Re: Mueller Optics

[22-rimfire]

Mags, I feel sorry for your experience with the mounts and Mueller scope. I like Mueller scopes and use them on 22 rifles when I want something a bit more powerful than 3-9x and don't want to spend a large amount of money. I have not had any problems with Mueller products but I have only limited experience. I seldom change a scope after it is mounted unless I break it. I typically just buy another rifle. Sounds dumb, but this is often the case.

I have not used the LaRue one-piece mounts. Frankly, I seldom read the directions for such things and I might well have done exactly what was done here with the tube. So, this thread had some good information in it. I do as Art does with scopes.... "real snug" and do not own a torgue screw driver. That aren't cheap and they aren't a tool choice for me for an occasional use item. I admit however, I have priced them for torquing screws for scopes or attaching the stock to a rifle.

 

[jerkface11]

If the Mueller rep is reading this what kind of glass do your scopes use and who makes it.

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

^ I have heard that the vast majority of scope glass comes from either Japan or Germany. I'd bet Muellers are from Japan.

 

[jerkface11]

I bet they don't use optical glass at all.

 

[raz-0]

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

It think that and the fact you had a torque screwdriver you trusted are the problem.

That's how I approached my recon-x having used the same logic on my vertically split warne rings without issue. If it wasn't for the fact I didn't have the "proper" tools and was being exceedingly cautious about how things felt, I might not have noticed it grab a hunk of metal when doing that.

I thought that my recon-x came with instructions about mounting, but going through my manuals, all I can find are the instructions about adjusting the QD levers like you mentioned.

 

[essayons21]

I do as Art does with scopes.... "real snug" and do not own a torgue screw driver. That aren't cheap and they aren't a tool choice for me for an occasional use item.

http://www.midwayusa.com/viewproduct/?productnumber=718023

I use one of these. Got it on sale for $45, not too expensive. The key is to read and follow the instructions so you are sure you have set it to the correct setting.

 

[benzy2]

If the Mueller rep is reading this what kind of glass do your scopes use and who makes it

The last I checked, all of their scopes but the TacII are China made with China made glass. The TacII is Japan made with Japan made glass. If you want to read a bunch more about Mueller go over to rimfirecentral and search around. They are very popular over there.

 

[madcratebuilder]

The last I checked, all of their scopes but the TacII are China made with China made glass. The TacII is Japan made with Japan made glass. If you want to read a bunch more about Mueller go over to rimfirecentral and search around. They are very popular over there.

That's the same info I came up with when I researched Muller scopes. I have the TAC II, it's been a great scope , on different 7.62's and 5.56's. I have the APV also, very nice scope for rimfires.

 

[markb5446]

Yes mueller scopes have weak tubes and its intentional

I have several Mueller scopes and would have went with another brand if I had known how pathetically thin the aluminum tubes are. They do that on purpose to keep the weight down, and also so they can void all warranty claims because a decently snugged set of rings (no matter how good they are) will dent their tubes. I found this on an Eradicator scope using Weaver quad lock rings. The quad lock rings are about 20 percent of the problem as they do put extra force on the sides right near the screws.

The real problem is Muellers use of very thin, easily deform aluminum material for the body of the scope. I doubt it is the type of aluminum, but how thin the walls are. If you flick the side of a Mueller scope vs even a Simmons scope, you can feel something really is going on here. They are basically beer cans with lenses, compared to even a Simmons.

So I am having problems with my Eradicator and I already know how Mueller's lying scumbag customer service rep will respond. "Uhhh Sorry Sir there are impression from your rings on the scope so your warranty is void". But heck that's what that lying scumbag at Mueller is telling anyone with a complaint because just the act of instally these scopes tight enough that they don't move will always put impressions on these beer can tubes their scopes have.

So I sent an email yesterday to Mueller decribing tracking/holding zero problems with my Erattic-Ator scope, and then figured out Mueller's scam job they pull to get out of paying warranties (aka. FRAUD).

So I'm going to stop now and not even send my scope to them, so I can be out more money for shipping when I already know the dishonest drill Mueller pulls on everyone who gets a bad scope from them.

So I think my other Muellers are usable for a while, but must be treated like very delicate items, because now I know they what they are well engineered (optically) but poorly engineered mechanically (or intentionally designed flimsy) by crooked company that cares nothing about selling a product of reasonably quality for field use.

 

[Lloyd Smale]

if a scope can be bent by mounting it using standard rights either you gun was drilled so far off that no scopes going to center on it, you are a gorilla that has no bussiness with tools in your hand or my best guess. That scope is junk! Ive seen scopes pop up and pop to the side when one right was loosened but have never seen one actually bend the steel tube. Bushnell tried that hogwash with me with a scope that wouldnt hold zero. they tried to say it was banged up and the tube was bent. The scope had been taken out of the box and mounted on that gun a couple weeks before and the rings were trued up with a reamer so i knew better. the scope was bad from the git go and they were trying to get out of fixing or replacing it. It took lots of banging heads with them but i ended up getting a check in the mail. Keep in mind these companys are run by bean counters not by good old boys that you meet at the range on saturday.

 

[wingman]

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.

Over a 50 year period I've owned a fair number of scopes many brands, I now have 4 Mueller and find the optics superior to my Nikon Monarch, the 4-14APV is one of the best 22 scopes I've ever used. I've not experienced any crushed tubes overall can't see that tubes are thinner lighter then my Nikon's, Redfield or other.

I cannot tell anyone here that a Mueller will stand the abuse of a Nikon as I simply do not abuse any tool, having lived on limited income for years taught me to be careful installing any equipment, I had my heavy handed bolt breaking period and it's past.

The purchase of scopes in today's world market outsourcing some made in same factories under different brands it's pretty much a gamble under 700-$800.

 

[jhansman]

Can a Mueller take abuse? Well, if it matters, I have a rifle with a Mueller Eraticator that I stupidly dropped onto a concrete floor from about 3 ft. high. I was sure the scope would be damaged, and perhaps the rifle. Neither sustained any functional damage (just scuffs and dings) and the scope has held zero since. I've mounted three Mueller scopes and managed not to crush them, and all have performed as well as the Leupolds and Nikons I've owned.

 

[wingman]

Can a Mueller take abuse? Well, if it matters, I have a rifle with a Mueller Eraticator that I stupidly dropped onto a concrete floor from about 3 ft. high. I was sure the scope would be damaged, and perhaps the rifle. Neither sustained any functional damage (just scuffs and dings) and the scope has held zero since. I've mounted three Mueller scopes and managed not to crush them, and all have performed as well as the Leupolds and Nikons I've owned.
__________________

Thanks for the info never wanted to test mine, but otherwise very please with them.

 

[WNTFW]

Another here happy with Mueller.

 

[sansone]

I don't care if the tubes are thin or if consumer abuse caused the problem..
Mueller should have sent him another one.
"the customer is always right".. or maybe I'm just old

 

[wingman]

I don't care if the tubes are thin or if consumer abuse caused the problem..
Mueller should have sent him another one.
"the customer is always right".. or maybe I'm just old

As an old timer myself I would have agreed at one time however we live in a very different society and many people just don't use common sense, as a small time seller on Ebay I've seen it first hand some folks doesn't matter how much you extend customer service there never happy. Sadly we have people buying things that could break a marble in a padded room.

 

[Steve in PA]

I have two Mueller scopes, one is a 4-16x50AO that lives on my Savage .223 12FV. The other is a APV 4.5-14x40AO that lives on my 10/22. I am very happy with both scopes.

 

[Davek1977]

I too can attest to the fact the APV 4.5x14 is a a great rimfire scope. I have had absolutely no issues with mine whatsoever

 

[wnycollector]

Happy owner of three Mueller scopes (4.5-14 APV, 3-10 Tac II and 2-7 multi shot) here. All are working fine w/ no bent or dented tubes.

 

[tuj]

I own the APV and the 8-32x target scope and they are both solid performers on my 17HMR. I also have the Mueller Quickshot red dot, and its ok, but I wouldn't get that one again; I'd get another Ultradot instead. But I like their scopes, good value. From what I hear, Mueller has good support.

 

[CraigC]

The Mueller 4-16x Tactical on my Savage 93R17 has survived two hard drops onto concrete without incident. No shift in zero. No bent tube. Just surface scratches. Bottom line is that the complaints are very few and far between, while the raves and positive reports far outnumber them.

Mueller should have sent him another one.

Two thumbs up to Mueller for not adopting the Walmart, save-the-idiots-from-themselves policy.

 

[EAJ]

Sadly we have people buying things that could break a marble in a padded room.

Man, if that ain't the truth!

I have an APV and APT. No issues with either.

 

[minutemen1776]

I now have 4 Mueller and find the optics superior to my Nikon Monarch, the 4-14APV is one of the best 22 scopes I've ever used

Wait a minute. Am I understanding this correctly? Are you saying that the optics of your Mueller APV are better than those of a Nikon Monarch?

I've had both an APV and a Monarch. I resold the APV because I disliked the optical clarity and eye relief, in addition to being underwhelmed by the overall quality of the scope. The comparison to a Nikon Monarch (one of the absolute best scopes I've ever used) is mind-blowing to me. I'm glad you're happy with your Mueller, but based on my experiences I'll respectfully disagree.

 

[markb5446]

Regarding my earlier post, I have been satisfied with the optics and adjustments of Mueller scopes, but didn't know how thin the tubes were until I looked carefully at the sides where the ring scews are. I didn't overtighten the Eraticator and used brand new Weaver rings, and there are little impressions left but the rings. It doesn't "bend" the scope, it just puts an impression in the side. If there is even the slightest impression MUELLER WILL VOID YOUR WARRANTY, and since their tubes are thinner than the rest (generalization)... you can see where I'm going.

 

[CraigC]

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.