MTC Viper Connect 3-12X32

[Pod]

I had been considering one of these scopes for ages but had been put off by the mag issue on my Daystates. Gary and Sammie kindly bought one to a show recently and fitted it to a Mk4 with a pair of high mounts. In the ideal position for me it worked perfectly with the mag sliding in between the mount and the objective bell. Eye relief was perfect - the scope was a lot further forward than in Hurricane's pic and a bit lower.

Waiting for mine to be delivered

[Hurricane]

My scope is set up (for me) for standing and sitting shots, so it may well be further back than if using prone.

[base jumper]

mate your a star thanks ever so much and emailed Gary and Sammie yesterday still waiting for a reply

[Cuhulain]

Sadly, my experience with this scope has not been so good.

I bought it new from Uttings a few weeks ago and was surprised to find that the packaging was not what it should have been; the scope was loose in its box (the cardboard scope supports being squashed flat and useless), and there was no high density foam supporting the scope. In addition, the warranty registration card had been filled in with a date three weeks before the date of purchase. Having bought a Viper 10x44 a couple of weeks earlier and been very pleased with it, I have to say that the initial impression of the Connect was a huge disappointment.

So, it seemed to me that I might have been sent something that wasn't as advertised - perhaps it was a returned scope or a display model; however, over the course of three quite straight-talking phone calls, Uttings maintained that it was brand new from the manufacturer. I spoke to Sammie of MTC too and was left with the impression that the packaging I received seemed about right (i.e. there should be no expectation of high density foam supports as supplied with the 10x44). I also learned that MTC do spot checks for quality control and that this scope might have been one of those chosen for testing. Uttings, meanwhile, suggested that the date on the registration card was most likely filled in by MTC.

Both Uttings and MTC dealt with me respectfully on the phone so I took them at their word and, with the scope appearing to be functioning normally, I kept it.

Unfortunately, a problem with the threads on the scope body for the windage turret cap developed. My best guess is that the scope was knocked in transit and that the threads were damaged. An email to MTC resulted in the kind offer to have a look at the problem and to replace the scope if it couldn't be fixed. However, I now have a nagging doubt in my mind about the quality of materials used; specifically, if the threads were damaged in transit, then it could be that the metal of the scope body is softer that that used for the turret caps - not a great design decision. Of course, this is pure speculation so I would be happy to be corrected on this point.

The bottom line is this, although I found the scope to be great to use, I now have my doubts about it. Sending it to MTC would result in a fix or a replacement but I have decided that I would rather have something else (and MTC are unable to oblige - VAT complications et cetera). I really don't want to deal any further with Uttings so I am most likely to put this one down to experience.

[Hurricane]

Sorry (well not realy) but your post does not sound genuine. The threads damaged in transit! I fail to see how this could happen without the box being totaled and the scope showing obvious damage.
And why wouldn't you send it back for replacement or repair? Was a mention made about if it had been cross threaded?

[Cuhulain]

Hurricane, if you read my post, you will see that this was a 'best guess'. The scope was, literally, bounced around inside its box in transit so, given that it is less likely that MTC damaged the scope in testing, or Uttings knowingly sent me a returned or demo scope that had been butchered by whoever handled it before me, this seems reasonable. I will add however, that I still scratch my head over why the guarantee registration details were filled in with 1st June and Uttings.

The Connect is in short supply and Uttings did not have another in stock so I took a chance, perhaps foolishly. One turret cap did fit, barely, on the windage threads when I received it and I thought that I could manage the damage (I am insanely careful in my handling of scopes); however, after several zeroing sessions it was clear that the initial damage was too great.

Now, why did I post to this thread? Well, the positive feedback on airgunbbs for the Connect and for MTC was a significant factor in my purchase, however my experience has raised a question about the scope that is materially relevant to the thread. You will note that I have been generous in my assessment of both MTC and Uttings although it should be clear that I am most unhappy with the situation and have decided to relegate the scope to 'backup' status. You are entitled, of course, to take me at my word, or not.

[Hurricane]

First I must apolagise for the 'tone' of my post, I normaly try to be cival on forums, but must have had a bad day, I'm only normaly that rude face to face(so I'm told)
Are you saying that the caps where not screwed on when you received it? that would make the 'damaged thread in transit' more believably, but still unlikly.
But I still don't understand why you refuse to have the scope repaired or replaced, I believe many people take a while to fully get to grips with this scope, so I would advise you perseviring. If you had cardboard 'packing' in box it may be a different batch than mine, which has the foam packing, I have no reservations about the quality of materials that my scope is made from, and if it had a problem I would be sending it back, I certainly wouldn't push a £250 scope to back of cabinet as a leason learnt.