Trijicon Credo HX Fail

[Castmaster]

Ordered a Trijicon Credo HX from Sportsman’s after all the good things I’ve heard about it on this forum but apparently it failed the (Shipping Drop Test). I was pretty excited when it showed up so I immediately opened up the box and held it up to my eye and was pretty surprised to see a bunch of black specs inside the scope… It’s clearly getting returned but thought I’d share my experience.

 

[passinggas33]

I have 6 of these scopes. Of the 6 original ones that I purchased I too had one with a spec. Just one though. But it was on the top edge of the crosshairs. Called customer service and I had shipping label that same day, and a new scope in my hand 3 days later. Though it failed by having a spec, they absolutely didn’t fail me in customer service. Just my .02. Send it back. They will make it right.

 

[Formidilosus]

Ordered a Trijicon Credo HX from Sportsman’s after all the good things I’ve heard about it on this forum but apparently it failed the (Shipping Drop Test). I was pretty excited when it showed up so I immediately opened up the box and held it up to my eye and was pretty surprised to see a bunch of black specs inside the scope… It’s clearly getting returned but thought I’d share my experience.

View attachment 742410

That is not a “failure”. That is debris and it happens to every scope brand at times- S&B, Zeiss, TT, NF, Leupold, etc.

The scope would still work as a scope perfectly fine.

 

[5MilesBack]

That is not a “failure”. That is debris and it happens to every scope brand at times- S&B, Zeiss, TT, NF, Leupold, etc.

It's a "fail" in QC, not scope function.

 

[Shortschaf]

Concur with the others. Have had a spec like that appear on a leupold mk4 spotter.
If you slam it around, the debris will move and possibly disappear until it gets slammed around again.

I'd wager CS will replace your scope for nothing

 

[Farwest]

Trijicon customer service is outstanding. Some shipper may have used your box for football practice or
dropped a 150 # box on your padkage.

 

[TxLite]

I had a viper pst do this years ago. They told me to hit it on a phone book and the specs would fall down into the tube and get stuck in some grease that was in there. At the time I wasn’t comfortable beating a $900 scope on a phone book so I sent it in anyways, where they probably just beat it with a phone book and sent it back.

 

[SomeJackassOnAForum]

It's a "fail" in QC, not scope function.

Not even that. Debris getting knocked loose during shipping that wasn't visible during assembly isn't a failure, it's just part of owning optics.

 

[Shortschaf]

Not even that. Debris getting knocked loose during shipping that wasn't visible during assembly isn't a failure, it's just part of owning optics.

It is a fail in QC or QA

The intent of scope manufacturers is to NOT assemble scopes that can have debris dislodged ha. It is a pretty forgiveable miss though, since it seems to happen pretty rarely and randomly across scope mfgs

 

[5MilesBack]

Not even that. Debris getting knocked loose during shipping that wasn't visible during assembly isn't a failure, it's just part of owning optics.

I don't know.......I wouldn't expect a whole lot of extraneous stuff inside scope tubes to begin with. Isn't that the gist of the Toyota recall for their engines as well......extraneous stuff moving around inside them? But my standards seem hard for anyone to meet these days.

 

[SomeJackassOnAForum]

It is a fail in QC or QA

The intent of scope manufacturers is to NOT assemble scopes that can have debris dislodged ha. It is a pretty forgiveable miss though, since it seems to happen pretty rarely and randomly across scope mfgs

I don't know.......I wouldn't expect a whole lot of extraneous stuff inside scope tubes to begin with. Isn't that the gist of the Toyota recall for their engines as well......extraneous stuff moving around inside them? But my standards seem hard for anyone to meet these days.

Every scope is a series of mechanical parts assembled in series with a small amounts of lube and a insanely small pieces of debris inside. Scope mfgs ensure that there is minimal debris in the scope during manufacturing, but they are built on Earth, by humans, and not in clean rooms by robots.

When the scope is assembled, if there is a piece of debris on a lens, it will fail. If the scope is shocktested and debris is then on the lens, it will fail. If it's assembled, QCd, shocktested, reQCd and there's nothing on the lens, that's not a QC failure.

Every scope company has adhesive on the interior wall of the maintube of the scope to trap loose debris and prevent what we see in the OP, but the scope manufacturers don't vibrate your scope across 2000 miles of America's "finest" highways before they put it in a box.

So you got a scope fresh out of the box from a major manufacturer with debris in it? Email them. Most of them are going to replace it for you, or if they don't have a unit handy to immediately replace it, fix it, but the idea that this is a "QC failure" is silly.

 

[Shortschaf]

Every scope is a series of mechanical parts assembled in series with a small amounts of lube and a insanely small pieces of debris inside. Scope mfgs ensure that there is minimal debris in the scope during manufacturing, but they are built on Earth, by humans, and not in clean rooms by robots.

When the scope is assembled, if there is a piece of debris on a lens, it will fail. If the scope is shocktested and debris is then on the lens, it will fail. If it's assembled, QCd, shocktested, reQCd and there's nothing on the lens, that's not a QC failure.

Every scope company has adhesive on the interior wall of the maintube of the scope to trap loose debris and prevent what we see in the OP, but the scope manufacturers don't vibrate your scope across 2000 miles of America's "finest" highways before they put it in a box.

So you got a scope fresh out of the box from a major manufacturer with debris in it? Email them. Most of them are going to replace it for you, or if they don't have a unit handy to immediately replace it, fix it, but the idea that this is a "QC failure" is silly.

Sure. You're right. It passed all the quality checks, and Trijicon is going to replace it because of a defect that got to the consumer's doorstep

Which is certainly not the same as a QC failure... right?

Hopefully my sarcasm isn't found snarky. But you are not talking about the same points as we were at all. Hopefully this is more clear and the OP get's it fixed like we all believe he will

 

[SomeJackassOnAForum]

Sure. You're right. It passed all the quality checks, and Trijicon is going to replace it because of a defect that got to the consumer's doorstep

Which is certainly not the same as a QC failure... right?

Hopefully my sarcasm isn't found snarky. But you are not talking about the same points as we were at all. Hopefully this is more clear and the OP get's it fixed like we all believe he will

To be a QC Failure or poor Quality Control, a detectable error would have to have gone undetected.

An undetectable error developing into a detectable one during shipment is not a QC Failure.

If you think those flecks were there when Trijicon boxed that scope you're out of your mind.

 

[762 ULTRAMAGA]

Ordered a Trijicon Credo HX from Sportsman’s after all the good things I’ve heard about it on this forum but apparently it failed the (Shipping Drop Test). I was pretty excited when it showed up so I immediately opened up the box and held it up to my eye and was pretty surprised to see a bunch of black specs inside the scope… It’s clearly getting returned but thought I’d share my experience.

View attachment 742410

That's definitely a bummer but Trijicon will fix it, the 3 I own have been great and don't have this issue so hopefully it's a fluke.
No need for a debate in semantics that's definitely a QC miss.
There's a pile of complaints about Burris XTR3s having flakes in the glass but I guess we can't call that a QC fail either..

 

[Matt Cashell]

That is not a “failure”. That is debris and it happens to every scope brand at times- S&B, Zeiss, TT, NF, Leupold, etc.

The scope would still work as a scope perfectly fine.

Absolutely.

This is semi-frequent up and down the market in all sport optics.

Sent in my Swaro SLC binocular one time for it.

It is usually a tiny spec of the internal blackening that unluckily landed on a lens surface where it is visible.

Most companies will warranty the repair.

The OP's situation does seem worse than most.

 

[ianpadron]

I had a viper pst do this years ago. They told me to hit it on a phone book and the specs would fall down into the tube and get stuck in some grease that was in there. At the time I wasn’t comfortable beating a $900 scope on a phone book so I sent it in anyways, where they probably just beat it with a phone book and sent it back.

That really is the fix haha, I had a Meopta with debris on a .308 Mountain Ascent...bout the same as beating a scope with a blunt object lol. Couple shots...debris gone

 

[JGRaider]

If that scope had "Leupold" stamped on it, it would have been crucified as another company QC failure.

 

[omicron1792]

Yeah. The worship of certain brands is funny. It’s no big deal, but to act like this isn’t a fail by the company is laughable.

 

[Formidilosus]

If that scope had "Leupold" stamped on it, it would have been crucified as another company QC failure.

No it wouldn’t. Did it totally fail to function as an aiming device out of the box? Did it lose zero? If not, then no it’s not a scope failure it’s debris. All scope brand/make/model at times have it. I’ve had multiple S&B’s, Zeiss, Vortex, and yes Leupold’s with it/ none of the were “failures”. One of the Vortex Razors in the field eval had a speck on the lens- I didn’t even mention it, because it’s nothing.

This isn’t the first time debris in lenses has come up. It isn’t a scope “failure”, and it isn’t a “QC” failure. You can all but guarantee that scope didn’t look like that when it left the factory. Most scopes have a grease inside specifically to catch dust and debris that is inside, every once in a while it instead gets on a lens. You take it and smack it in a paper back book. Most likely that is what the factory will do when it is sent in anyways.

 

[Shortschaf]

It seems the OP's question has been answered, and the remainder of the thread is stuck on what constitutes a QA or QC failure. I was a manufacturing engineer for a couple years, so this is not an opinion-piece--it is just how the language is properly used.

First, the fact is that this is recognized as a defect by both consumers and the manufacturers. So regardless of how intensive or nonintensive the manufacturer's QA/QC process is, it is just classified as QC and/or QA failure, full stop. Recognize that all things can and do fail, and this is not unique to any scope manufacturer.

Different manufacturers have different approaches to quality. Some do minimal QA/QC for the lower prices and just hand out replacements as needed. And some do intensive QA/QC, demanding higher prices but resulting in fewer warranty claims. Safe to assume that Trijicon is in the latter group, meaning they do legitimate QA checks before packaging.

SCENARIO
If a quality tech looked through the scope and saw no flakes because there were no flakes at the time, the scope passed the QA process. If that same scope then later had internal flakes dislodged (for whatever reason) becoming visible to the user, it was because of a QC failure in the manufacturing process. Could have been internal coating failure, foreign debris accumulation, doesn't matter--it now fails the quality standard because of a control failure upstream in the assembly line. A lack of a control measure is a failure, and a failure of an existing control measure is (of course) a failure.

So, regardless of how REASONABLE it is that the QA process didn't catch this or how INFREQUENTLY this occurs, this example would be still be a quality failure. It is a QC failure, or BOTH a QC and QA failure since one could argue that the QA process can be improved to catch this specific item.

BUT, what I think most are trying to say is that this is likely RECOGNIZED and deemed an ACCEPTABLE QC failure by Trijicon. This is a MINOR defect, a failure of LOW PROBABILITY (for it not to be caught by a QA tech, but later dislodged in shipping), and it is quickly/easily corrected by swapping scopes with the customer, and beating the customer scope with a phone book (or actually disassembled and cleaned, I have no clue what they would do with the scope)

Basically, the QA or QC process(es) they would have to adopt to 100% eliminate this failure would not be cost effective.