Jump to content
UKV - The Place for Precision Rifle Enthusiasts
Sign in to follow this  
clover

Internal contamination on lenses - what do you consider acceptable?

Recommended Posts

New scope purchased from a well-known and respected manufacturer and costing a little north of a grand.

Upon inspection a fleck of internal contamination around 1mm in diamater can be seen between the two elements of the objective lenses.

Supplier and manufacture both suggest that this is a common issue,  doesn't affect the performance / operation of the scope and as such isn't a warranty issue. Buyer accepts the point about functionality but rightly or wrongly expects better from a product of this cost.

What would be your thoughts were you the buyer? Has anyone else been in a similar situation?

Ta ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally If I saw there was muck inside a scope I wouldn't buy it,  refer to the sale of goods act if your not happy, its not about what folks on a forum think, its about what you think, go to shop ask for refund and quote the sale of goods act or the distance selling laws was etc etc etc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Brummy Mark said:

Personally If I saw there was muck inside a scope I wouldn't buy it,  refer to the sale of goods act if your not happy, its not about what folks on a forum think, its about what you think, go to shop ask for refund and quote the sale of goods act or the distance selling laws was etc etc etc

 

Thanks!

I'd be the same if it was spotted before purchasing.. it's back at the suppliers currently and their line is that other copies that they could replace it with have the same issue and that I might like to consider an alternative. Problem is I like the scope otherwise, am not prepared to stretch my budget further and there's nothing else in the price range that really appeals / I consider suitable. 

On the one hand I accept that I'm a picky sod; on the other I'd expect better than this for the price tbh as I've never had another scope (regardless of price) that's shown such contamination (especially from the off). It won't make any difference to performance, however it will irritate my OCD / sense of self-respect ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At a grand, this is clearly no Chung Wah special...  I've never seen anything like that on a quality brand of scope and I don't see why it's "acceptable". Others may choose to differ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not acceptable, period.  Money back or an exchange...if not, then the Consumer Rights Act of 2015 comes into play and a letter to the supplier will quickly put them right on their legal obligations.  Sale of Goods Act of 1979 has been superseded by the CRA of 2015.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had a similar issue with a well known brand costing a lot more and they had it back.  Crap in a place where it is not meant to be shouldn't be there simples.  Manf tried a couple of times to replace it but all potential replacements had similar problems so I demanded a refund.  Took months to sort out such that I wont buy the brand nor deal with the distributor here in the UK ever again.

You need to decide what you want to do about it. 

Keep it and live with it but you might find it's difficult to move on when its time to sell.

Or chin it off and get yer money back.  Another "eye catching" scope will come along soon or save your pennies and buy even better.

Caveat Emptor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a burris four x with the same fault some form of contamination. Every time I fired it kept moving around. I sent it back and got a replacement which I then sold as it was brand new and upgraded. 

As others have said I'd send it back and either want a replacement or full refund! Read up on your rights. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/15/2018 at 8:33 PM, clover said:

.. it's back at the suppliers currently and their line is that other copies that they could replace it with have the same issue and that I might like to consider an alternative. 

 

Blimey. They're knowingly supplying substandard scopes to other punters rather than returning the batch to their supplier?!

Great company. ?

It's all been said: Consumer rights. Refund. These are clearly 'sharp operators. Accept nothing less than your rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be asking them what tolerances they work to for their mechanical and optical components and therefore why a tolerance of 0 to 1mm on dirt is acceptable to them and why they think it should be acceptable to their customer base.

If they are happy with this situation, I don't see why you are hiding their identity ? Its you that thinks they should be embarrassed when clearly the supplier and the manufacturer don't. The community would like to know who is who so we can make our own mind up. You could argue that they are doing right by you as they are sorting something they don't see as a problem. Others may take a different view of their behaviour. You are not defaming anyone, the truth is a defence in the law...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If i'm not mistaken dont some manufacturers sell "military grade" scopes to the public which are same spec as normal quality scopes but with a chance of more internal contamination?Im sure ive seen IOR advertise along these lines.However i am 46 so i may have imagined this.Funny things happen north of 45.

Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, drum said:

If i'm not mistaken dont some manufacturers sell "military grade" scopes to the public which are same spec as normal quality scopes but with a chance of more internal contamination?Im sure ive seen IOR advertise along these lines.However i am 46 so i may have imagined this.Funny things happen north of 45.

Paul

I think you imagined it :)  'military grade' is usually used by marketeers to (generally, falsely) imply a higher and more robust level of quality.  It is, of course, pish - militaries procure in the lowest bidder space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could swear i read an advert for a military grade scope,one that had more dust particles or something compared to its civilian spec counterpart.Sure it was IOR too.But then again my vitamin d levels have been very low.?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your right Drum. Your not losing it it was optics warehouse I don't remember what was different than the norm though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers Paulc.Im fairly certain they were advertising scopes by IOR that had dust specs visible at a lower price that their "civilian quality"counterparts.Have looked on the interweb to find the advert again but nothings coming up on the old googlefoo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that tweaked my interest enough to Google.

I suppose it depends on how one interprets what one's reading.

To my eye, that's a scope with a defect, that happens to be being described as 'milspec', being sold as a second for the reasons it describes.

https://www.opticswarehouse.co.uk/product/mil-spec-ior-crusader-5-8-40x56-ffp-tactical-40mm-illuminated-mrad-mrad-xtreme-x1-rifle-scope/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think thats the same advert BD,that does read as though its a one off scope with a fault been sold cheap.Perhaps someone from opticswarehouse might chime in to clear this up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, drum said:

Cheers Paulc.Im fairly certain they were advertising scopes by IOR that had dust specs visible at a lower price that their "civilian quality"counterparts.Have looked on the interweb to find the advert again but nothings coming up on the old googlefoo.

I once owned an ior that had visible dust specs on the Inturnal objective lens and it was optically very poor it was sent back to optics warehouse to sort and was returned saying it’s fine nothing in there which was rubbish it really was terrible at twilight I ended up moving it on at a substantial loss 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks all - I really appreciate the thoughts and support as to be honest the overwhelming guidance I've been given would have been exactly what I'd have said to anyone else in a similar situation (as I've done many times in the past). Of course it's always easier to give decent objective advice when you're not caught up in the situation yourself and a balanced external perspective is always welcomed.

So, in a nutshell after I provided a photo of the contamination along with a bit of haggling and the supplier confirmed that they'd replace the scope. It was returned and surprise, suprise the morning it arrived I got a call stating that "there was no contamination", that "sometimes this happens as stuff is dislodged under recoil" and "it won't affect the scope's performance". I replied that the scope had never even been mounted, that the contam could well have been dislodged during transit (which was precisely why I furnished them with a photo before returning it) and that I accepted its negligable influence on performance - however I expected better on a scope that cost more than the car I'm currently driving.

The scope's manufacturers were consulted; advising that the scope be replaced and returned to them and agreeing that the issue was cosmetic only. I was then told that there was only one other copy of the scope in stock, that this displayed a similar fault and that perhaps I might like to choose a different scope.

There was nothing else I wanted in replacement so after some thought I replied today that I was happy to wait until their next delivery in the hope that they could supply me something that didn't have any faults. Failing that I'd take a refund. The response was swift; effectively stating that "the refund was in the post". 

So there we go - back to square one. Disappointed in the poor QC from a generally very well regarded manufacturer, being assured I'd get what I'd requested by the supplier only to be snubbed as soon as the scope arrived back with them, their apparent total unwillingness to try and accomodate me as well as their tacet acknowledgement that I wasn't going to get a better quality copy by waiting.

I'm not going to disclose any names on an open forum, but if you're really bothered drop me a PM. Needless to say I won't be spending any money with this outfit in future nor recommending them to anyone else. QC concerns aside I think the manufacturer handled the situation fairly, while the more I dwell on it, the more disgusted I am at how the distributors handled it. Once the money is safely back in my account I might punt the manufacturers an emailconveying my experience of their UK wholesaler and how apparently willing they were to lose a sale for the sake of a bit of time spent checking a new scope.

To make matters more delightful I've recently spunked the best part of a ton on a pair of rings to suit the scope, while the one that will probably now be fitted in its place would suit lower rings, so that's another hundred quid down the pan if I want to get it as low as possible.
 

On 6/16/2018 at 11:10 PM, Re-Pete said:

Chuck it back and get an IOR............

Re-Pete

Thanks - sadly I think I'm under budget by a factor of around 2.5!

 

On 6/17/2018 at 8:26 AM, Chanonry said:

I would be asking them what tolerances they work to for their mechanical and optical components and therefore why a tolerance of 0 to 1mm on dirt is acceptable to them and why they think it should be acceptable to their customer base.

If they are happy with this situation, I don't see why you are hiding their identity ? Its you that thinks they should be embarrassed when clearly the supplier and the manufacturer don't. The community would like to know who is who so we can make our own mind up. You could argue that they are doing right by you as they are sorting something they don't see as a problem. Others may take a different view of their behaviour. You are not defaming anyone, the truth is a defence in the law...

I agree in principal, however the situation is somewhat complicated by other factors (none of which change the fundamentals but do make me apprehensive to start slinging names about on an open forum). As above, if you really want to know more, drop me a PM ;)
 

On 6/17/2018 at 9:53 PM, Scooby-93 said:

Who’s the manufacturer?

As above :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clover said: "Thanks - sadly I think I'm under budget by a factor of around 2.5! " ???

My IOR was only just north of a grand.................

Re-Pete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Re-Pete said:

Clover said: "Thanks - sadly I think I'm under budget by a factor of around 2.5! " ???

My IOR was only just north of a grand.................

Re-Pete

Thanks - which one do you have, just out of interest?

To be honest I'm not in a hurry to go out and buy anything else. I was previously in an advantageous position to purchase, so pushed myself into buying the scope I've just returned. I no longer have that opportunity so time is no longer an issue.. I'm lucky enough to have another couple of scopes that will fill the void for the time being; so will probably end up using my Sightron 10x42 for now.

I'm totally new to centrefire so have a lot to learn. While I suspect I'll want more magnification I'm happy to use what I have for the time being and take my time deciding on what would constitute a more appropriate upgrade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mine's a 6-24 x 50 with SH4 reticle. I use it at 20x for all distances to 1000yds........a cracking scope.

Currently around £1350 at Opticswarehouse.

Re-Pete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

RifleMags_200x100.jpg

Northallerton NSAC shooting.jpg

border_ballistics_UKV_ad.jpg

dolphin button4 (200x100).jpg

CASEPREP_FINAL_YELLOW_hi_res__200_.jpg

rovicom200.jpg

BHTargets200.jpg

Lumensmini.png

CALTON MOOR RANGE (2) (200x135).jpg

bradley1 200.jpg

NVstore200.jpg

Danny Trowsdale 200.png

safeshot 200.jpg

tacfire 200.jpg

blackrifle.png

jr_firearms_200.gif

valkyrie 200.jpg

tab 200.jpg

 

 



×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy