Re: Mueller Optics

[DM~]

I have never used Weaver brand rings that they did not deform the scope tube. Regardless of scope brand or how much I paid for it. Which is one reason why I never use them anymore.

I have and still do... You DO have to know how to mount them "properly", and be carefull when doing so.

As for Mueller, I do have one, and i wouldn't call them junk, but i wouldn't call them a high quality scope either...

DM

 

[Txhillbilly]

I really love reading some of the stuff people type.It really makes me laugh,and it shows just how much some guys need to READ the directions on the box before grabbing some tools and tighten down screws.

You damage your scopes by not reading and doing what the ring mfg's suggest,and then bitch about the scope mfg's failure to do anything about your screw up.

If you don't want to damage your scope tubes-Read and understand the ring mfg's instructions,and also lap your rings,or use a set of rings like the Burris Zee rings.

I have scopes that range from a BSA Sweet 22 to a Swarovski Pro Hunter,and have many different brands and types of rings.
I have never crushed a scope tube from over tightening the scope rings.

I have 2 Mueller Eradicator scopes,and they have served me well for many years.I really don't think Mueller uses a thinner tube than any of the other lower tier scope mfg's.
The Muellers are a decent optic,for a decent price.Mine are mounted on my Savage 12 223 and my Rock River Varminter AR-15,and have always been reliable for the things i do with them.

 

[markb5446]

The problem is not bending the scope, it is small impressions made by the rings at the location where the most force is applied by the rings. The Eraticator is 2 oz lighter than a Simmons White tail classic 50mm (cheaper scope), yet the Eraticator is a few inches longer. This supports the statement that the tubes probably are thinner. I have never deformed (made impressions) with Weaver rings on 5 rifles, except for the Mueller Eraticator. The Eraticator still works correctly and has good optics. But the warranty is void once there is an impression on the tube. Check the warranty. So if the scope has a totally unrelated failure, you are SOL.

I don't expect a Leupold at a Mueller price, but at least I expect better than a cheaper Bushnell/Tasco/Simmons model at the Mueller price.

I do still like the scopes, and not about to sell them on fleabay, but I am disappointed that they must be treated like eggs.

 

[jhansman]

..they must be treated like eggs.

Really? Did you not read the two posts by those of us who have dropped ours, only to find them fully functional afterward?

Eggs? Hardly.

 

[Rob96]

I have a Mueller Tactical ,ounted on my Remington 700 Varmint in 308. I used Weaver Tactical rings to mount in. I can tend to be heavy handed when it comes to tightening things. No visible indentations or anything on the scope body. Incrdible glass which gives a bright, crisp view. I agree with a previous poster about the clarity versus the Nikon and the Mieller definetely beat it.

 

[HOOfan_1]

I have and still do... You DO have to know how to mount them "properly", and be carefull when doing so.

As for Mueller, I do have one, and i wouldn't call them junk, but i wouldn't call them a high quality scope either...

DM

I have a rifle for which the bases had to be mounted so far appart, that with modern scopes which have a short tube, I had to try several sets of rings.

I bought some Weaver offset and some Burris Zee Rings which are narrower than most. The Weavers would have worked, but were too low. The Burris Zee rings were our of round, and the holes drilled for the top of one ring and the bottome did not line up so that you could even start the screw with the scope tube in the rings. Never had problem with Weaver rings...that was the first time I tried Burris rings, but that was a pretty horrible set to get by QC.

 

[wingman]

I bought some Weaver offset and some Burris Zee Rings which are narrower than most. The Weavers would have worked, but were too low. The Burris Zee rings were our of round, and the holes drilled for the top of one ring and the bottome did not line up so that you could even start the screw with the scope tube in the rings. Never had problem with Weaver rings...that was the first time I tried Burris rings, but that was a pretty horrible set to get by QC.

I use only Burris signature zee rings with inserts, most of there rings are matched and should remain top front, top back, easy to mix up on a work bench. I switch all my scopes to the Burris, don't mar scopes, easy set up and allow for adjustment with inserts if necessary. Problem send it to Burris they will make it good.

 

[HOOfan_1]

they came out of the package like that...I just took them back to the store for a full refund. I can't imagine sending it back to Burris when I could more easily exchange them at the store.

Anyway I am getting some Millet extended rings instead.

 

[CraigC]

You DO have to know how to mount them "properly", and be carefull when doing so.

I've been mounting scopes on rifles and pistols for 25yrs and the only rings I've ever had damage a scope tube were Weavers. Used gun racks are littered with rifles wearing scopes with the telltale signs of having worn Weaver rings. It ain't just me and no, I never tightened them until the clamp met the base.

 

[benzy2]

I would be far more likely to blame cheap rings or improper mounting than to blame the scope. Cheap rings are cheap for a reason. They suck. If you have to go with cheap rings (I use plenty of them), lap them. It makes it much harder to damage a scope this way. I recently mounted a scope with Weaver rings. The lower half of one ring was deformed, not enough to see, but when you set the scope on it, the scope would not bottom out. It was as if the edge of the scope had a lip. If this wasn't lapped out, I can see how it would easily pinch/mark ANY scope. I had bought a lapping kit when they were on sale locally. It saved these rings from going back and the scope from a damaged tube.

I've had no problems with scope tube strength from my Mueller. The fact they won't replace your mistake is something I'm not totally against. They seem to be a small importer and having been in a small business I can see how replacing every customer screw up can cripple the business.

 

[Mags]

I've been mounting scopes on rifles and pistols for 25yrs and the only rings I've ever had damage a scope tube were Weavers. Used gun racks are littered with rifles wearing scopes with the telltale signs of having worn Weaver rings. It ain't just me and no, I never tightened them until the clamp met the base.

You must be doing using your Weaver rings incorrectly if you are damaging your scopes.

At least by the logic you applied to my post.

A little bit of a double standard, huh?

 

[DM~]

You must be doing using your Weaver rings incorrectly if you are damaging your scopes.

At least by the logic you applied to my post.

A little bit of a double standard, huh?

Go easy on him, he's only been mounting scopes for 25 years, so he's still learning... lol

DM

 

[CraigC]

Condescension duly noted, unappreciated and rejected. Grow up.

 

[DM~]

Condescension duly noted, unappreciated and rejected. Grow up.

NO sense of humor either??? lol

DM

 

[amd6547]

My goodness...I missed the detour sign to the Low Road...

 

[markb5446]

Well I used Weaver rings on about 12 rifles over the years, but only 2 scopes wound up with impressions, and both were Mueller scopes. I just checked my Leupold scope and my Simmons Whitetail classic, no impressions, both had the same type of Weaver rings. I have a super cheap simmons scope on a 22 rifle with the same Weaver ring (type), no impressions. Whyizzzit only the Mueller scopes have impressions? Geee, maybe its the SAME reason that the weight of their scopes is always at the bottom of the heap for the size. Light is nice, but too light means a weak thin tube.

I think capitalism works like this: We buy these scopes from companies so the CEO can drive a Mercedes or a BMW, and we are ok with paying his salary with a huge markup on the product so he can drive the Mercedes/BMW. But that is only the case if we don't get ripped off. Now when people start seeing that the product has an issue and the CEO (driving his Mercedes/BMW) doesn't make the customer satisfied, then people start to talk/email. So this is the part of capitalism where the customer gets to set things straight and put the word out that the CEO's warranty isn't worth didley.

Rather than take shots at the poor guys that got shafted on a bad scope that had no warranty, we should remember these incidents prior to future purchases. I am lucky that my Mueller scopes (impressions and all) work fine. But all should be informed that a Mueller warranty isn't worth didley.

Incidentally, I have a Mauser with an older Redfield base and Redfield rings, wearing a Mueller hybrid. I am tempted to take it off as I bet there are impressions. I will check this and report. I expect to find them because back when Redfield made those rings, rifle scopes were a bit heavier but had more durable thicker walled tubes.

So IMHO, scope manufacturers should start focusing a little more on durability rather than the lowest weight rating in the specs on a website.

 

[markb5446]

I just did a crude test to look into why my Mueller scopes have impressions and the Simmons/Bushnell/Leupold/Redfield scopes don't. I put each scope on the same rest and supported the same way (at each end). I flicked the side of the tubes with my fingernail, and then a small allen wrench to be sure. The sound made by tapping each tube is very different. The Leupold made a dull "thud thud thud" sound (low pitch well damped). The 50 dollar Simmons 8 point made a "clack clack clack" sound (higher pitch, somewhat damped). The Simmons Whitetail scope was in the middle between the Leupold and the cheap Simmons. A Bushnell 3-9x40 was very similar to the Simmons (clack clack clack). Now for the Mueller Hybrid ... "Tinnnk Tinnnk Tinnnk." It was a higher pitch than the rest, and not well damped. MMMhhmmm. Yeah, so that explains the impressions in the tubes. Thin walls, higher pitch.

By the way. I worked in active vibration control for 15 years. Its not 30 years of gunsmithing, but I think it counts for this test.

So the only Mueller scope I would ever think of purchasing again was the Mueller Hybrid for the long eye relief. But I found that Bushnell makes a 6 inch Banner scope which is 70 bucks on Amazon. I believe it is probably a better and more durable scope than the Hybrid, and at just over one half the price. So now I really don't care if Mueller goes out of business, its not like I need their warranties. They aren't worth the paper they are written on anyway.