[Z-Michigan]

Mags, good of you to post all this info. So it appears that your mount damaged your scope. 15 in-lbs isn't much. I would contact the mount manufacturer and see if there is any special torquing procedure required, and if they've heard of this problem before. I suspect they'll reply "don't use our mount with weak scopes."

CraigC, you seem to have some unhealthy vendetta against Mags.

And for what it's worth:

Their reputation is stellar. You're just one dude who damaged his scope tube. Nothing more. Mueller scopes do not have weak tubes and the sky is not falling.

Stellar? For a company that many of us had never heard of before the prior thread? Not to mention many of us have never actually seen a crushed scope tube in person before?

 

[Boomie]

Stellar? For a company that many of us had never heard of before the prior thread? Not to mention many of us have never actually seen a crushed scope tube in person before?

Mueller is not a fly-by-night company. They have been around for a while. Their products have been reviewed in gun mags and by users on forums like these. This is actually the first negative thing I've ever read about them.

Barskas, Ospreys or NC-Stars saturate gun shows around here and I see them every time I go to the range but that doesn't make them good.

 

[Mags]

As usual Craig you failed to read the whole post. And you let your emotion fly with all types of assumptions. Never once in the other thread did I go negative, yet you continue to attack me. I am not an anonymous poster I have ben a member here for over a year and post regularly. I consider myself part of the THR family, and if you could read all posts and links in the other thread you would know my full name and city! I find it also very funny that after a year of posting on this forum this is the first encounter I have made with you and many of the Mueller fanboys.

This:

I might also ask that if the scope tube is so "weak", then why did it only damage at the front ring and not the rear as well?

Do you even read? Can you look at pictures? Both ends were damaged.

Also you fail to overlook that I am the one who emailed Mueller the link to the thread so they could state their side of the story.I am also the one who started this thread with pictures proving that I must have crushed my scope. I could have just lied and said anything but I showed integrity and started this thread. Where is your integrity behind your personal attacks?

 

[kwelz]

Thank you Mags for posting this. It does give us a lot more info on the whole situation.

A few things.

1: Since the marks line up I doubt this came damaged from the Distributor.
2: The photo is a bit hard to make out but it does indeed look like the scope tried to form to the rings.
3: A scope should not have Structural damage from 15 Lbs of torque. Cosmetic sure, but not structural.
4: With #3 in mind ADM mounts need to be tightened in a specific way. If done incorrectly they can do damage very easily. After reading the original thread I tested it out with an ADM recon X mount and a old scope I had in a part box. It took very little pressure to actually start to deform the scope when I did it wrong. I think it has something to do with the leverage caused by the way the rings go together.

I didn't have a Torque wrench so I can't say for sure how much force was being applied but it took less than I used when I remounted my accupoint.

So a question or two. Did you tighten the top or bottom first? or did you do the round robin approach like you were putting a tire on a car?
Also was the spot there before you mounted the scope, or did you look?

I see a couple possible scenarios here.

A: Mueller uses very soft aluminum for their scope bodies.
B: You got a bad scope.
C: You need a new Torque Wrench
D: Fluke moment/Universe playing a trick on you.
F: Some combination of the above.

 

[Mags]

Did you tighten the top or bottom first? or did you do the round robin approach like you were putting a tire on a car?

I did the star pattern tightening the top middle screw last.

Also was the spot there before you mounted the scope, or did you look?

As soon as I unpackaged the scope from Midway and looked through it the spot was there, that is when I should have sent it off.

 

[essayons21]

One thing that I haven't seen mentioned in either thread... have you mic'd the inside of your mount? How about the tube at the mount points? I believe you torqued it to 15 in/lbs, but I can't believe that it would deform the scope if both the rings and tube were in spec.

I say this because I have the exact same model scope, which has been mounted in 3 different rings, Bushnell, Leupold, and TPS. The first 2 I just tightened till it felt right, and the TPS rings I torqued to 15 in/lbs. No deformation. I haven't abused the scope, but I haven't exactly been kind to it either, and 6 years later it is still going strong. Its a pretty sturdy scope.

 

[MCMXI]

I did the star pattern tightening the top middle screw last.

Mags, one-piece QD mounts with vertical split rings such as the AD and LaRue are designed such that the bottom screws are inserted and tighted without the top screws being inserted in the rings. The scope will still move freely at this point. Once you've positioned the scope, you simply insert the upper screws and torque to the desired setting without trying to close the gap at the top of the rings. If you follow this procedure and use 15 in-lb you WILL NOT damage the scope tube.

 

[Dookie]

Of course, if you had sent it back immediately and then installed it, you most likely would have crushed the scope tubes anyway, which would probably have been more aggravating.

I haven't read all the posts on this, but am wondering if you had a scope mounted in those rings already. If not is there a possibility the rings might be out of spec?

 

[MCMXI]

Mags, I have to reiterate ... with these types of mounts, the bottom screws are inserted and tightened WITHOUT the top screws in place. If you insert the top and bottom screws, and tighten the top screws while the bottom screws are loose, you run the risk of damaging the tube (as you discovered). These mounts are designed to have ZERO gap at the bottom of the rings, and a gap at the top of the rings ... just like the LaRue mounts.

 

[kwelz]

1858 beat me to it.
If I really had to take a guess I would say this is exactly what cause the damage. Stuff happens. We live and learn.

 

[slowr1der]

What Craig C fails to understand is that many of us that say we wouldn't buy a Mueller don't care that they were telling the truth as we already figured that. What we do care about is, why would we buy a Mueller when we could get a Vortex for a similar price that's as good or better scope, and they will still warranty it even if we the consumer did damage it. That's why I wouldn't buy a Mueller. Not because I thought they were lying, but because I can get a scope for a similar price that is most likely better and will still be warrantied even if I do break it.

Plus if I wanted a scope made in China, I sure wouldn't pay $200+ for one. The thing about Chinese optics are that they are usually cheap and that's why people buy them even though they often lack quality. For $200 you can get a lot better.

 

[benzy2]

What Craig C fails to understand is that many of us that say we wouldn't buy a Mueller don't care that they were telling the truth as we already figured that. What we do care about is, why would we buy a Mueller when we could get a Vortex for a similar price that's as good or better scope, and they will still warranty it even if we the consumer did damage it. That's why I wouldn't buy a Mueller. Not because I thought they were lying, but because I can get a scope for a similar price that is most likely better and will still be warrantied even if I do break it.

The problem is that the Mueller line does a few things real well that the Vortex line can't match for the same money. First is the APV. $115 for a 4.5-14xAO scope. The closest Vortex Crossfire scope is their 4-16xAO and it runs $200. Then there is the Mueller hybrid, which is a 3-9x with a 4.25" consistent eye relief, which none of the Vortex line matches, at least at anything but the lowest magnification levels. The Mueller 4.5-14Tactical is similar to the APV, but with a 30mm tube, tactical style turrets, mildot, and come in just a little more expensive than the APV at $145. Their 8.5x25 tactical runs about $160 which is roughly $40 less than a similar Vortex. The Mueller Tac II is a 3-10 Japan made scope that reviews in the quality level of the Leupold VX-III and Bushnell 4200 line.

Plus if I wanted a scope made in China, I sure wouldn't pay $200+ for one. The thing about Chinese optics are that they are usually cheap and that's why people buy them even though they often lack quality. For $200 you can get a lot better.

The China made Mueller's that run over $200 typically would run double that for a Japan made scope of similar features. A good example is the Mueller Target dot. It is an 8-32x target scope with fine dot cross hair. Price a similar featured Weaver, Bushnell Elite, Sightron, Leupold, etc. It's going to be quite a jump in price to match the feature set. Contrary to what has been said in the last Mueller thread here, those who own Mueller products typically put them as a step or two above the mass produced China scopes out there today. Typically they don't quite match the low tier Japan made scopes, but again, they come in at a fraction of the cost. They sit in a range that lets someone who isn't extremely tough on their equipment get into a few nicer features for a budget price while getting a bit more quality than the average BSA. That's their selling point. Better than the standard China junk and less expensive than even the low tier Japan scopes. It is also why the rimfire forum is the one that has such a large following. Sitting on a rimfire, the things do great, have decent glass, and track and hold zero well. I have one and it is what it is, a $120 scope on a rimfire. I am impressed with the glass for the price and the turret adjustments are better than any other China made scope I have used, but they don't compare well to the Japan made scopes I have or have used.

It's an in between line at an in between price.

Vortex is a fine line too, especially if you step up from the crossfire line. But, on many scopes, you will pay a premium over other China made scopes. It's also a bit hard to match some of the specific Mueller's feature sets.

 

[rbernie]

with these types of mounts, the bottom screws are inserted and tightened WITHOUT the top screws in place. If you insert the top and bottom screws, and tighten the top screws while the bottom screws are loose, you run the risk of damaging the tube (as you discovered). These mounts are designed to have ZERO gap at the bottom of the rings, and a gap at the top of the rings ... just like the LaRue mounts.

Without this thread, I would never have learned this.

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

Without this thread, I would never have learned this.

Ditto, although now I think I'm scared off of vertical rings! I haven't crushed a scope tube yet and don't want to start now.

 

[MCMXI]

I think I'm scared off of vertical rings!

Don't be. The one-piece mounts from LaRue and similar are some of the easiest mounts to use. No lapping is required (for LaRue anyway) and scope installation couldn't be faster or easier. The key is following the procedure described above. You can see in the photo below that the rings aren't touching at the top. The screws have been torqued to 18 in-lb. This scope didn't have any marks on the tube after I removed it.

 

[MCMXI]

Here's a link to the instructions that LaRue provides for their one-piece mounts.

http://216.23.214.70/instructions/rings_instructs.htm

Here's the text ...


1). Disassemble ring half and put optic in.

2). Install the screws to the bottom of the ring halves first… be sure to LocTite.

3). Now Install the screws to the top of the ring halves and tighten

4). Now put on rifle and adjust lever tension per instructions.

 

[Art Eatman]

Okay, so I'm coming late to the party.

I know that Remington calls for five foot-pounds of torque to hold the receiver in place in the stock. Because of that, it seems to me that fifteen foot-pounds is rather excessive for a scope--particularly if the rings are noticeably smaller in diameter than the scope tube.

FWIW, I've never gone beyond "real snug" with a screwdriver, generally on Weaver mounts.

 

[WNTFW]

Art,
Inch pounds is what Mags used, not foot pounds.

At times the metric system really does seem more attractive, being base 10.