I just ran across this example of the difference between bashing and dealing with a matter on a factual basis. Perhaps this particular problem was one vaguely referred to by Snip1er.
Apparently the owner of the Sniper's Hide website purchased an USO scope which "failed to track." He sent it back. USO posted this explanation of the problem:. Note that JW3 doesn't make excuses for the problem, but does explain the precise mechanical cause of the problem, the QC failure that allowed it to happen and how USO is addressing it.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>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?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Blaine, I don’t know what else to say. Everyone else seems to understand, but you refuse to. In the first post, I stated the problems, but you said it was vague. So I explained in more detail so everyone could know the exact details, and you still refuse to understand. You don’t read the posts, because you ask questions and make statements that are already answered.
IE <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Are you claiming that this problem is to be expected from current scopes?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Lets see, in the last three months I have either had in my hands or seen with my eyes, 3 USO scopes with tracking type errors and know of another 3, so, to over explain again, yes you can expect it from current scopes. That is, if the last three months is a valid indicator, and I see no reason that it isn’t. OR, should I only refer to scopes that have not even left the assembly line yet? Would that be current enough?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Am I supposed to take apart ever scope and figure out what the exact problem is? Is that what you do with everything that breaks on you?
Lets see, since 1999 there have been various issues with the elevation on these scopes, and those issues range from improper adjustment amounts, nonadjustments when the turret is turned, failure to retain zero, failure to return to zero, etc…All of these are in the same category, failure to track. I don’t think a user could care less if these are all related to the exact same part in the scopes being bad or if its 10 different bad parts, one in each scope. The problems are all still in the same category, all related, and all problems, and still there. So, in 5 years the issue has not been corrected.
Magnumdude in his above post, also recounted a USO scope with tracking errors. His was replaced, but it still does not change the fact that he had a scope with the same type of problem, a tracking problem. Should he have taken the scope apart to see why it didn't work so he could tell us all? How many people need to need to stand up and say that they had a problem before the problem is admitted to by you, the other USO fans, and USO, before the problem is fixed? Do you need another 5 years to get it right?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Are you upset that you weren't asked to test the scope?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If I had wanted to put one of those prototypes on my rifle, it would not have been an issue. It would have been mounted and done. BUT, I knew that the problems were still there and did not want the headache of dealing with it for the sake of saying that I had a prototype on my rifle. It would not have been the first time I played with a prototype and it woun't be the last chance either, so it wouldn’t have been some secrete thrill.
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.
Not everyone wants to run out and waste $2000+ to find out that something doesn’t work. Many of us work for a living and can not afford to throw money away. So, people like us talk to trusted sources, read articles by trusted sources and then evaluate all that information. If you think that is “juvenile and lacks any semblance of critical thought.” Then what else can a person do? Should they only read the company’s product literature or website information and basis their decision on that? There you go Blaine, that sounds like real critical thinking to me!
If on the other hand, you are saying that my information is nothing more then a “collection of stories,” then you should quantify that accusation and throw it out here so we can discuss that. Otherwise, I have stated the information in a way that everyone should understand. Take the information and do with it what you want. I have nothing else to offer.
Blaine: "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."
Are you suggesting that when someone spends a good deal of money for a "truly custom" scope and experiences a problem with it, that they are to take the scope apart, reverse engineer it and determind just how this hand crafted item wasn't crafted properly? The customer is to somehow determine what the fits of the mating surfaces should be and determine which are not correct?
You seem to be implying that discusing a product is of no value in making a decision about purchasing an item. This is referred to a companies reputation. As the saying goes "Learn from other peoples mistakes, you don't have time enough to make all of them yourself". Companies that have put the effort into earning a good reputation are glad to have people talk about them. Those that haven't earned such a good reputation don't like to be talked about.
By all accounts USO seems to be a pretty small company and produces only a small quantity of scopes per year (when compared to Leupold, etc). Why have I heard of more failures from this small top of the world level of company than I do the high volumn companies? It sounds like USO may have as many failures as Leupold but they make what, 1% of the quantity of product? And theirs is "hand crafted"? Hand crafting should mean 100% inspection and zero defects shouldn't it?
And why is the body of a scope breaking when dropped being written off because there was a new style reticle inside? Does the scratches on the glass really have that much to do with the strength of the scope?
I do appreciate quality. I have had the pleasure of hunting (yes really hunting with!) a $16,000 shot gun. It truly was a work of art. I would never trade my Browning A5 for it, but sure was pretty! The beautiful fit and finish were a wonder to behold. The fit of the wood to metal was perfect. The hand cut checkering was flawless. But it didn't shoot pheasants any better than by Browning.
I have no first hand experience with these scopes, but based on your response, I won't either. Your refusing to acknowledge other peoples experience indicates to me that you don't want to acknowledge that there might be a problem. I don't have a need to complicate my life with dealing with someone like that.
"When working with the public, there are two things you need to remember. - 1. The public is a bunch of ignorant morons. - 2. YOU and I are one of them!"
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR> Not everyone wants to run out and waste $2000+ to find out that something doesn’t work. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually, I don't know anyone who wants to waste $2000. But this thought seems to exemplify your basic premise - the entire thrust of your posts (as well as the same attack which you mounted on your website) is that buying a USO scope is a waste of money.
Now, my experiences with USO and its products have been good. My scopes work. They track. And there obviously others who have purchased USO products that are satisfied.
So I am left with this: I don't doubt your poor experiences - but the bottom line for me is this: Has anyone who bought a USO scope and found a major problem been unable to either get their money refunded or get a scope that worked? I don't really give a damn that USO is having growing pains and is still working on QC problems. If the company stands behind its product, then I can't understand how you can come on a public forum and suggest that to purchase a USO product is the same as spending "$2000+ to find out that something doesn’t work." I think this kind of broadside is irresponsible and damaging.
Let me try to illustrate my point this way. Whenever anyone posts a query regarding the purchase of a Leupold for long range purposes, invariably a reference will be made to Premier Reticles and what those folks can do to enhance the Leupold. Now Premier Reticles is a first class business; but has it ever occurred to anyone that Premier Reticles is a successful business that does nothing but repair, modify, and improve Leupolds? If Leupold made great scopes, one might be tempted to ask why Premier Reticles is in business in the first place. But I have yet to see anyone post the slightest criticism of Leupold for failing to do what Premier Reticles does. For that matter, I have yet to see any scope company subjected to the unrelenting criticism that USO endures daily.
It's not that I don't understand your point and in the abstract I completely agree - a bad $2500 scope should ever leave the factory. For that kind of money, a user deserves better. But in the scheme of things, USO is a young company and, whats more, it's an inovative company; and, it's a US company. For that reason alone I'd like to see USO succeed. So I'm willing to give USO the benefit of the doubt so long as they continue to stand behind their products with either a fixed product or a refund. Would I like to see a "zero defect" QC goal being met. Sure. But in the meantime, if the company makes good on every purchase, this hue and cry that the product wasn't perfect in the first instance is unfair I believe.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR> 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!
My only response to that is that my USO scopes work - they have from day one and I have had no problems whatsoever, so guess what Johnny boy - they run just as good as that porsche you refer to - in my experience (re-read the previous clause five times for understanding). I am not here stating that every scope ever produced by USO was flawless and that USO is better than everything else on the market. Re-read my posts and you will see that I own other scopes, and recommend that most folks purchase a mass production scope because it will fill their needs for far less money. How is that elitist?? Or being a (God forbid) USO flag-waver? I recommend that most folks buy NF, S&B, or Loopy for Christ's sake!
I think if I were an elitist, I would be saying something akin to "USO is better than everything else and you suck if you don't use one." Well Johnny, I haven't said anything even close to that.
As far as Vern's comment as a turning point in this discussion - I think the folks who have had a positive experience with USO are tired of hearing folks who have never owned one bash them based on second hand information. I think some guys just cannot believe that someone had a good experience with USO, or believes that their cost is justified. I can only offer you that I haven't had a problem with USO products and have had a positive experience. Take it or leave it, but all of the complaints about USO being dishonorable, customer service complaints, etc. did not apply to me. Why not? Who knows, but this is what happened for me. My experiences have been positive, several other folks have been as well. Balance that with the post of Sniper'1's firsthand experiences and make up your own mind.
What I have grown tired of is anti-USO folks not even admitting that maybe - just maybe - the marketplace needs an outfit that provides a true custom service for niche shooters - not the mass majority, but folks in the ultra-long range category. USO's closest competitor would be Premier Reticles, and they are more of a Leupold modification shop vice a true custom manufacturer. Guess what fellas - NXS scopes run out of MOA when you are doing real long range work. Where else can you get over 200MOA elevation adjustment?
That's it for me - this issue will probably never die...just like the 9mm vs. .45 debate, WInchester vs. Remington, etc. etc.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR> That's it for me - this issue will probably never die...just like the 9mm vs. .45 debate, WInchester vs. Remington, etc. etc. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I thought it was Remington and Savages [img]images/icons/wink.gif[/img]
"I just ran across this example of the difference between bashing and dealing with a matter on a factual basis. Perhaps this particular problem was one vaguely referred to by Snip1er.
Apparently the owner of the Sniper's Hide website purchased an USO scope which "failed to track." He sent it back. USO posted this explanation of the problem:. Note that JW3 doesn't make excuses for the problem, but does explain the precise mechanical cause of the problem, the QC failure that allowed it to happen and how USO is addressing it."
I WONDER IF JBW3 IS READING MY POSTS. THATS A GREAT FIRST STEP. He did state that he is stretched to thin. Hire a QC manager or take over QC and hire a Customer Service Rep...