uso or nf

[Blaine Fields]

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.

 

[snip1er]

<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?

Then...

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.

 

[RBrowning]

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.

 

[Blaine Fields]

<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 **** 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.

[ 12-23-2003: Message edited by: Blaine Fields ]

 

[SCL]

John M.,
You wrote:
<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!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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.

Happy Holidays to All!
SCL

 

[snip1er]

<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

 

[xring01]

Blaine Whote

"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...

 

[Guest]

I'm tired of this argument - we're only burning the bandwidth at this point. This has been hashed, and rehashed, and debated and defended until all involved have become entrenched in their camps.

Why this has become so political is beyond me. It seems to have become a police action, people want to make sure the truth is heard, or at least their version of it. What else can be said about the topic of USO? If they're as bad as people say, they will go out of business. This is not a maybe, but the law of economics.

When something sucks, it goes away; a self correcting problem. USO is still here for now, so we'll have to sit and wait to see what comes of this.

[ 12-23-2003: Message edited by: farkiller ]

 

[Big John]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR> 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? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here's what really turned me off USO; about a year ago there was a thread on one of the other web sites about a customer purchased one of the fixed 10x power scopes, loaded with options pushing the price tag over $1700.00 He then experienced a slew of problems with it and USO's customer service. When he posted his first hand experiences, he was promptly viciously attacked by the USO faithful. Then our friend DMCI ( who spends a remarkable amount of time pushing USO products, yet claims he has no financial incentive to do so ) posted a reply signed by John Williams III that addressed the issue and ended with words to the effect that:

My Father has taken legal action against people for this sort of thing.

Now, that post has since been deleted, so that is not a verbatim quote. But since then, we have seen other posts on these boards from USO's management - written by their lawyers http://snipersparadise.com/sniperchat/index.php?showtopic=2568&st=30 ( there were more on another site, but those too have been deleted ) and we have seen people of this community be threatened, and actually sued by USO for voicing their experiences on USO products.

The message is clear. USO's service department is their attorneys office. But unfortunately for them, they don't seem to be winning too many suits. Right "Doc"?

Perhaps that's the reason for the 300% price increase over other scopes.

So Blaine, if you ask me, that's just another angle that USO uses that their customers don't expect.

I suppose that their legal battles would be justified if their scopes actually preformed as they claimed they perform. But too many people who use their rifles beyond bragging rights wall hangers have leaned from they professionals in the field that they are not the hot set up after all. Perhaps it's an American misconception that if you pay more you get more, but this is NOT the case with USO. You just pay more.

"Doctor" Williams, if you ever get the SN-3's working like you now advertise them to work - alas, how they SHOULD work, regardless of the inflated price tag, I'll buy one and post a pic of me holding it online just like your picture of your pretty office girls. But know this first. I broke the heart of a good friend after I proved to him this spring that his SN-3 was exhibiting the same problems traditional with USO's line. No, they just don't track right. Period. You will have to prove to this community FIRST that such issues are resolved and no, I don't have the funds to be the crash test dummy. My friend replaced the SN-3 with an $850 Gen 2 Leupold from Premier Reticles, and strangely all the problems disappeared. Low and behold he was able to hit the targets at long range.

So people, what's the better equipment - A $2300.00 + super scope that you can hammer nails into boards with, or an $850.00 scope that you can hit the target with?

[ 12-24-2003: Message edited by: Big John ]

 

[Nicholas]

I own USoptics, S&B, Nightforce, and Leupold scopes.

There are specific reasons I like each of them. I like the Nightforce because it has so much elevation adjustment, the thing I don't like about the NXS is that there is only 10 moa per rotation of the knob so it takes me 6 and 1/2 turns to get to 1800 yards. I have also been having some issues with the parallex and focus knobs on the NXS. I am currently waiting for a 3.8-22x44mm SN3 from USoptics that will have their 90 click BDC turret with over 70 MOA of elevation which will allow me to get to 2000 yards in less than two turns of the knob. If everything works like it is supposed to I think everyone can see the benefit of the USoptics over the NXS at least anyone who has been off a full revolution when it counted most. The thing I do not like about the high magnification USoptics scopes is the focus is located on the objective lense and is difficult to reach from behind the rifle, I really wish they would make a sidefocus knob like everyone else.

The USoptics ST10 10x44mm, I like this scope because of the BDC and the ranging brackets on the reticle, this is a very fast and lethal system which is very easy to use. I also like the clarity of the scope much brighter than Leupold. Things I don't like about the scope, the eye relief is a bit short and if I am not shooting in proper shooting position then it has bumped my eyebrow. I also wish the scope was more light weight. I cannot complain too much as it is the same weight as the S&B 4-16x PMII and the NXS 5-22x.

The S&B 4-16x PMII is an excellent scope and is the most perfectly designed scope I have come across. I love every feature about this scope. I wish more people made 34mm rings for it. I also wish they would release a higher magnification variable say a 5-22x scope with at least 70 MOA of elevation adjustment. My friend had difficulty getting a S&B scope repaired under the warranty, apparently one of the lenses moved slightly out of alignment giving some distortion along the edge of the field of view. He sent it to S&B to be repaired and received it back several months later with a letter stating that indeed there was distortion from the missalignment but that the lense was within acceptable tolerances so they didn't fix it.

Leupolds, these are the most economical scopes around. They get the job done, they are lightweight rugged scopes. The glass is very good, not near as good as the Nightforce, USoptics, or S&B, but the price makes up the difference. I am happy to see that Leupold scopes can now be had with the reticles in the front focal plain.

I have tested several USoptics scopes and all of the tracked perfectly and continue to track perfectly. I know others have had differing experiences with USoptics but I will continue to support John Jr. and his attempt to recover from the significant blow the company has sustained as a result of his father. He is an honerable man who has always been of great assistance to me.

[ 12-23-2003: Message edited by: sr90 ]

 

[Magnumdude]

I've watched these threads for a couple of years now (yes - years). I've had a couple of USO scopes through my hands - I had to sell a 3000.00 scope for 1500.00, and it broke my heart, but the tax man wanted a chunk of my butt. I had some minor problems with tracking, but in all fairness JB3 and his Dad have both been VERY accommodating to me. I cannot complain. I sent top of the line SN3 in, and Dr. Williams sent me a NEW scope as replacement within a week. (the one I had to sell) I will own another USO in the future if $$$ allows.

USO has treated me fairly. I'm no USO flag-waver, but I do recognize a good product when I see one.

 

[Brent]

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.

I believe a custom shop such as USO should not let any scope out the door that is not perfect in every way, and if that maeans selling less scopes to acomplish this, so be it, they'd be all the better for it. May be, they couldn't stay a float with those small numbers going out the door though, who knows. Someone with a decent head on their shoulders reviewing these failures and USO's overhead could surely tell.

The point is, nobody wants to see USO go under, but everyone that sees clearly knows they will if they don't start making every **** scope that goes out the door, stay out the door first time. People only give you a pass for so long. John makes a good point about a custom gunsmith letting flaws slip through the crack. This would be totally unacceptable and even if he did make it right in the end, what does that say about his attention to detail, and his interest and ability to satisfy his customers. I personally know of a couple gumsmiths, and have heard of many more than that, that would NEVER let a rifle go out of their shop that isn't perfect. Letting the customer bring it back and tell them something wasn't done right just isn't how they do buisness. But you know as well as I do, there are MANY, MANY people that operate this very way. Lack of respect for their customers, and pride in their work is what it comes down to.

USO has really gotton noticed from the advancements and otherwise unavailable options they've brought to us, but this in no way eliminates them from operating their buisness unscrupulously, for any reason, weather it be lack of revenue or lack of management, and I do hope they pull it together quickly... for everyones good.

It sounds to me, by the number of very nice scopes that function flawlessly that are in the hands of several guys, that they DO have the ABILITY to make the scopes the way we want them... PERFECT. The question is WHY is it that, either all the parts are not manufactured perfectly, inferior parts make it to the person doing the assembling, assembled incorrectly or sloppily, why they're not each tested rigorously for TRACKING and everything else, and anything else I forgot. The answers are right there somewhere, and believe me, they know exactly what is leading to every problem that happens, and you never will. They will either stop having them and correct what ever was the cause(s), or they will not and you will see more of the same results. Money talks, and if money's tight they may change. If they indeed are concerned with not letting a single inferior product out the door, which should be their GOAL, this will help us when times $$ are good. If they are truely in this just to make money with something no one else has quite yet, and not build a name into an awesome reputation at the same time... they are doomed. Their reputation is already creating problems for them that has undoubtedly cost then serious cash. I hope for their sake, they are not set themselves on a path to make up this loss in QUANTITY. Without QUALITY first, they are nothing.

I can seperate the fact from fiction and the reality of the situation for myself, so I appreciate being able to read all sides of these stories, I only hope there is more info to come, and from both sides. The more debate, the more I get a feel for what's really happening.

If I had bought a USO scope already and did have good luck with it, I would have to, in all good conscience tell them that their odds of getting a good one may be better than 50/50, but how much I'm not too sure of yet. Could you imagine having to say that about a custom barrel maker, a gunsmith, stockmaker, bullet maker, etc???
You live or die by your reputation. Sometimes folks get started off on the wrong foot putting something on the market too quick, sometimes they get things figured out quickly enough it don't hurt them too bad, sometimes they never recover from it. We almost always end up as guinea pigs at some level on a new product.

The guys that choke at the thought of spending that kind of money on a scope will just have to get over it if they want one. I know it would be a hard pill to swallow for me, but if the tone changes and they prove themselves worthy of my hard earned money, I've been known to help in the rewarding. Until then, I read on...

That's my bla, bla, bla...

 

[Blaine Fields]

John -

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR> So Blaine, if you ask me, that's just another angle that USO uses that their customers don't expect.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hope you are wrong about this. I know that there is currently a lawsuit pending that I am most unhappy with and will be glad when it is settled. However, I have tried to separate the product from the personalities. Sometimes that is difficult.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR> I broke the heart of a good friend after I proved to him this spring that his SN-3 was exhibiting the same problems traditional with USO's line. No, they just don't track right. Period. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now, this is interesting as I have an SN-3. It seems to be working just fine, but if you can describe the method you used to check the tracking, I'll use it and report the result.

 

[Big John]

No Problem Blaine, Here's the story. 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, I invited him down to my place as I am fortunate enough to have my own range "in the back yard". To my delight he accepted my invitation and after confirming the SN-3's zero at 100 yards, he was eager to shoot the 400 yard targets. When we got there he mentioned that he never shot that distance and asked what the come up was for Federal 168's. I told him I use only Black Hills 175's but given the variables, it should be somewhere around 8.5 MOA. What followed was a lot of intense spotting, wondering and head scratching. Before he was able to make a hit at 400 yards, he was dialed down to 3 MOA. First suspecting the ammo, we switched my BH & his Federal through both of our 308's. There was a slight difference in the splash through both our rifles, but nothing surprising beyond the suspiciously low drop of either ammo fired under a USO.

Going down the line and eliminating all other possibilities ( rifle, rail, rings, ammo, chronograph ect...) we then conducted the following tests; After first zeroing the rifle at 100 yards - range verified by a construction tape measure & LRF, we commenced "the one MOA +" Five one half inch dots were put on a sheet of paper in a "+" formation. The center of each dot was exactly 1.047" from the cross' center dot. Then holding the crosshairs on the center dot at all times, left 1 moa ( 4 1/4 MOA clicks ) fire three, up 1 MOA - right 1 MOA fire three, ( ect ect ect.. ) until all dots were engaged with three rounds. Allowing for shooter error and ammunition deviation, it was close, but definitely not correct. We then expanded the test To verify the problem, we put a dot on the back side of a B-27 target, checked the 100 yard zero, came up 4 minutes - fired three, came up 4 minutes- fired three ect.... but all the while holding the aim on the bottom dot. Now, the first group above the zero dot should of been at 4.188" above the dot, the second at 8.376 ect.. and should allow for 1/2 MOA margin of error on account of the rifles accuracy. I don't remember the exact particulars off hand, ( Give me a break here Blaine, it's 0430 Hrs in the morning

) but the first group was at about 6.5 inches above the dot, and the more you dialed it, the further it was off. But that readily explained the "Flatter Trajectory" when the rifle was wearing the USO at the 400 yard targets.

This was NOT a one time test! We repeated and went back & forth, over and under this issue once a week for the next 2 1/2 months expending over 1 case of Federal Match ammo in multiple scenarios. Same problem. What finally resolved the issue? A Premier Reticles Leupold Vari X III 4x14x50 M1 Tactical. No surprises after that.

I will say this about USO. If they ever get their act together, they could be a dominating force in the world of rifle scopes. I was very impressed with the clear glass and entire reticle illumination. But those advantages mean nothing when it's not tracking correctly.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR> I have tried to separate the product from the personalities. Sometimes that is difficult. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In a community this small, It's not difficult. Its impossible. Most of these companies are so small that individually they with all their staff can comfortably sit in my living room, and same with the teams this gear goes to. So bullying people with lawsuits is career suicide. And it's more then just Mike Miller. USO needs to dazzle us with their product line brilliance, not baffle us with BS litigation. Add to the mix that their products are failing at an alarming rate whilst charging as much as three times over comparable scopes of their competitors..... Not the way to win friends and keep them. IMHO.

I meant what I said about buying a USO AFTER all the problems are worked out and AFTER it is thouraly field tested and AFTER they have a MAJOR change in their engineering and management. On paper, It's the best scope out there. On Paper... If they ever can get them to do as they claim, there may be something worth buying. But sure as H3ll not now. Again - MHO.

Perhaps USO and their faithful need to look at people like Snip1er, myself and others as offering a real solution to their woes, instead of cut, pasting & forwarding our comments to their Lawyers.

Regards,
Big John