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: 17600" data-attributes="member: 1879"><p><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></p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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> </p><p></p><p>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? </p><p></p><p> <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></p><p></p><p>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? </p><p></p><p>Then...</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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?</p><p></p><p> <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></p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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! </p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="snip1er, post: 17600, member: 1879"] <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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Long Range Scopes and Other Optics
uso or nf
Top