Have I ever owned a US Optics Scope...NO, BECAUSE I DO NOT THINK THEY WILL BE IN BUSINESS VERY LONG. I have used them on numerous occasions.
I would like to have one. But I will not lay down that amount of cash for a product that has had a reputation of failing, and wonder if it will be repaired. When US Optics lost the Armalite suit...The websites were loaded with USO Scopes for sale...They went pretty cheap.
Next question. Knowingly selling a bad product. In my opinion, US Optics has had the same problems over and over again, and it has taken them way to long to resolve those issues. YES THEY ARE SELLING PRODUCTS THAT THEY KNOW HAVE AN UNACCEPTABLE FAILURE RATE. If they have a QA manager, he should have been fired years ago.
Honor...Do the above actions seem honorable to you...I hope you didn't have to think long on that one. How would you feel if you were a hostage, A police sniper makes the decision to take the shot and the erector has failed...hitting the wrong person...Has it happened, NO, but it is damn feasible from the failure rates that we know of..Now the lawyers get involved, US Optics would fail that test real fast...A lawyer would seach any of these sites and have enough info to win any lawsuit.
LawSuits...Thats a good one, The never ending lawsuits...HAVE US OPTIC EVER WON? Maybe I will hear about one now, but they have lost all just about all suits that I know of.
Boycotts...I do my absolute best to avoid companies with bad reputations. You specifically mentioned Enron...I new alot of good employees of Enron who lost a whole lot. That is one of the reasons I am so hard US Optics..But its almost impossible to avoid them all, I CANT KEEP TRACK OF THEM, THERE JUST TO DAMN MANY.
I think I have answered most of your questions. Now I have some for you.
Do you think that US Optics Failure Rates are acceptable?
How about Customer Service?
How about Delivery, time and what the customer ordered.
Regardless of your answer, there many of people like me who think they have failed on all of the above issues. Which is why we refuse to buy there products.
I WOULD LOVE TO EAT THESE VERY WORDS. It would be pretty easy to do. Follow the advice that I have given. Do the right thing, correct your mistakes, acknowledge them publically and state the corrective actions/SOP's to prevent these issues from ever happening again. Establish a QA system. Hire a Business Manager.
I do my best to spend my money on US Made Products and would love to have a US Optics scope...The ball is in there court. Will they correct there mistakes, or go out of business...Because I do not see any other option.
I know that US Optics uses foriegn made parts. However most of the profit is made by a US company...Employing our citizens...Which I would like to support.
Just look at all the new cars, Ford Chevy Dodge, I wonder what the total percentage of the american made parts are, in one now days...Assembled in the US with Foreign parts.
Its just sad to see the potential of the company go down the toilet over STUPID MISTAKES. I honestly feel they could dominate the scope market if they fixed the outstanding issues.
But lets watch this new Jager series scopes. I bet they cannot get the first 50 shipped before they get one back for repairs. Because the first one shipped will be a demo model. NOT A PROVEN PRODUCT. It will work for few months, they think all is well and will go into full production...Then the problems will start rolling in....We will be going through this debate all over...AND HAVE TO SEE THE SAME PICTURES FROM DMCI FOR THE HUNDREDTH TIME [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img]
There is no doubt that Dantec is angry. But why shouldn't he be? It pisses me off when people resort to insults. I know Dantec to be quite an intelligent person.
Saying "if he had half a brain" is childish and the sign of someone losing the debate. I mean if I wanted to resort to that I might say that Nighthawk would buy a scope made from buffalo crap if it was the most expensive (especially if it enabled him to shoot "one hole" groups from his .408 using j-40 bullets!), but I won't!
This post has now gone 7 pages and no-one has answered the main question that brent or myself has asked:
How much more can USO give me compared to a NF for $1200? Is the glass better? are the turrets better? more repeatable? is the NF not durable enough?
Stop saying "A truly custom scope"
Stop comparing NF to a savage rifle
Start looking at this objectively
Maybe if USO were more "mass produced" they would be more consistent??? (Better machined?)
Finally....If NF started to make scopes with larger tubes and opened a NF custom shop, how long would USO Last.
One final note.....in these seven pages, how many problems were addressed regarding the NF scopes or the company??
As usual, another USO discussion winds up in USO bashing. The fact that someone knows someone who had a USO scope break, not track, have a flat spot, etc., etc., is absolutely meaningless as a "fact." No manufacture sells 100% perfect products. All manufacturers have unhappy customers.
What percentage of scopes made by USO come back to the factory within the first year of sale? What is the primary cause of return? What is the average turn around time for repair? Upon return, how many remain unrepaired? What is the percentage of USO scopes still in use? What is the rate of resale? What is the rate of satisfaction among owners? How do these numbers compare with Leupold, NF, etc. In terms of the components, are there any better components used by any other manufacturer?
Unless those that bash the USO product can actually produce specific facts concerning the forgoing issues, then the repetition of a collection of negative individual reports is just so much hot air.
There seem to be a number of people with significant hard-ons for this company. I don't know why and don't really care. But one thing is for sure, the retelling of these various "horror stories" are of absolutely no value. For instance, the scope that was dropped and broke - this was a prototype built to try out the Horus reticle. It wasn't a production model. Even the guy who was testing the scope didn't condemn USO - so why is anyone else? Take a look at the criticisms listed by Snip1er and ask yourself whether you can tell exactly what the problem is, or is the claim vague? For instance, what can we tell about the "tracking error" referenced. Can't tell - too vague. But typical of these discussions.
The one thing that would be useful in these types of discussions is for a poster to state exactly what the problem is and what the fix is. That way, the nature of flaw can be precisely understood and evaluated. Unfortunately, I have yet to read one these USO attacks that is close to being that fair.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR> For instance, what can we tell about the "tracking error" referenced. Can't tell - too vague. But typical of these discussions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ok, let me type really slow for you…the first 5 tested in ’99 did not track. What that means is, when the little knob on the top of the scope was turned, the reticle was supposed to move, and then, when the next bullet was shot a the same distance, the bullet would now be in the newly located position as compared to the last shot before the little know was turned and before the reticle moved. Well, when the little knob was turned, the reticles did not move. The bullets would go into the same hole as the previous shot or would only be partially moved.
Now, lets look at the reason that the user that broke the USO scope did not condemn USO after the scope broke. Lets see, if you have 10 prototype scope in existence, and a user breaks one but doesn’t say too much negative about it…maybe there is a reason he is one of only 10 people using that prototype? Do you think they just randomly pick names out of a phone book and send them prototype scopes? Or do companies usually use the same people, maybe the same people that they deal with on a regular basis. Maybe if they deal with a person on a regular basis then they have a relationship that goes a little deeper then a random person in the phone book. Do I need to spell that out too?
Now, on the same issue of the prototype scope that had the front end break off. This was not a completely new design that was going to revolutionize the scope industry. It was a new reticle. Do you think that every time Premier Reticles puts a new reticle in a Leupold scope, the it should be considered a prototype and exempt from the damn thing falling apart?
Ok, the flat spot. That was found by someone that builds my rifles, so I trust his judgment on this issue. When he was turning the little knob ( I am speaking slowly again), the little knob hit a spot where it ceased to do anything but spin. He said that you could turn it both directions and it just continued to spin. So, if we break that down into the grand scheme of USO malfunctions, that is a failure to track. If I turn the elevation turret and it doesn’t do anything, that is a failure.
Lets continue…The next two scopes had wandering zeros. Day one had the scopes mounted and zeroed. I personally mounted a couple of these scopes, and if you want to take my scope mounting credentials into question, then we can do that later. The class was conducted for 6 high speed military snipers, all but one of which have been sniper qualified for at least a couple of years, a couple of them also attended SOTIC, and all of them have already seen combat at least twice in the last 2 years. So, to continue, after a full day of shooting and cleaning, the rifles are stored. The next day we start shooting at distance, and the dope is off what it should be. We check zero and have to adjust. Day three and four are the same. Everything was checked for tightness and mounting, but all checked out. Two of the 6 just didn’t’ want to hold a zero. They were off 3 – 4 moa each day.
Shall I go on, or am I going too fast again? Ok, well keep going. The next scope is placed on a new rifle. The scope is not brand new, but it is hardly used (less then 100 rounds). Dope is gathered using the scope. Day two rolls around and the dope is off. All the dope is off. Now, on day two, the rifle can not reach 1000 yards because when it is turned to 34 min it tops out, and that is with a 20moa base. That means, that at this point, the scope only has something like 14 min? Actually less because when it was toped out it still was hitting about 50 yards short of the target. That is another failure to track. I saw this in front of my very eyes, because I had to give the shooter my rifle to use for the rest of the event that was talking place.
I could go on about every little thing, but I think its pretty apparent to those that want to understand, that a failure to track is just that. When the elevation and windage knobs are turned and they either do not move the reticle or do not move the reticle the exact amount that each “click’ represents, or the scope does not returned to zero as well as not holding zero, then these are failures to track.
What is that, 8 or 10 USO scopes that I have had, used, tested, watched, that had a failure to track? Do I just have really bad luck with USO scopes? Or maybe I just jinx USO scopes when I am around. If you believe that, then I am going to stick a coke bottle inside a paper towel tube and sell it for $3000. It will cost more then everything else, so it must be great!
As for a hard-on for a company. No, I have a hard-on for things that do not work and that are targeted to military and police. I have a real hard-on for products that can get someone killed because they fail and people know they fail, but cover up the problems. I have been using Leupold scopes in the military and elsewhere since 1991 and only had one break down. It was sent in and returned at no charge in about 3 weeks. So, let me explain that clearly for you again. Probably, 50 Leupold scopes in 12 years with one problem. 10 USO scopes in 5 years, and 10 problems. Damn, maybe my math really sucks, or maybe its something else.
Sorry, I forgot to put “the fix” so that my post would be considered a valid post.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR> exactly what the problem is and what the fix is. That way, the nature of flaw can be precisely understood and evaluated. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
When I turn the knob, it should move the exact amount that is claimed IE, 1/4min, 1/2min 1 full min. Buy a Leupold, take it apart and figure out what they use and then use it. I know their internals work as marked.