Sign of the times.

Theoretically the water pressure on the seals could cause it to give out sooner, but the real reason this is a bad idea is corrosion. If one dunked their optic in a bucket and turned the turrets, it shouldn’t suffer from any seal failure. If that little of water pressure was a problem, I would see that as a severe quality/design issue.

if I was under 20 meters of water, sure, but not 20cm of water

I've had a Trijicon ACOG fog up inside just like the above. I am guessing the seal failed.

UPDATE: Trijicon informed me that their testing concluded that there was internal fogging of the optic, but that it was within their acceptable parameters and that they'd be sending it back to me. I called them back to verify what they meant and to stop them from sending it back to me this afternoon.

Trijicon rep admitted that there is moisture inside the scope. But that it's passed their QC, is within their parameters and that it's out of his hands.



~~~


Trijicon: "Support this is X speaking how may I help?"

Me: "Yeah I was returning X's voicemail she left me for my return authorization."

Trijicon: "OK, yeah, the credo that was having fogging issues?"

Me: "So, so what I got was that the - you guys confirmed that it's fogging internally, right?"

Trijicon: "It is fogging internally when exposed to the cold and the, then y'know exposed to the warmer air. Now, there is tolerance for this to happen because it's going to happen to every scope regardless if it's nitrogen purged or not."

Me: "How would the condensation or fogging clear up if it's a sealed system?"

Trijicon: "Because the nitrogen its clearing the, the fogging out. That's what it is, it's a dry environment to a degree, but when you introduce it to extreme cold then bring it into standard room temperatures or a warmer environment it's gonna fog.

Me: "It can only happen if there's moisture inside the optic, though."

Trijicon: "Right,"

Me: "Because the nitrogen gas can't just fog up, that means there's oxygen and moisture inside the optic."

Trijicon: "So, again, the optics are dry as they can humanly be. They are nitrogen purged to the degree where they have put in enough nitrogen to keep them from fogging on standard conditions."

Me: "The issue is, mine fogged up - there's two instances where this happened. Number one, I put it inside my refrigerator, for just two hours -"

Trijicon: "That's an extreme-"

Me: "That's not, that's like 50 degrees"

Trijicon: "Refrigerators normally run about 34 degrees"

Me: "Well that's saying that if I'm using my scope outside, then I go inside, it's just not going to function, for the the 5 minutes or so until it warms up, correct?"

Me: "Because there's plenty of ways to get a scope cold to like, 30-40 degrees without it being purposely put in a refrigerator."

Me: "These are supposed to be fogproof, and I understand the necessity of running these extreme tests but -20 for a week is a lot different than a fridge."

Me: "And this also happened when I put the scope, to test the - well I was like, is there water ingress? I put it in a bucket of room temperature water, I took it out, I noticed it had fogged, and that's why initially I'm like OK, yeah, this is water ingress issue, this is why it happened. But then you guys said there's no water ingress or moisture inside the scope. - I just don't think that's acceptable for a scope that's fogproof, y'know if this could only happen if you were flash freezing it then warming up, that's fine, but there's plenty of ways this could hypothetically happen."

Trijicon: "OK, all I can tell you is this was tested by the engineering department and the R&D department, and it passed all our tests for what we consider acceptable. Now, again, everyone's going to have their own opinion on how things should be, and I agree with you if it's listed as a fog-free scope it will be fog-free, Now, there's a caveat to that, there's going to be certain circumstances that there is going to be fogging present depending on the conditions and environment you use it in."

Me: "So then, it's not fog-free."

Trijicon: "If you put it to an extreme condition, yes, [cont] now, again, we've got customers who use our scopes in Alaska, and the northern parts of Michigan and I've yet to have a customer come back to me and say hey, I was out on a hunt for four hours in 30-below weather then my scope fogged up when I went into my cabin or where I stored it, now it does happen, where it, it's in a patrol vehicle or something, then they go outside and they get fogging most of the time it's on the outside of the lens very very rare that it's on the inside of the lens-"

Me: "Yeah well, let's talk about a patrol vehicle here, let's say that you're a police officer, you have a Credo LPVO on your rifle, your duty rifle, you keep it in your patrol car's trunk, which is cold, it's winter, overnight so the scope has been acclimated to lets just say, let's just say around 35-40 degrees, right? That's reasonable to assume."

Trijicon: "Right."

Me: "it's freezing or below outside, the officer needs to quickly take his rifle into an active shooting or something, and that's acceptable for Trijicon that like, oh, he's gotta wait 5 minutes for his scope to warm up before he can use it? That's craziness to me."

Trijicon: "So again, on most occasions it's on the external part of the lens-"

Me: "But this case isn't on the external part, this is internal"

Trijicon: Again, we've tested the scope, it's passed our testing, there's not much I can do on my end it's out of my hands, this would need to go higher than me, and again I, I just explain to you from a technical side that's what my job is, I'm a technical specialist I explain how the scopes work. So, when it comes to this this would need to go above me, and again, I'm not disagreeing with the fogging of the scope, it is fogging, we have tested it but it is falling between our parameters. [cont] It's within the limitations of an optic. So, again I can continue the conversation with this, I don't think we're going to come to an [agreement] between ourselves where technical, versus, uh, I'm trying to think of a word, perceived?"

Me: Oh, it's perceived, OK.

Trijicon: No, I'm not saying it's perceived I'm saying the way you are perceiving the nitrogen fill being a dry system, I'm trying to explain that there are cases where that is true, but there are extreme cases the scope's going to fog.

Trijicon: [escalates me to supervisor]

Call recording (employee names censored): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKjau47EDT4

Wait a minute. Alot of optics use the turret cap as the seal..

OP are you sure the turrets themselves are waterproof?

There's zero gasket or o-ring on the cap threads so assuming they're not integral to waterproofing. Manual says nothing about them being needed to be waterproof.

Are you sure? I have a different model credo and it does have rubbers seals on the turret caps.

Edit: can you post a screenshot of trijicons reply? I'm curious what they said.

As discussed above, they have to be airtight during normal use. The seals on the covers must be secondary.

I have also had scopes before with gaskets on caps, but these did not have any. If there was gaskets on caps I would have assumed they are necessary for waterproofing and wouldn't have removed them for testing.

Update: Trijicon is denying a replacement and holding that the scope is functioning within spec. They are sending it back to me no work done.

That's sad.
I have a cheapo BSA at home, I'll try the fridg test.

Just seems odd. I've had them replace salty beat up ACOGs I've bought second hand before. No questions asked. Be curious what the exact communications were.

Sealed caps aren’t for the optics internals, they’re for the turrets. Nitrogen is lighter than air and will leak pretty much immediately when the seal is lost. The idea that it slowly leaks out every time you remove your caps and/or adjust the turrets is false.

I’ve never had an optic fog up internally even from riding in the trunk of a car when it was -5 out and taking it into a 70 degree house. It sweats like crazy, but not internally. Just last winter I did this a multiple times on my trunk gun which has a sub $300 Primary Arms 3X MP with no issue.

Trijicon may very well be right that the seals are good. In that case it sounds like a standards/quality issue.

Vortex and PA would’ve replaced your optic by now if it was one of theirs. JS.

Of course, they are manufactured for a dime a dozen In the third world.  

Really surprised trijicon wouldn’t just replace it.. I’m with others and would like to see screen shots of the communication.  

If I had paid good coin for a nice scope and it was fogging.. I wouldn’t stop until I reached the ceo.

Both vortex and PA build their nicer optics in Japan.

Indeed. Albeit a small portion of their product lines.  

Interesting move by Trijicon. Things just aren’t what they used to be. With all of the big companies running into issues, almost not worth it to pay the extra for nothing. Holosun is looking more duty grade by the day.

I wanted to speed up the test so I did freezer for 45 minutes then 71F w/ 50% humidity.
LOL, that was full retard.
I couldn't get the outside lens to stay clear long enough to tell. I couldn't even hold it without a glove.
I guess this was a good argument for iron sights.

So now at 5 minutes the outside has turned from frost to damp and I can get the lens clear long enough to look through.
Looks clear, nothing inside.
This is an under $100 BSA.

BSA all the things.

There is a reason it is on a self and not a gun.
I didn't know better back when I bought it and a Sightmark RDS.

Does anyone have another LOW produced optic to test this on? Razor, Delta Stryker, EOTech Vudu, Nightforce. I wonder if Trijicon really has that low of standards for purging or if it’s the production limit for LOW Japan.

I put my Viper PST 1-6 last night in my freezer and took it out this morning.  It did not immediately fog up taking it out inside my house but as soon as i went outside where it was 88F 68% humidity it instantly fogged up the lens but only on the outside.  I could wipe the lens and see through the optic but they would condense the humidity very quickly.  Once the temp started rising on the optic I could see inside there was no condensation or fogging inside the optic.

Liar, Trijicon told me all scopes will fog up if you do that!

Why are there 2 threads on the same topic?

Sure if something is inside the optic to condense it will fog up inside.  I mentioned in one of your threads a way you could remedy it yourself if you are stuck with no other options.  Remove the port plug that Trijicon uses to purge their optic and purge it with Argon.  On the scale of gases to purge the optic with it would be better than nitrogen just it is more expensive for marginally better than nitrogen but at your scale the argon is not expensive for how much you need, easier, and actually better because the argon gas is heavier than the atmospheric air or N2.  You can also use a vacuum to lower the pressure inside the optic to draw out any moisture that is inside.

I just had to return a TA11J-G.  It had a huge blemish on the lens.

The OP is pointing out obvious problems.  It is retarded that there are cult like Trijicon fan bois whining like he just insulted your mother.  

I have 8 ACOGs.  They are my favorite scope.  But, I don’t blindly worship Trijicon.

So this is my final update on this.

I received my scope back today, was a total surprise. I am thinking perhaps Trijicon has blocked my email address, as I received zero confirmation that they had actually shipped my scope back to me and none of my follow-up "WTF?" emails were responded to. I noticed that the magnification ring that was previously sort of "coarse" feeling has improved, not perfect, but close to it. They said they did no work on it, but they did take it apart so maybe it's been assembled better or the gasket was lubed better this time around (if they are lubed). Secondly, I noticed that the sticky sounds from the diopter are far less pronounced.

The first test I did was a bucket dunk. Two minutes in a Lowes bucket, triple checking the water temperature was normal. Best way I'd describe the water temperature was "indoor pool". I ensured the bucket was clean of any potential chemicals. I didn't do anything besides put the scope in the bucket. No fogging occurred. The previous time I had done this, the scope fogged up, although I had been messing with it underwater. I'll maintain that this shouldn't have mattered with proper functioning seals, and that Trijicon stated themselves that there was no water intrusion, but why would a scope fog up from a test like that? Sure the water was cool, but it wasn't "cold".

The second test I did was the fridge test. 38f for 1.2 hours. I took the scope out and noticed that it was still fogging up, but that it was significantly improved. Like, most of the condensation I was seeing was on the lenses outside, and it cleared within a minute. Last time it lasted much longer and was much more pronounced. Maybe it was because they had to re-purge it?

The third and final test I did, and this was purely a bonus test, was operate the magnification dial while simulating very, very gentle and light rainfall with a watering can. The only adjustment I'd ever need to operate in wet conditions is the magnification ring. The scope also aced this test. I am happy that the scope is improved. I feel confident using it now.

I am not happy with Trijicon's explanations of things, but ultimately I am torn. On one hand, Trijicon was prompt, they obliged when I asked for further testing, and got my scope back to me fast - and ultimately my scope is in better condition now even though they didn't find any issues with it. On the other hand, the excuses they gave were horseshit. It's obvious that this optic needed a repurge. The fact that they denied anything being wrong with it, or the chance that something could be wrong with it was what got me. Things like "38 degrees is extreme conditions" or "all scopes fog up". Perhaps it's because Trijicon's not as tact with consumers compared to companies like Vortex. I probably shouldn't have nuked the bridge so bad with the only people who'll be able to service my scope if something happens to it, but I do feel that their communication and the things they said were horseshit. I am still dissatisfied with Trijicon's handling of this, but I could have handled it better myself as well. This concludes this, for now. Thanks for sticking with me.

This is the best timeline of events that I can think of that lead to all this.

* (a) I send in a legitimately fogging scope.

* (b) Trijicon disassembles scope, sees no evidence of significant water intrusion, says scope is fine (at this point, it wasn't), but then obviously they reassemble scope (perhaps properly this time around) and repurge it, thus unknowingly repairing or at least significantly (if not temporarily) alleviating the problem. However, they wouldn't have known this and informed me nothing's wrong with the scope.

* (c) I demand a retest, and they retest it, and observe a "normal" (at least, by their standards) amount of fogging, however because they hadn't seen the behavior experienced before the repurge, they assumed the baseline they were seeing now was what I was complaining about, ultimately leading to a big miscommunication with them unknowingly asserting that the behavior ***I*** had seen was normal.

Ultimately a faulty scope, miscommunication and their seeming refusal to admit something potentially could have been wrong with my unit lead to the outrage that happened. From my side I saw a company defending a scope that fogged up from the fridge where I keep my beer, and from their end they saw a customer who was complaining about what they saw was a functional optic.

I just gotta say before this one ends up locked too, you guys going after him are in the wrong. Maybe not the other times, don’t know and not going down that rabbit hole. But the conversation with Trijicon alone is concerning regardless of what OP did with the optic.

A standard of 5-6 minutes of internal fogging being okay is ridiculous. That’s not even a standard, that’s just how long it takes to clear by temperature change. There is no arguing that whatsoever.

In their defense, their standard is based off of -20f for a week. I don't know why they were comparing that to my home refrigerator, or why they were saying 38 degrees was somehow extreme, but that's why it sounds like they're so nonchalant about the fogging. From the industry people I spoke to, every manufacturer has different standards for fogging, it's just that you're not supposed to ever see it under human circumstances. If they had done a fog test before repurging the scope, this all would have been avoided. Trijicon said dumb shit, but it was partially due to miscommunication and misunderstandings. Absolutely not an excuse, but rather a partial explanation.

A lot of people here have probably used Tricon's optics during service, there's a lot of veterans on here. And yes, it's very rare that you would get a scope with this issue and so far none of the other Credo owners I've spoke to have reported this issue. I completely understand people's suspicions, and how some may even take it personally. However, I do believe that a lot of them haven't been paying attention to the general reduction in quality control that's happened in the industry over the years. I'm not the only one who's had issues with Trijicon's warranty, then again, for the most part they're fine. It's just that things went very wrong in this particular case. I got very unlucky, shit happens. My issue wasn't with the scope having these issues - I think it's an excellent optic. It's just how Trijicon handled it that got me very upset. I'm trying to put this behind me, but at the same time cannot stand people accusing me of lying, etc so then I have to bring all the shit back up to the surface.

Again, this is all over and done with. Neither side was happy with the outcome. I did try to contact Trijicon and give them my findings and explain what I think occurred, but I believe they've blocked my email. They allegedly had hundreds of phone calls stemming from my posts, so I'm not surprised.

Is it possible that there was a conversation before the one that was posted?  

Of course it's possible. It's possible I'm making literally all of this up. It's possible I never even had a Trijicon scope. If what I've shared isn't enough, then I'm probably not going to be able to convince you. It's good to be skeptic, but I'm not sure how I could prove my side to you. The thousands of other people over at reddit (yuck, I know) have found my evidence to be sufficient, maybe because I did a better job being cohesive and less "all over the place" over there. Again, at this point I’m not trying to shit all over Trijicon - I do believe their behavior was unacceptable, but this was a shitty situation for both sides and was essentially one huge fuck up.

Sometime in the next couple of days, I'm going to make a short video explaining everything that happened in a timelined, cohesive fashion because currently this story is spread through 5 posts on two different sites. Then, I’ll be done and can just let people make their own conclusions. To be honest, this experience has stressed the fuck out of me, and I just want to be done with this and just go on with my life. I would have deleted these threads entirely by now if it were possible.

You can ask mods to lock the thread.

Or just stop posting about it....

Don’t start another thread. Don’t make a video. Don’t post anymore. Seems simple enough to me.

Yup. I'll ask the mods to lock this thread. To be absolutely clear, at this point my only intention posting is to set the record straight so that the people who saw my original posts, and anyone else who ever hears about this issue know what actually happened, and that while they made mistakes, Trijicon wasn't acting out of maliciousness/callousness/etc. Maybe I'm making a mountain of a molehill..

I want to re-establish communication with Trijicon to clear the air with them. I'll call them up this week and try to clear the air. Then I'll have "closure".

Thanks.

OP request