On many of your points, I will kindly hand my arguements over to snip1er...He has more experience than I.
However, if you are truely happy with your US Optics scopes and would like to buy more of them in the future. You might want to tell your friends at US Optics what other consumers feel about these situations.
As I have mentioned on to many times, These problems are pretty easy to fix...But how many years have gone buy with the same problems/issues.
Here is a bright idea? How about setting up a US Optics Customer Service Bulletin Board fors there customers...Not to difficult to do, guys like articlight/lowlight would be more than happy to help them out.
But then, that would be way to easy for future customers to see the track record, and the failures by each customer? But if they did business correct, It would show the sucesses..
I cannot believe that you can read my posts and come to the conclusion that I have an AXE to grind...All I have asked is for US Optics to act RESPONSIBLE so that I could buy there products.
Am I a business major, hell no, just a High School Educated Texan with 8 years on a Submarine, and 5-6 years as a Sales Engineer. I have witness good companies with great products/procedures go out of business for far less grievances than those of US Optics.
I think we are at a turning point here. The Flag Wavers are starting to get tired of defending this company.
Maybe US Optics might start defending themselves...
If not, then we will have to hear about the great conspiracy against US Optics and why they were forced out of business. "Sounds like a recent President that we had".
But seriously, All of you who support US Optics, Is any of the corrective items that I have mentioned that difficult to do. This is basic business practices 101. Come On US OPTIC's own literature STATES THAT THEY ARE A HIPOCRIT.
Who ever signed off on that must think that all of us are complete idiots to not notice.
Get back to the basics of business, and follow the advice that I gave in my other post.
People slept peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stood ready to do violence on their behalf. -- George Orwell
We honor and support those men and women who stand ready to do violence on behalf of the United States.
When we first discovered the problems way back when, I was confronted by friends and supporters of USO much like the ones here. Around the end of 2000, or beginning of 2001, I was contacted by a professional friend who was a supporter of USO and was working with them to some extent. He informed me that USO was aware of the problems and that they were being addressed. At that time I gave him and them the benefit of the doubt, and pulled most posts regarding the early issues in good faith and squashed requests about them.
Two years latter I see that the same problems are still there and not corrected. The person that convinced me the first time that the problems were being addressed is now on the outs with USO and no longer under their spell. He admitted to me that he started seeing the problems, that I have described, more and more often and that those issues were part of the reason for the fall out.
Very recently, an individual with nothing to gain and no ties with USO, or anybody else in the industry, bought a USO scope and started trying to bridge the gap that had developed earlier and was beginning to widen once again. He has made countless phone calls and tried to put this issue to rest. He made the same requests of us that were made a couple of years ago. Pull the posts, stop talking about it, and give them a chance. This new voice of reason had to send his scope back a few weeks ago because his scope did not track at the proper intervals, but he still wants to bridge the gap. He has asked me to leave the issue alone and let it die once again while USO addresses the issues and tries to correct the problems. I can’t do that.
How does the saying go? “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”
I pulled all the posts once and kept quiet because I truly believed the individual that was telling me changes were in the works. To no fault of his, things did not change and the same problems are still there.
USO is fully aware of these discussions as well as the ones on other forums, because there are friends of USO here and there that keep them up to date. They do not need to reply in these forums and probably shouldn’t at this time. There isn’t much that they can say that would help the issues go away. The only thing that they can do is completely correct the problems and fix the deficiencies. When that is done, these old “horror stories” will go away and they will be replaced with honest and well deserved praise. If they can’t get a handle on it, then the problems will continue to mount, as will my firsthand list of scopes that have a failure to track.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Ok, let me type really slow for you… <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Shall I go on, or am I going too fast again? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>( I am speaking slowly again), <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ah, yes, an intelligent response. Generally, condescension equals inablility to deal with facts. In this case I asked a series of questions that should reflect the overall dependibility of the USO product. Instead, you ignored those questions and simple restated your collection of stories.
Let's see: You tested 5 scopes in 1999 and all five had broken elevation turrets. Wow. What an indictment. What was the problem? You don't say. Has it been fixed? You don't say. Were the scopes returned and fixed? You don't say. Are you claiming that this problem is to be expected from current scopes? If not, what is your point?
Somebody else dropped a prototype scope and it broke. Incredible. So is your point that prototypes break? That only friends of USO get prototypes? That there is a grand conspiracy at work here? What exactly is your point? Are you upset that you weren't asked to test the scope? Is this whole deal a personal matter between you and USO?
Flat spots. Obviously a problem for the user. But what is the source of the problem? Is is a design problem, a material problem or manufacturing problem? You don't say because you probably don't know. Other than the fact that a scope exhibited this behavior, what does it say in general about the product? Well, nothing if you don't know what the source of the problem is. Has USO remedied the problem? Again, you don't say.
If you're satisfied by a product evaluation that consists of collected stories, well then my advice to you is that you shouldn't buy a USO scope. On the other hand, if you are trying to draw some general conclusions about the quality of the product, then your analysis is juvenile and lacks any semblance of critical thought.
But hey, don't let me interrupt your bash - you're on a roll. (By the way, let me know if you ever want to bash either S&B or Kahles because I've got some negative stories to tell.)
So far I've heard a lot of USO problems, and stories of bad customer.
I've heard 2 people describe problems with NF and say its been fixed fast.
C'mon USO flagvavers. For a custom price, I want an exceptional product. I paid $$$ for a custom action and I got what I paid for. I would love to get a uso 3.8x22 with a 35 tube and 44 objective. But, if its not going to work or even be fixed in a timely matter what good is it.
If my gunsmith told me my rifle has problems because each rifle he does is custom and some are bound to "slip through the cracks" I tell him to go #### himself!
For that kind of $$$ this company should have a stellar reputation.
SCL - in response to your USO elitist dogma:
If I want a scope to shoot 2000 yards in varying light and weather conditions I WANT ONE THAT WILL WORK!
A PORSCHE THAT DOESN'T RUN IS SLOWER THAN A 1969 DODGE DART!