Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Long Range Scopes and Other Optics
uso or nf
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Blaine Fields" data-source="post: 17587" data-attributes="member: 183"><p>As usual, another USO discussion winds up in USO bashing. The fact that someone knows someone who had a USO scope break, not track, have a flat spot, etc., etc., is absolutely meaningless as a "fact." No manufacture sells 100% perfect products. All manufacturers have unhappy customers. </p><p></p><p>What percentage of scopes made by USO come back to the factory within the first year of sale? What is the primary cause of return? What is the average turn around time for repair? Upon return, how many remain unrepaired? What is the percentage of USO scopes still in use? What is the rate of resale? What is the rate of satisfaction among owners? How do these numbers compare with Leupold, NF, etc. In terms of the components, are there any better components used by any other manufacturer?</p><p></p><p>Unless those that bash the USO product can actually produce specific facts concerning the forgoing issues, then the repetition of a collection of negative individual reports is just so much hot air.</p><p></p><p>There seem to be a number of people with significant hard-ons for this company. I don't know why and don't really care. But one thing is for sure, the retelling of these various "horror stories" are of absolutely no value. For instance, the scope that was dropped and broke - this was a prototype built to try out the Horus reticle. It wasn't a production model. Even the guy who was testing the scope didn't condemn USO - so why is anyone else? Take a look at the criticisms listed by Snip1er and ask yourself whether you can tell exactly what the problem is, or is the claim vague? For instance, what can we tell about the "tracking error" referenced. Can't tell - too vague. But typical of these discussions.</p><p></p><p>The one thing that would be useful in these types of discussions is for a poster to state exactly what the problem is and what the fix is. That way, the nature of flaw can be precisely understood and evaluated. Unfortunately, I have yet to read one these USO attacks that is close to being that fair.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Blaine Fields, post: 17587, member: 183"] As usual, another USO discussion winds up in USO bashing. The fact that someone knows someone who had a USO scope break, not track, have a flat spot, etc., etc., is absolutely meaningless as a "fact." No manufacture sells 100% perfect products. All manufacturers have unhappy customers. What percentage of scopes made by USO come back to the factory within the first year of sale? What is the primary cause of return? What is the average turn around time for repair? Upon return, how many remain unrepaired? What is the percentage of USO scopes still in use? What is the rate of resale? What is the rate of satisfaction among owners? How do these numbers compare with Leupold, NF, etc. In terms of the components, are there any better components used by any other manufacturer? Unless those that bash the USO product can actually produce specific facts concerning the forgoing issues, then the repetition of a collection of negative individual reports is just so much hot air. There seem to be a number of people with significant hard-ons for this company. I don't know why and don't really care. But one thing is for sure, the retelling of these various "horror stories" are of absolutely no value. For instance, the scope that was dropped and broke - this was a prototype built to try out the Horus reticle. It wasn't a production model. Even the guy who was testing the scope didn't condemn USO - so why is anyone else? Take a look at the criticisms listed by Snip1er and ask yourself whether you can tell exactly what the problem is, or is the claim vague? For instance, what can we tell about the "tracking error" referenced. Can't tell - too vague. But typical of these discussions. The one thing that would be useful in these types of discussions is for a poster to state exactly what the problem is and what the fix is. That way, the nature of flaw can be precisely understood and evaluated. Unfortunately, I have yet to read one these USO attacks that is close to being that fair. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Long Range Scopes and Other Optics
uso or nf
Top