Re: No more ERGO?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: gmbjr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I always prefered the ergo as they were optically superior to T-pals and much less sensitive to paralax to begin with. T-pal requires an extra internal lens to focus. Ergo uses the over all tube length to focus (screw in to shorten, out to lengthen). </div></div>
While USO had previously stated that the ERGO is optically-superior to the T-PAL that isn't necessarily true <span style="font-style: italic">in all cases.</span> It's about quality control and attention to detail. Case in point: I had a full-tilt SN-3 3.2-17X[44mm] ERGO Lo Profile that was built at close to the same time that a friend had a full-tilt SN-3 3.2-17X[44mm] T-PAL built, but the clarity of my ERGO Lo Profile was well below that of my friend's SN-3 3.2-17X[44mm] T-PAL. At least part of the clarity issue was due to the reticle lens not being throughly cleaned after the reticle was filled with the phosphorescent substance used to illuminate the reticle when the illumination is "On'. The result was a sub par clarity across the entire FOV in daylight, and visible streaks when the illumination was switched-on in darkness. It's possible that if my scope had been built with the same care that my friend's T-PAL received my ERGO Lo Profile might have had equal or better quality than my friend's T-Pal. We'll never know, as both my friend and I traded our USOs' for Premier Heritage 5-25X[56]s'.
USO is in the best position to know the optical specifications and performance data of it's own scopes, so when USO said that the ERGO out-performed the T-PAL it probably did <span style="font-style: italic">at the time</span>. The 3.2-17X[44mm] T-PAL has always been more expensive than identically-optioned 3.2-17X[44mm] ERGO, so unless USO pushed the ERGO because it might sell better based on price why would they say that the ERGO was optically-superior to the T-PAL if it hadn't been true? Dropping the ERGOs' could have been based purely on supply & demand sales. Or maybe USO feels that they've improved the T-Pal to a point that it's performance matches that of the ERGO or even surpasses it.
Keep-in-mind that not all side focus scopes are equal and that (aside from tracking, turret feel, optical performance, and durability) there's a lot more to a scope. Schmidt & Bender, Premier, and USO all use Schott glass for their lenses, but the Premiers' and commercial S & Bs' that I've used and/or looked-though have all had a definite edge over all the USOs' I've used and/or looked-through - and that's been quite a few. Some of the optical differences may be due to mechanical design, but there are different levels of glass quality, nuances in procedure and techniques for shaping lenses, and, of course - coatings to be considered. And I'm sure that there are other things I've haven't mentioned too.
Keith