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="snip1er" data-source="post: 17588" data-attributes="member: 1879"><p><BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR> For instance, what can we tell about the "tracking error" referenced. Can't tell - too vague. But typical of these discussions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE></p><p></p><p>Ok, let me type really slow for you…the first 5 tested in '99 did not track. What that means is, when the little knob on the top of the scope was turned, the reticle was supposed to move, and then, when the next bullet was shot a the same distance, the bullet would now be in the newly located position as compared to the last shot before the little know was turned and before the reticle moved. Well, when the little knob was turned, the reticles did not move. The bullets would go into the same hole as the previous shot or would only be partially moved. </p><p></p><p>Now, lets look at the reason that the user that broke the USO scope did not condemn USO after the scope broke. Lets see, if you have 10 prototype scope in existence, and a user breaks one but doesn't say too much negative about it…maybe there is a reason he is one of only 10 people using that prototype? Do you think they just randomly pick names out of a phone book and send them prototype scopes? Or do companies usually use the same people, maybe the same people that they deal with on a regular basis. Maybe if they deal with a person on a regular basis then they have a relationship that goes a little deeper then a random person in the phone book. Do I need to spell that out too?</p><p></p><p>Now, on the same issue of the prototype scope that had the front end break off. This was not a completely new design that was going to revolutionize the scope industry. It was a new reticle. Do you think that every time Premier Reticles puts a new reticle in a Leupold scope, the it should be considered a prototype and exempt from the **** thing falling apart? </p><p></p><p>Ok, the flat spot. That was found by someone that builds my rifles, so I trust his judgment on this issue. When he was turning the little knob ( I am speaking slowly again), the little knob hit a spot where it ceased to do anything but spin. He said that you could turn it both directions and it just continued to spin. So, if we break that down into the grand scheme of USO malfunctions, that is a failure to track. If I turn the elevation turret and it doesn't do anything, that is a failure.</p><p></p><p>Lets continue…The next two scopes had wandering zeros. Day one had the scopes mounted and zeroed. I personally mounted a couple of these scopes, and if you want to take my scope mounting credentials into question, then we can do that later. The class was conducted for 6 high speed military snipers, all but one of which have been sniper qualified for at least a couple of years, a couple of them also attended SOTIC, and all of them have already seen combat at least twice in the last 2 years. So, to continue, after a full day of shooting and cleaning, the rifles are stored. The next day we start shooting at distance, and the dope is off what it should be. We check zero and have to adjust. Day three and four are the same. Everything was checked for tightness and mounting, but all checked out. Two of the 6 just didn't' want to hold a zero. They were off 3 – 4 moa each day.</p><p></p><p>Shall I go on, or am I going too fast again? Ok, well keep going. The next scope is placed on a new rifle. The scope is not brand new, but it is hardly used (less then 100 rounds). Dope is gathered using the scope. Day two rolls around and the dope is off. All the dope is off. Now, on day two, the rifle can not reach 1000 yards because when it is turned to 34 min it tops out, and that is with a 20moa base. That means, that at this point, the scope only has something like 14 min? Actually less because when it was toped out it still was hitting about 50 yards short of the target. That is another failure to track. I saw this in front of my very eyes, because I had to give the shooter my rifle to use for the rest of the event that was talking place. </p><p></p><p>I could go on about every little thing, but I think its pretty apparent to those that want to understand, that a failure to track is just that. When the elevation and windage knobs are turned and they either do not move the reticle or do not move the reticle the exact amount that each "click' represents, or the scope does not returned to zero as well as not holding zero, then these are failures to track. </p><p></p><p>What is that, 8 or 10 USO scopes that I have had, used, tested, watched, that had a failure to track? Do I just have really bad luck with USO scopes? Or maybe I just jinx USO scopes when I am around. If you believe that, then I am going to stick a coke bottle inside a paper towel tube and sell it for $3000. It will cost more then everything else, so it must be great! </p><p></p><p>As for a hard-on for a company. No, I have a hard-on for things that do not work and that are targeted to military and police. I have a real hard-on for products that can get someone killed because they fail and people know they fail, but cover up the problems. I have been using Leupold scopes in the military and elsewhere since 1991 and only had one break down. It was sent in and returned at no charge in about 3 weeks. So, let me explain that clearly for you again. Probably, 50 Leupold scopes in 12 years with one problem. 10 USO scopes in 5 years, and 10 problems. ****, maybe my math really sucks, or maybe its something else.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="snip1er, post: 17588, member: 1879"] <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR> For instance, what can we tell about the "tracking error" referenced. Can't tell - too vague. But typical of these discussions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ok, let me type really slow for you…the first 5 tested in ’99 did not track. What that means is, when the little knob on the top of the scope was turned, the reticle was supposed to move, and then, when the next bullet was shot a the same distance, the bullet would now be in the newly located position as compared to the last shot before the little know was turned and before the reticle moved. Well, when the little knob was turned, the reticles did not move. The bullets would go into the same hole as the previous shot or would only be partially moved. Now, lets look at the reason that the user that broke the USO scope did not condemn USO after the scope broke. Lets see, if you have 10 prototype scope in existence, and a user breaks one but doesn’t say too much negative about it…maybe there is a reason he is one of only 10 people using that prototype? Do you think they just randomly pick names out of a phone book and send them prototype scopes? Or do companies usually use the same people, maybe the same people that they deal with on a regular basis. Maybe if they deal with a person on a regular basis then they have a relationship that goes a little deeper then a random person in the phone book. Do I need to spell that out too? Now, on the same issue of the prototype scope that had the front end break off. This was not a completely new design that was going to revolutionize the scope industry. It was a new reticle. Do you think that every time Premier Reticles puts a new reticle in a Leupold scope, the it should be considered a prototype and exempt from the **** thing falling apart? Ok, the flat spot. That was found by someone that builds my rifles, so I trust his judgment on this issue. When he was turning the little knob ( I am speaking slowly again), the little knob hit a spot where it ceased to do anything but spin. He said that you could turn it both directions and it just continued to spin. So, if we break that down into the grand scheme of USO malfunctions, that is a failure to track. If I turn the elevation turret and it doesn’t do anything, that is a failure. Lets continue…The next two scopes had wandering zeros. Day one had the scopes mounted and zeroed. I personally mounted a couple of these scopes, and if you want to take my scope mounting credentials into question, then we can do that later. The class was conducted for 6 high speed military snipers, all but one of which have been sniper qualified for at least a couple of years, a couple of them also attended SOTIC, and all of them have already seen combat at least twice in the last 2 years. So, to continue, after a full day of shooting and cleaning, the rifles are stored. The next day we start shooting at distance, and the dope is off what it should be. We check zero and have to adjust. Day three and four are the same. Everything was checked for tightness and mounting, but all checked out. Two of the 6 just didn’t’ want to hold a zero. They were off 3 – 4 moa each day. Shall I go on, or am I going too fast again? Ok, well keep going. The next scope is placed on a new rifle. The scope is not brand new, but it is hardly used (less then 100 rounds). Dope is gathered using the scope. Day two rolls around and the dope is off. All the dope is off. Now, on day two, the rifle can not reach 1000 yards because when it is turned to 34 min it tops out, and that is with a 20moa base. That means, that at this point, the scope only has something like 14 min? Actually less because when it was toped out it still was hitting about 50 yards short of the target. That is another failure to track. I saw this in front of my very eyes, because I had to give the shooter my rifle to use for the rest of the event that was talking place. I could go on about every little thing, but I think its pretty apparent to those that want to understand, that a failure to track is just that. When the elevation and windage knobs are turned and they either do not move the reticle or do not move the reticle the exact amount that each “click’ represents, or the scope does not returned to zero as well as not holding zero, then these are failures to track. What is that, 8 or 10 USO scopes that I have had, used, tested, watched, that had a failure to track? Do I just have really bad luck with USO scopes? Or maybe I just jinx USO scopes when I am around. If you believe that, then I am going to stick a coke bottle inside a paper towel tube and sell it for $3000. It will cost more then everything else, so it must be great! As for a hard-on for a company. No, I have a hard-on for things that do not work and that are targeted to military and police. I have a real hard-on for products that can get someone killed because they fail and people know they fail, but cover up the problems. I have been using Leupold scopes in the military and elsewhere since 1991 and only had one break down. It was sent in and returned at no charge in about 3 weeks. So, let me explain that clearly for you again. Probably, 50 Leupold scopes in 12 years with one problem. 10 USO scopes in 5 years, and 10 problems. ****, maybe my math really sucks, or maybe its something else. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Long Range Scopes and Other Optics
uso or nf
Top