USO new long range hunting scope

Discussion in 'Long Range Scopes and Other Optics' started by jason USO, Aug 24, 2011.

  1. jason USO

    jason USO New Member

    Jul 20, 2011
    Hello memebers,

    I am Jason from U.S. Optics. I’m new to this particular forum, so here is a little introduction about myself. I served in the Marines for 12 years as an Infantryman and currently I am the V.P. of Operations here at U.S. Optics.

    What we are trying to do here is come up with the ultimate long range hunting rifle scope. This is where your expertise comes in. With you being the end user your input is extremly important to us. So to get things rolling I have a few questions to start.

    What power range?
    Adjustable parallax on the side or objective?
    Weight and how important is this?
    What type of reticle? One of our exsiting ones or we can design a new reticle with your help.
    MOA or MIL?



    Jason Kyle
    [email protected]
  2. Loner

    Loner Well-Known Member

    Apr 14, 2010
    Welcome Jason. I've had a couple of your scopes for years. Great product and a fantastic
    company to deal with. I have never seen better when it comes to CS.
    I am not the shooter a lot of these guys are, but I will give my 2cents. The 3.8x22
    with a 60 objective and 35mm tube is my best scope. I like iphy over mildot personally
    but can use either. I have little use for true moa. The sn9 with it's 235 moa of vertical
    would be ideal for target but as a carry gun I don't think so. A 40mm tube might be
    a way to gain even more adjustment without making the scope larger. The 1.8x10 -44 sn3 I have is no different to me than any other of my carry scopes on my back.
    Bottom line for hunting up here. A shot could be 80 yards in the trees or 1100 yards
    across a wheat field. Having the moa to adjust without a big moa rail would be # on
    my list of wants.
  3. Camshaft

    Camshaft Well-Known Member

    Jun 14, 2010
    I agree with some of the points above, 5x magnification would be a great starting point. I would keep it to a 30mm tube for weight savings. 80-100moa of elevation travel at a minimum. Matched reticle/adjustments. 32oz at the top end of the spectrum. 44-50mm abjective. 3.5-4" constant eye relief. Zero stop. And the absolute most important feature, which shouldn't be a problem for USO, absolute dead nuts tracking. Sounds a lot like a NightForce, and try and keep it under $2k
  4. Outlaw6.0

    Outlaw6.0 Well-Known Member

    Feb 18, 2010

    Welcome Jason,

    You've definitely come to the right place, some of the guys here are truly talented (& humble).

    My .002 cents:

    1. Weight means almost nothing (within reason), most of my rigs are +10 lbs anyway
    2. SIDE FOCUS ONLY for me, much easier to use
    3. Illumination is cool but I haven't found a legitimate use for it yet (outside spotlighting:D) may be an unnecessary cost.
    4. MOA OR MILS in the reticle as long as it matches the turrets!! But preferrably MOA. Now the less clutter the better, sometimes i'll spend an enormous amount of time behind the rifle observing or spotting & seems to me the more "stuff" inside the reticle the faster my eye fatigues?? (maybe i'm weird) i'm thinking about the MOA scale Type 1 as just about right.
    5. Power range, the make it or break it for me. In contrast to other folks, if the power range is below 20x kiss it good bye, i'll look but I won't be buying.

    Keep us posted buddy & thanks for asking
  5. elkregulator

    elkregulator Well-Known Member

    Jul 5, 2007

    If you could keep it around 20 oz it would be a big competitive advantage over the competition in the price range you are at. I think this is why the March’s are catching on.

    If you are thinking of doing a velocity reticle, keep it in the FFP.

    Keep the windage marks on the reticle to 1 moa or less.

    For the long range crowd, a free Trajectory Matched Turret (with mil or moa still on it) would be a marketing asset.

    zero stop is a must
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2011
  6. Loner

    Loner Well-Known Member

    Apr 14, 2010
    I'll add that I agree on the eye relief. Out of position shots can bite you with a big bore.
    And the weight isn't real critical to me on a real long range gun. They tend to run heavy
    by design in most cases.
    Sounds like you are planning on a more "off the shelf" product than in the past? The
    lit reticle and ergo vs. objective lens parallax adj. ( Tpal) and reticle is why I ask.
    And I should add a zero stop is a must.
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2011
  7. Forrest Ebert

    Forrest Ebert Well-Known Member

    Apr 22, 2008
    Welcome Jason;

    Here is a list of what I think would sell for you;

    Power Range: 5-25x ( with a 50mm objective )
    Front adj. Parallax less moving parts than side adj.
    Weight no more than 24oz.
    Illuminated yes as an option
    Reticle: a simple to use moa or mil reticle not cluttered.

    Jason you never mentioned about if you are going to use your existing glass as your other scopes you mfg. now or vend out for some other glass to keep your cost down?

    I do believe you could make such a scope and have it be in the $995.00- $1295.00 price range and still have a liveable profit.
  8. Oliveralan

    Oliveralan Well-Known Member

    Sep 15, 2009

    I would not be so concerned about weight. If a LR hunter is buying a US Optics scope, it's probably going on a pretty serious rig and people who have setups like that tend to own more than one rifle. Meaning there's no need to build a lightweight scope if it sacrifices anything, as your asking for input on a purpose built LRH scope.

    Power range is really personal... while 20-24x on the high end minimum is fine, contrast is absolutely king! Being able to really pick out your target is more important, at least to me. for a true LRH scope, something in the 6-30x range would be absolutely perfect IMO.

    Objective and tube diameter... as big as they need to but not bigger... probably 35mm main tube with a 50-56mm objective.

    Reticle... i have talked with a few fellow long range hunters, and what we have all pretty much agreed on as the perfect reticle would be a leupold TMR style reticle, FFP, with moa hash marks (assuming moa turrets). something like a 1/8" or 3/16" clear dot in the center. This would mean at lower power ranges it would look just like a traditional scope, but not matter as if your shooting close in low mag, you aren't looking for the ultra precise aiming this allows.
    We have found this type of reticle to be great for shooting varmints in the 800yard+ range, as traditional reticles often cover quite a bit of them up! But at the same time, at least with the people i've discussed with this about, have all really liked this reticle for hunting deer and big game as well. It is nice to SEE the exact spot you want to put the bullet rather than covering it up.

    Side paralax (sorry Broz, my mistake :D), definitely, not much to say here, besides objective focus seems to make a scope cheaper, side focus is much, much easier to adjust without breaking position.

    Illumination i would leave as an option, personally i've only ever used it once while LR hunting, which was shooting pigs under a full moon on a whitish dirt road, there it was handy, except it kind of "washed" into the picture, was not crisp like the reticle, and that was with a NF, but if you can design illumination that doesn't do that, it may be useful for some hunters.

    One more thing, i saw 2 suggestions mentioned velocity reticles and and drop compensating turrets..... ok, while this may ruffle some people's feathers: i believe these are both gimmicks, for people who don't want to, or simply don't, understand ballistics. There are way to many variables that go into calculating a shot than these turrets offer, at LONG range. Sure, if you want to hit a pie plate 600yards and in, in fairly consistent conditions with a high performance cartridge, sure... but that's not really what i, and a lot of members here consider long range hunting. Same goes for velocity reticles... they are just an even simpler system.
    Mil, or preferably moa marked turrets, with an absolute minimum of 80min elevation travel, for a dedicated LRH scope, 100-120 would be AWESOME, zero stop would also be very useful when your going 3-4revs over your zero.

    Hope my input was somewhat helpful, very happy to see you and USO take such a personal interest in what we, the consumer, want in a product!

    Last edited: Aug 24, 2011
  9. Broz

    Broz Well-Known Member

    Feb 3, 2007

    The 5.5 x 22 is very popular and I like it but a little more on top and bottom would be good.

    so, maybe in the 6 or 7 to 26 ?

    .25 Moa turrets with second focal plane and a moa reticle. If you come with a reticle like the IOR MP-8 dot in MOA I would do back flips.

    Weight , lighter than the NXS would be good , 2 lbs but if it means giving up durability leave it at 2 lbs

    Side paralax only, and never call it a focus please.

    I have never used a lit reticle hunting so I can take it or leave it. But if you do please don't put a huge wart on the eye piece.

    100 moa elevation minimum, 120 would be a lot better. 30 mm tube unless 35 would be necessary for 120 moa.

    Must have some type of zero stop.

    Thanks for asking our opinions. And if you need one ran over the road in testing I would be honored.:D

  10. MOOSE39465

    MOOSE39465 Well-Known Member

    Nov 11, 2010
    If you could build me a scope using my specifications. I would want the following options

    1. 16 power range max.
    2. FFP !!!!!!
    3. Side Parallax
    4. Reticle with Windage hash marks only.
    5. Options on Windage turrets. Open or behind dust cap.
    6. No need for illuminated reticle
    7. 30 mm tube
    8. Elivation turrets in MOA.
    9. Compact and light weight
    10. ZERO STOP!!!
    11. Just let me know when it's finished so I can buy one. :D
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2011

    HARPERC Well-Known Member

    Jan 28, 2011
    US OPtics has some great choices available now, but you asked for my xmas list.
    1) Eye relief, more.
    2) FOV, more.
    I'm no scope expert, would a bigger ocular lens be a start on 1 and 2?
    3) 2.5-25x or 3-30x.
    4) I like the reticle choices you have, but as you customize any way, marketing wise having velocity reticles available wouldn't hurt. They should be FFP, and custom, not small medium and large. Personally I think these reticles are more serviceable on medium range guns, I'm putting one on a 6.5-284 semi auto. Intended target wolf/coyote, moving target, ranges to 600 yards.
    5) Weight would be important to me your SN3-17 is heavy for me, lighter is better, but I wouldn't go too light. Maybe 2 styles a 2.5-25 "lightweight" for guys traveling as they hunt, and a 4-40x "beast" for the heavy gun stationary folks.
    6) Good usable lens caps
    Fun to think about thanks for asking!
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2011

    ICANHITHIMMAN Well-Known Member

    Jan 31, 2008
    Hello Jason We have e-mailed many times before. Here is my list

    Price under 1500$
    Rectical must be thin
    30mm tube
    light as possable while still US Optics tough

    I already have one of your scopes so Im not worried about anything else.
  13. kcebcj

    kcebcj Well-Known Member

    Jan 28, 2008
    There are two types of long range hunters in my opinion. Those that set up on a vantage point and wait and those that hike mostly. I fall into the second category so here is what a good long range scope would be for me. Weight is a concern.

    A 10 magnification ratio with the low no higher than 3.

    Side parallax adjustment.

    Non illuminated reticle.

    42 - 44 mm objective lens.

    30 mm body.


    Power selector marked with "accurate" holdover power settings.

    Elevation turret in MOA. Built as low as possible yet accessible with gloves on.

    Zero stop.

    Reticle MOA @ 1moa spacing elevation and 2 moa spacing windage. Hash marks above the horizontal optional.

    Optional windage dust knob.

    Eye relief 4" min. throughout the power range.

    24 oz's or less.

    $1500 or less

    Lifetime warranty

    You build it I'll buy it!
  14. royinidaho

    royinidaho Well-Known Member

    Jan 20, 2004
    I'm with oliveralan, broz and kcebcj on this except for kcebcj's 40 mm objective suggestion.

    • 50mm or larger.
    • MP-8 type reticle, MOA-MOA reticle-turret.
    • Lowest practicable weight. Have to live by the Idaho 16 pound regulation for big game.

    I'm thinkin' the 375 Allen Magnum with some yet to be developed bullets.

    This scope would go onto it and the NXS would go onto the lighter 270 Allen Magnum.