I'm sorry you disapprove of my warning others of this company Jim. But nor is this the first time we've heard:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR> these problems are being addressed and have been addressed, and resolved. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actualy, we have heard this many times before. Then the next batch is tested, and guess what.... Same old same old. Jim, you have the right to go round the net and post your rose colored views just as much as I have to post and warn of their frequent failures and litigious managers. But that does not change the fact that the accounts listed of USO failures are first hand reports.
You further pointed out ( correctly ) that this has been rehashed many times over on the sniper forums. Earlier in this thread I posted:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR> After exchanging a number of Q&A emails with a SP patron ( Urban PD SWAT team member ) who did not have access to a long distance range, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Jim, this scope was destined for a duty rifle. Just think about the consequences had it been used on an infamous "Hostage Shot". How many jurors would of believed that the most expensive sniper scope on the market was flawed over the officers plea, "I did everything right, I don't understand why my bullet went into the wrong person". Admittedly, this is www.LongRangeHunting.com
and the people here most likely will not be taking any hostage shots. But they do deserve a successful hunt and perhaps more importantly, need to understand that they may be supporting a company who's integrity is very suspect and quality control is of dubious standards. Perhaps because of my background, I'm a bit more sensitive to companies profiteering with substandard products while innocent lives are on the line. Having chosen a career in Corrections, my being taken hostage was a distinct possibility.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR> Ya know its always the same people who say the same things over and over wherever you go. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, I agree. But you and me are in that same boat here aren't we Jim? We both have the right to express our endorsement or dissatisfaction over any product. But perhaps the veiled threats of a company wishing to gag the mailman with litigation is my motivating factor and your friendship with the Williams' would be yours.
But to those few who are still undecided in this "war", consider this, have you ever noticed how many USO loyalists also reported they too experienced failures? Kudos to USO for fixing them to your knowledge or satisfaction, but we did have an earlier post of a man with the "best scope [USO SN-9] he ever used" but does not have a barrel on his rifle. Such endorsements really don't inspire confidence in their conclusions. Do they?
Finally Jim, I'm not out to change your mind, clearly it's set on this matter as is mine. But this thread was started over a person who's mind was not made up. Why do you fret our telling him of the well known series of failures and lawsuit crazed managers LONG associated with this company? An company who's last official communiqué with SP ( from their lawyers ) claimed that it is ORDINARY for companies to do so:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR> Similarly, most
> companies have been forced to sometime file suit against others. Why, one
> must ask, does USO take heat for conducting business in the ordinary
> course but others do not?
And why is it even the USO loyalist never advocate these actions as a hallmark of a prestigious firm?
If my comments are harsh or condescending, please remember that such language is for no other purpose then to bolster may case, not to offend any patrons of this web site.