• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

Rifle Scopes New USO SN3 Glass Quality

Re: New USO SN3 Glass Quality

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dark Horse</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There have been a hell of a lot of tactical shooters that have made some serious long range shots with scopes nowhere close in overall quality as a USO. This glass debate is tiresome, I would like someone to demonstrate a situation that arises where a shot could not be made with a USO but could be with a Schmidt, Nightforce or whatever other tube that happens to be the topic of conversation. </div></div>

People that pay this much money for a scope want the highest quality components and best clarity glass they can get. I don't think anyone that buys these scopes is under the illusion a difficult shot could only be made with these scopes. They are tools and better tools help you meet your objectives easier. I don't know where you got the idea that I or other buyers of these scopes think only high end scopes are capable of making long range shots. No one is forcing people to buy these scopes. This was a simple quick review of a scope comparing the glass to a S&B PMII. If the scope is too expensive for some then don't buy it. You don't have to buy a $4,000 H&K 416 to have a good, reliable AR 15. It seems kind of silly to make comments like this IMO.

Also even if the superior clarity of some scopes makes no difference at all in making the shot, why not get the best picture for the money?
 
Re: New USO SN3 Glass Quality

Sorry i can not take any scope with an "Adjustable Objective' Seriously
 
Re: New USO SN3 Glass Quality

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fx1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sorry i can not take any scope with an "Adjustable Objective' Seriously </div></div>

Any reasons or just trolling?
 
Re: New USO SN3 Glass Quality

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fx1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sorry i can not take any scope with an "Adjustable Objective' Seriously </div></div>

This is funny...
 
Re: New USO SN3 Glass Quality

why? you afraid the enemy might see your left arm when you reach up to adjust your parallax? Or it looks? Be honest!!
I prefer Side Focus but I wont elimiate a scope from purchase because of AO specifically because of what I use them for.
 
Re: New USO SN3 Glass Quality

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tucsondave</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I got a thing for S&B
008ka.jpg


But I'am trying something new. Very Impressive too.
008cv.jpg
</div></div>

Jeez Dave...every post you make I hate you more and more!
laugh.gif
laugh.gif
 
Re: New USO SN3 Glass Quality

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Falar</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fx1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sorry i can not take any scope with an "Adjustable Objective' Seriously </div></div>

Any reasons or just trolling? </div></div>

Check out the world class scope makers and take a look how many of them use 'Adjustable Objectives'

This is a royal pain in the ass. its hard to focus the image while keeping your eye on the target when shooting foxes or rabbits let alone if a talibany is shooting back!

99$ hawk scopes use this feature because its 'Cheap'

Premium scopes use side focus on a 3rd turret for a very good reason.

im always suspicous when a company feels the need to put a huge white branded logo across the side of the scope in size 56 font.

Not to mention that the scope has been hit with the ugly stick.
 
Re: New USO SN3 Glass Quality

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fx1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">im always suspicous when a company feels the need to put a huge white branded logo across the side of the scope in size 56 font..</div></div>

crazy.gif
Err....you mean like Schmidt and Bender...or Premier?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fx1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not to mention that the scope has been hit with the ugly stick.</div></div>

I never thought hammers were exactly "pretty" but, as a tool, they do their job!
 
Re: New USO SN3 Glass Quality

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Premium scopes use side focus on a 3rd turret for a very good reason.</div></div>

....and that is?

John III
 
Re: New USO SN3 Glass Quality

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fx1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
This is a royal pain in the ass. its hard to focus the image while keeping your eye on the target when shooting foxes or rabbits let alone if a talibany is shooting back! </div></div>
You have no idea how to use parallax control of either type.......

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fx1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
im always suspicous when a company feels the need to put a huge white branded logo across the side of the scope in size 56 font.
</div></div>

Funny, if you are referring to the US Optics logo you are pretty clueless in your AO/SF argument anyway because the logo is on their TPal (side focus) scopes, not their Ergo (AO) scopes.

Side focus adds a lens that may or may not allow someone with corrected vision to eliminate parallax AND get a clear sight picture at the same time.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fx1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
im always suspicous </div></div>

I'm always suspicious when some FNG pops up talking out of the side of their neck........

Please clarify your statement as JBW#3 requested above, I'm very curious to hear what the arfcom dirtshooter's perspective is on quality optics.
 
Re: New USO SN3 Glass Quality

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sobrbiker883</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fx1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
This is a royal pain in the ass. its hard to focus the image while keeping your eye on the target when shooting foxes or rabbits let alone if a talibany is shooting back! </div></div>
You have no idea how to use parallax control of either type.......

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fx1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
im always suspicous when a company feels the need to put a huge white branded logo across the side of the scope in size 56 font.
</div></div>

Funny, if you are referring to the US Optics logo you are pretty clueless in your AO/SF argument anyway because the logo is on their TPal (side focus) scopes, not their Ergo (AO) scopes.

Side focus adds a lens that may or may not allow someone with corrected vision to eliminate parallax AND get a clear sight picture at the same time.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fx1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
im always suspicous </div></div>

I'm always suspicious when some FNG pops up talking out of the side of their neck........

Please clarify your statement as JBW#3 requested above, I'm very curious to hear what the arfcom dirtshooter's perspective is on quality optics. </div></div>

i know exactly what paralax is and how to use it.

i also know that it turns a blurred image into a sharp one too.

plus i also know how crap having it on the front objective is.

1) you cannot see the distance marks from prone like you can on side px.

2) its near impossible to adjust it from prone whilst tracking a moving target.

3) its the cheapest way to implement px adjustment into a scope.

Just because someone doesnt have 7000 posts on a forum doesnt mean he knows about shooting.

i have owned and shot both types so im not talking shit.

when S&B or Zeiss start offering Adj Obj then ill sit up and listen
 
Re: New USO SN3 Glass Quality

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fx1</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Falar</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fx1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sorry i can not take any scope with an "Adjustable Objective' Seriously </div></div>

Any reasons or just trolling? </div></div>

Check out the world class scope makers and take a look how many of them use 'Adjustable Objectives'

This is a royal pain in the ass. its hard to focus the image while keeping your eye on the target when shooting foxes or rabbits let alone if a talibany is shooting back!

99$ hawk scopes use this feature because its 'Cheap'

Premium scopes use side focus on a 3rd turret for a very good reason.

im always suspicous when a company feels the need to put a huge white branded logo across the side of the scope in size 56 font.

Not to mention that the scope has been hit with the ugly stick. </div></div>

Wow, you are the dumbest person i have ever seen online, and Ive seen my share of dumbasses on this forum!

Its clear that you have never used a USO, beause you would know that on the AO model, when set to 300y, it is clear from 100-650 yards, and when set to infinity, it is clear from 650y to the moon. so there really is no need to adjust it every time you change distance as it is very forgiving. Unlike the side focus models that need to be adjusted every 100 yards.

Another thing you may not know is that a AO model has less lenses inside the scope, which translates to better light transmission and less things to break. And as for the looks, really? are you fucking serious? Didnt realize the outside looks of a scope were a factor when choosing the right TOOL FOR THE JOB!!!!

I bet you think the best scopes in the world are Leupolds, If thats true, please by all means, stick with them, never order a USO as I think the company will be dumber If they ever talk to you on the phone.
 
Re: New USO SN3 Glass Quality

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fx1</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sobrbiker883</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fx1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
This is a royal pain in the ass. its hard to focus the image while keeping your eye on the target when shooting foxes or rabbits let alone if a talibany is shooting back! </div></div>
You have no idea how to use parallax control of either type.......

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fx1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
im always suspicous when a company feels the need to put a huge white branded logo across the side of the scope in size 56 font.
</div></div>

Funny, if you are referring to the US Optics logo you are pretty clueless in your AO/SF argument anyway because the logo is on their TPal (side focus) scopes, not their Ergo (AO) scopes.

Side focus adds a lens that may or may not allow someone with corrected vision to eliminate parallax AND get a clear sight picture at the same time.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fx1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
im always suspicous </div></div>

I'm always suspicious when some FNG pops up talking out of the side of their neck........

Please clarify your statement as JBW#3 requested above, I'm very curious to hear what the arfcom dirtshooter's perspective is on quality optics. </div></div>

i know exactly what paralax is and how to use it.

i also know that it turns a blurred image into a sharp one too.

plus i also know how crap having it on the front objective is.

1) you cannot see the distance marks from prone like you can on side px.

2) its near impossible to adjust it from prone whilst tracking a moving target.

3) its the cheapest way to implement px adjustment into a scope.

Just because someone doesnt have 7000 posts on a forum doesnt mean he knows about shooting. </div></div>

USMCj's post above pretty much said it all but one more thing:

With USO's Ergo, you CAN see the settings from behind the scope, unlike other optics with AOs.
 
Re: New USO SN3 Glass Quality

One thing I forgot to add, you do realize that USO makes both types, side focus and ERGO, so you statment of them trying to be cheap by making AO is just fucking stupid, much like everything els that you have typed on this forum.
 
Re: New USO SN3 Glass Quality

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: USMCj</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fx1</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Falar</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fx1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sorry i can not take any scope with an "Adjustable Objective' Seriously </div></div>

Any reasons or just trolling? </div></div>

Check out the world class scope makers and take a look how many of them use 'Adjustable Objectives'

This is a royal pain in the ass. its hard to focus the image while keeping your eye on the target when shooting foxes or rabbits let alone if a talibany is shooting back!

99$ hawk scopes use this feature because its 'Cheap'

Premium scopes use side focus on a 3rd turret for a very good reason.

im always suspicous when a company feels the need to put a huge white branded logo across the side of the scope in size 56 font.

Not to mention that the scope has been hit with the ugly stick. </div></div>

Wow, you are the dumbest person i have ever seen online, and Ive seen my share of dumbasses on this forum!

Its clear that you have never used a USO, beause you would know that on the AO model, when set to 300y, it is clear from 100-650 yards, and when set to infinity, it is clear from 650y to the moon. so there really is no need to adjust it every time you change distance as it is very forgiving. Unlike the side focus models that need to be adjusted every 100 yards.

Another thing you may not know is that a AO model has less lenses inside the scope, which translates to better light transmission and less things to break. And as for the looks, really? are you fucking serious? Didnt realize the outside looks of a scope were a factor when choosing the right TOOL FOR THE JOB!!!!

I bet you think the best scopes in the world are Leupolds, If thats true, please by all means, stick with them, never order a USO as I think the company will be dumber If they ever talk to you on the phone. </div></div>

No the best scopes are Zeiss and S&B.

i dont see any international militarys lining up to buy these scopes. Nor do i see them being exported to retail markets in europe.

reminds me of the other famous export scope you guys have got.

Counter Sniper Optics is it?
 
Re: New USO SN3 Glass Quality

OMFG, you can not be that fucking stupid. Look I dont know if you are trying to bump up your post count, or you are just another troll looking to stir shit up...but did you just compare USO to Counter Shitter? And did you just say us guys? let me guess, you are in Europe, and nothing beats European made scopes..because everything Euros make are better then everything "us" US folks make, right?

Here let me help you out, Ill sent you this, please use it and report back.....
suicide-gun.jpg
 
Re: New USO SN3 Glass Quality

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">i know exactly what paralax is and how to use it.

i also know that it turns a blurred image into a sharp one too.</div></div>

Perhaps you know less than you think.

The purpose of a parallax adjustment is to place the target and the reticle on the same optical plane, so that moving one's head slightly does not cause a shift in the position of the target with respect to the reticle. It's often the case that it also makes the image of the target sharper, although not necessarily, but that is not the purpose of the adjustment.

I have owned and extensively used a U.S.O. scope with an adjustable objective. I actually prefer it. Because of its position, having the AO makes the precise adjustment of that lens much less critical. I found that I could adjust that lens for about 600 yards and shoot anything from 300 to 1000 yards without needing to adjust it at all.

Which makes shooting moving targets easier. No adjustment is the easiest one of all.

I wish more scope makers realized the utility of an adjustable objective and offered it.
 
Re: New USO SN3 Glass Quality

I've got SF on my S&B but I never look at the turret when adjusting...I go by the image thru the scope.

Other than an unfamilliar stretch/reach, I can't see why it should be any more difficult to adjust an AO...you're still using your free hand?

FWIW...I wouldn't knock it until I've tried it.
 
Re: New USO SN3 Glass Quality

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">i know exactly what paralax is and how to use it.

i also know that it turns a blurred image into a sharp one too.</div></div>

Perhaps you know less than you think.

The purpose of a parallax adjustment is to place the target and the reticle on the same optical plane, so that moving one's head slightly does not cause a shift in the position of the target with respect to the reticle. It's often the case that it also makes the image of the target sharper, although not necessarily, but that is not the purpose of the adjustment.

I have owned and extensively used a U.S.O. scope with an adjustable objective. I actually prefer it. Because of its position, having the AO makes the precise adjustment of that lens much less critical. I found that I could adjust that lens for about 600 yards and shoot anything from 300 to 1000 yards without needing to adjust it at all.

Which makes shooting moving targets easier. No adjustment is the easiest one of all.

I wish more scope makers realized the utility of an adjustable objective and offered it.

</div></div>

Yes i know what px is and how it affects scopes.

I just know for a fact that Adj Obj is the cheapest way of implementing this feature.

if Obj Adj is the best way then why do they use side px on their top of the line scope?

if it was the best it would be on all of their scopes then wouldnt it?

As i said when S&B Zeiss or Swarovski offer a Obj Adj then ill sit up and listen.

USMCJ there is no need to get all worked up and insulting when you try and defend your purchase or Purchase(s)

I have my views and you have yours.

When i say 'You guys' yes im not from America. Im British, im not defending Euro anything just because im European.

and i certainly wouldnt defend bloody Germany of all places.

But their optics and scopes are currently the best.

I also dont think anything america makes is crap because its not. I have about $3500 worth of PVS14 Gen 3 Night vision and you guys lead the world in that sense.

But my original comment was that i would never take seriously a scope with ADJ OBJ.

The scopes maybe bomb proof and very good but personally im not a fan of that 1 feature.

please respond with curtesy not testosterone
 
Re: New USO SN3 Glass Quality

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">please respond with curtesy not testosterone.</div></div>

I would if I knew what "curtesy" was.

It's already been pointed out that U.S.O. offers scopes with both kinds of parallax adjustment, at the buyer's option. One thing which makes their scopes popular is that they build each one pretty much to the customer's specifications.

I got that you don't like adjustable objective lenses. I'm not too fond of people who cannot consistently capitalize "I". Everone has preferences.

 
Re: New USO SN3 Glass Quality

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fx1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
i know exactly what paralax is and how to use it.
<span style="color: #3333FF">-obviously not or you would not make statement #1 below</span>
i also know that it turns a blurred image into a sharp one too.
<span style="color: #3366FF">-eliminating parallax and focus are not the same thing</span>
plus i also know how crap having it on the front objective is.

1) you cannot see the distance marks from prone like you can on side px.

2) its near impossible to adjust it from prone whilst tracking a moving target.
<span style="color: #3366FF"> -you really expect me to believe that you adjust your parallax control while tracking a moving target??</span>

3) its the cheapest way to implement px adjustment into a scope.

Just because someone doesnt have 7000 posts on a forum doesnt mean he knows about shooting.
<span style="color: #3366FF"> -I think you don't know what you are talking about from your demeanor and content, not your post count.</span>

i have owned and shot both types so im not talking shit.

<span style="color: #3366FF"> -sounds like you have owned a piece of crap with an AO and have allowed that experience to color your whole frame of reference</span>

when S&B or Zeiss start offering Adj Obj then ill sit up and listen

<span style="color: #3366FF">When more benchrest records (parallax can kind of screw up a good run in that game) are held by folks shooting S&B and Zeiss than NF (or Lightforce) scopes with AO I'll sit up and listen</span></div></div>

There are reasons for both systems, but they are just not the reasons you are stating.
 
Re: New USO SN3 Glass Quality

Hey, the guy might might be a douche bag...

...but I like the parallax adjustment on the side.

It is a personal choice.

I remember being at Tac-Pro and Skunk was top-feeding his rifle. Frank told Skunk, "You know they make bottom metal w/magazines now."

Basically..."Keep up w/ the times."

Maybe (AO) scopes have/had their place.

-Al
 
Re: New USO SN3 Glass Quality

Very True CC, but the thread is actually about USO's optical quality and if I'm not mistaken, its the been the experience (rather extensive) of the principal of US Optics that its easier to maintain ptical clarity using less lenses not more, thus the existence of the USO ERGO in the lineup still.
TPals are available, and I run both-out of the two I prefer ERGO (AO).
 
Re: New USO SN3 Glass Quality

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BasraBoy</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tucsondave</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I got a thing for S&B
008ka.jpg


But I'am trying something new. Very Impressive too.
008cv.jpg
</div></div>

Jeez Dave...every post you make I hate you more and more!
laugh.gif
laugh.gif
</div></div>


Damn,Andrew,I thought we were buds. LOL
 
Re: New USO SN3 Glass Quality

FX1
Like many on this site, I have a variety of scopes, S&B, Zeiss, USO, Leupold, Burris Black Diamond, Shepard, etc. (And, I have two USO's currently on order.) I not qualified by any means to say who makes the best scope. But, having said all that, if you have any USO scopes that you are unhappy with, I'll gladly trade you out of a Zeiss or whatever.
 
Re: New USO SN3 Glass Quality

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: USMCj</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...
Another thing you may not know is that a AO model has less lenses inside the scope, which translates to better light transmission and less things to break.
... </div></div>

"Less lenses" seems to be a property of scopes that many people are especially fond of. Sure, you can design a scope with a minimum of lenses. The resultiing image will probably be marginally brighter when measured - and look like crap. The glass inside a scope isn't just being placed there for fun, but for creating imagies with high resolution and contrast. Many times, reducing specific optical abberations is achieved by "splitting" a single element and replacing it either by two single lenses or a cemented doublet. Although it would be possible to use an objective design using a single lens, nobody would want to cope with the resulting image today.

That being said, modern optical designs have a lot more lenses than necessary to just create a (crappy) image, and many more sophisticated designs have have the lens that is being moved in a side focus scope anyway, so it is just a matter of the mechanics of moving an internal lens versus moving the front lens group in an AO design. I'm not aware of one design being inherently better (optically) if done correctly. Mechanically, I'd imagine that creating an AO mechanism that doesn't shift zero during adjustment would require extremely tigtht tolerances regarding the centering and tolerance-free movement of the objective assembly, otherwise shift of zero very much like in SFP scopes during magnification chnages might occur.
 
Re: New USO SN3 Glass Quality

Gotcha sobrbiker...

...Go Suns (raised in Paradise Valley). I still would be going for Dallas...but they sucked ass. Waiting for football to start.

-Al
 
Re: New USO SN3 Glass Quality

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Many times, reducing specific optical abberations is achieved by "splitting" a single element and replacing it either by two single lenses or a cemented doublet. </div></div>

True, however, the more lens surfaces, especially air spaced, the greater the loss of transmission.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Mechanically, I'd imagine that creating an AO mechanism that doesn't shift zero during adjustment would require extremely tigtht tolerances regarding the centering and tolerance-free movement of the objective assembly, otherwise shift of zero very much like in SFP scopes during magnification chnages might occur.
</div></div>

Like wise with a turret parallax adjustment.

John III
 
Re: New USO SN3 Glass Quality

<span style="font-weight: bold">I just know for a fact that Adj Obj is the cheapest way of implementing this feature. </span>

Can't dispute you there because I'm not a manufacturer and don't know the cost, but I tend to agree considering the less parts that would be required for Adj. Obj., but still can't say for sure. If you can share the "fact" you are referencing I'd like to see it, just to satisfy my curiosity.

<span style="font-weight: bold">if Obj Adj is the best way then why do they use side px on their top of the line scope?</span>

Because while USO prefers Adj. Obj. themselves (as stated on their website), they know there will be shooters like you who would prefer side parallax scopes, so they offer that option, instead of making scopes one way, and one way only and MAKE you accept it, and believe that it is the only way and best way to do it.

By the way, not quite sure what you meant by "their top of the line scope"? What criteria do you use to differentiate one USO scope as being USO's "top of the line" vs. another USO scope? Price? Number of options? Did you happen to notice USO offers two TPAL (side parallax) models while all the rest are Adj. Obj.? If price was an indication of "top of the line", I would certainly not consider the SN3-TPAL models as "top of the line", as the base SN-9 is already $3,900 US, and oh, it uses the Adj. Obj.

<span style="font-weight: bold">if it was the best it would be on all of their scopes then wouldnt it?</span>

Refer back to my statements above...

If the luxury car manufacturers like Mercedes Benz, BMW, Lexus, and Acura operated under the same business models as you've described, they would only be able to afford to build one car, because it will have the best of everything, and it will sell at a premium price affordable only to a small circle of people. But guess what? They each have at least 10+ models, each at a different trim level with different engines and audio systems, costing anywhere from $25,000 US to much higher and for what? So people can pick and choose what they want and what they can afford. To say the engine in the BMW 760i is the best they can offer so it must be used in a BMW 3 series is silly at best...

<span style="font-weight: bold">But my original comment was that i would never take seriously a scope with ADJ OBJ.</span>

Sounds like someone I've read about who can't make a left turn when he drives or walks... I think he has obsessive compulsive disorder...
 
Re: New USO SN3 Glass Quality

I have today asked USO for a quote on a ST-17 with a very specific configuration that none of the European makers can make. If I order the ST-17 it will cost exactly the same as I'll have to pay for a S&B 4-16x50 PMII in Norway. However, I'm 100% sure I'll score more points with the ST-17 for the game I'm shooting. Easy choice.
 
Re: New USO SN3 Glass Quality

US Optics are probably the only scope maker to charge that kind of money for a front ADJ OBJ scope. its normally a feature on cheaper models of a makers portfolio. with side px being on the expensive scopes. it also normally makes a scope much longer which isnt desirable.

US Optics arent an authority on optics they have only been around since 1990.

If it was such a good way to implement the feature then Zeiss and S&B would have it on at least 1 of their scopes.

People seem to like them because they have a solid build and alot of Tacticool features on them.

i have never owned one since they are not for sale in the UK, nor would i purchase one since i can get S&B scopes cheaper than you guys can in America which makes choosing a high end scope easier.

I have only you guys opinions on the glass inside i have no idea who makes it? Schott maybe?
 
Re: New USO SN3 Glass Quality

If there's one thing I've noticed on the Hide lately, it's that some folks have an impossible time stating their opinion tactfully.

Anywho, I prefer side parallax adjustment due to it's convenient location and ease of use. However, I'll gladly own a USO with the ERGO (AO) type adjustment.

Also, less-expensive (or even least-expensive) does not equal cheap. Just in case you weren't aware, Fx1.
 
Re: New USO SN3 Glass Quality

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fx1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
No the best scopes are Zeiss and S&B.
</div></div>

Swarovski would be my pic for glass quality.

I think the best thing about USO is getting the scope ordered to your specifications. Knobs, reticle, obj size+adjustability, finish, etc. I can't think of many manufacturers out there that do that.
 
Re: New USO SN3 Glass Quality

Yes Swaro have some very nice scopes. the Ballistic turret looks useful.

there is no scientific comparisons between S&B, Zeiss and Swaro, so its hard to tell
 
Re: New USO SN3 Glass Quality

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> US Optics are probably the only scope maker to charge that kind of money for a front ADJ OBJ scope. its normally a feature on cheaper models of a makers portfolio. with side px being on the expensive scopes. <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="text-decoration: underline">it also normally makes a scope much longer which isnt desirable</span>.</span></div></div>

This is one that I have never heard yet.....interesting. I would LOVE to hear the thoughts behind this one.
John III
 
Re: New USO SN3 Glass Quality

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JBW#3</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> US Optics are probably the only scope maker to charge that kind of money for a front ADJ OBJ scope. its normally a feature on cheaper models of a makers portfolio. with side px being on the expensive scopes. <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="text-decoration: underline">it also normally makes a scope much longer which isnt desirable</span>.</span></div></div>

This is one that I have never heard yet.....interesting. I would LOVE to hear the thoughts behind this one.
John III </div></div>

S&B PMII 5-25 is 16.14 inches long, and according to US optics their 3.8-22 is 18.5 inches. it also weighs 50 grams more.
 
Re: New USO SN3 Glass Quality

A sample size of "one" doesn't justify the conclusion that something is "normally" the case. That's just like saying "The British don't understand riflescopes" just because I met somebody from Britain who didn't.
Seriously, I'm not here to defend US Optics, but your combination of conviction and ignorance about the technical aspects is as annoying to me as it probably ist to John in this case. Posts like this start rumors about technical correlations that simply do not exist and are annoying to disprove time and again. I think the more people know about how their gear works, the better for them and also for those companies who don't bullshit their customers because they don't need to.
 
Re: New USO SN3 Glass Quality

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fx1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">US Optics ...........i have never owned one </div></div>

And that right there just about sums up the entire debate. Thanks for sharing your vast experience with US Optics.
 
Re: New USO SN3 Glass Quality

the front AO scope IS normally longer than the equivalent side Px scope, i have seen Bushnells, Leupolds and other AO scopes which look very long.

also 2.5 inches is a heck of alot longer
 
Re: New USO SN3 Glass Quality


+1 what John said... I'd also like to hear why "longer" scopes aren't desirable. I'm not saying they are, but just wondering why they aren't...


<span style="font-weight: bold">US Optics arent an authority on optics they have only been around since 1990.</span>

Please... And S&B is? Who would you consider to be an authority on optics? If "seniority" is important then I guess we would have to consult with the Dutch since the first telescope was invented in the Netherlands in the 17th century/

Also, that is like saying HTC can't make a state of the art phone (Droid) like Nokia can because HTC has only been around since 1997. Really???!!!

 
Re: New USO SN3 Glass Quality

And this is bad because?

If I were very concerned about the overall length of my current primary scope, I wouldn't have on it a 6" sunshade. I'm not, so I do.

My SN3 did kind of look like the Hubble telescope, but chicks dig it.
 
Re: New USO SN3 Glass Quality

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sobrbiker883</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fx1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">US Optics ...........i have never owned one </div></div>

And that right there just about sums up the entire debate. Thanks for sharing your vast experience with US Optics. </div></div>

i didnt claim i did, i just said i wouldnt consider one since most have the AO and hunting with AO is a pain in the ass. plus i can get a PMII for less money and imo this is hands down better and your government agreed when they canceled USO's contract for S&B scopes
 
Re: New USO SN3 Glass Quality

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: David S.</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A sample size of "one" doesn't justify the conclusion that something is "normally" the case. That's just like saying "The British don't understand riflescopes" just because I met somebody from Britain who didn't.
Seriously, I'm not here to defend US Optics, but your combination of conviction and ignorance about the technical aspects is as annoying to me as it probably ist to John in this case. Posts like this start rumors about technical correlations that simply do not exist and are annoying to disprove time and again. I think the more people know about how their gear works, the better for them and also for those companies who don't bullshit their customers because they don't need to. </div></div>

+1, so much to say about something he has never owned.
it sure start to get annoying
 
Re: New USO SN3 Glass Quality

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fx1</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sobrbiker883</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fx1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">US Optics ...........i have never owned one </div></div>

And that right there just about sums up the entire debate. Thanks for sharing your vast experience with US Optics. </div></div>

i didnt claim i did, i just said i wouldnt consider one since most have the AO and hunting with AO is a pain in the ass. plus i can get a PMII for less money and imo this is hands down better and your government agreed when they canceled USO's contract for S&B scopes </div></div>


And when was the last time YOUR government made correct and impartial decisions about everything, while disregarding all outside influence from lobbyists?
 
Re: New USO SN3 Glass Quality

I know what you posted. You clicked on a thread titled "New USO SN3 Glass Quality" and typed in:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fx1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sorry i can not take any scope with an "Adjustable Objective' Seriously </div></div>

Sounds like you have a hard on for USO by starting that way in a thread asking for people's opinions (presumably from experience) on a product you have no experience with.

I'd imagine you're just chapped that you too cannot have a scope built how you like it.
 
Re: New USO SN3 Glass Quality

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Target In Sight</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: David S.</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A sample size of "one" doesn't justify the conclusion that something is "normally" the case. That's just like saying "The British don't understand riflescopes" just because I met somebody from Britain who didn't.
Seriously, I'm not here to defend US Optics, but your combination of conviction and ignorance about the technical aspects is as annoying to me as it probably ist to John in this case. Posts like this start rumors about technical correlations that simply do not exist and are annoying to disprove time and again. I think the more people know about how their gear works, the better for them and also for those companies who don't bullshit their customers because they don't need to. </div></div>

+1, so much to say about something he has never owned.
it sure start to get annoying

</div></div>

i dont have to own it to know i dont want it. if they are so good why does this thread exsist? also why are there comments about them failing simple box tests on this very forum?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ivorykid
Optics US Optics SN3 3.2-17X (made in Brea)
Replies
6
Views
489
ivorykid
ivorykid
diggler1833
Got a Chance to Compare "Pretty Guud" With "Guud Enuff"
Replies
11
Views
757
shields shtr
S
M
Scope Upgrade - Sub $1500
Replies
44
Views
1K
MikeMiller
M
cornhuskid
SOLD SOLD - Price drop! US Optics BREA SN3 (3.2-17), 1/4 MOA EREK knob - $850 (MOA FFP)
Replies
8
Views
794
cornhuskid
cornhuskid
L
Looking for a better hunting scope for my rifle
Replies
71
Views
5K
Darayavaus
Darayavaus
Top Bottom
Back