USO new long range hunting scope

[elkregulator]

My impression of USO's corner of the high end scope market is they market to people who know what features they need and can order a solid custom scope just built for them (Have it your way). I would guess USO would have a hard time competing with the $/feature value on a "standard" high end long range scope compared to other manufactures.
All of the above features/options are covered by a competitor off the shelf version. I think if USO wants to get into this market beyond what they currently offer they are going to need to target the weight category.
As far as I can tell, the only high end scope that is around 20 oz is the March. If USO came out with a scope to compete with the 2.5-25x42 March tactical at 21.9 oz with a lifetime guarantee and USO's name behind it I think it would have a very good specific market.
Let's face it, USO is not going to produce a scope with all the features above for under $1500. I imagine it will be priced close to the March.

 

[LouBoyd]

What we are trying to do here is come up with the ultimate long range hunting rifle scope. This is where your expertise comes in. With you being the end user your input is extremly important to us. So to get things rolling I have a few questions to start.

What power range?
Adjustable parallax on the side or objective?
Weight and how important is this?
What type of reticle? One of our exsiting ones or we can design a new reticle with your help.
MOA or MIL?
Illumination?

Thanks,

Welcome Jason.
It's good to see manufacturers who care about customer feedback.

Several years ago DARPA put out a request for proposal for a sniping scope for the US Military.
I presume the results are either classified or the project has been dumped. However, the original request outlined capabilities which seemed practical These included:
Integrated rangefinder usable to around two kilometers.
Integrated downrange crosswind measurement. The method was not specified, but small aser scintillation anemometers have been demonstrated to work.
Integrated air density measurement. (for ballistic calculation).
Automatic moving target compensation. ( 3 dimension capable)
integrated two axis vertical sensor ( to provide cant and inclination information)
Integrated cmputer with ballistic tables for the ammo in use.
Automated reticle adjustment and display.

Just about all scopes on the market have some means of setting windage and elevation, but offer little help in determining what the settings should be. They are very slow to use when external instruments and manual computer inputs have to be used. Target knobs are very slow to set and easy to set wrong.

I'd happily spend $5000 on a scope which provides all of the features shown above if it worked and was reasonably reliable. There are scopes which provide some of the features. Some have integrated relatively short range rangefinders (under 1000 yards) but without ballistic compensation. A few do have rudimentary drop compensation. Horus vision offers "mil grid" reticles which eliminate "knob twiddling". I see US Optics offers those reticles, but no one makes a scope which allows proper use of the H37 Reticle. It's simply impossible to give 4" eye relief, read the reticle, and view the entire reticle. That could be done with a vertically adjustable eyepiece. Elcan makes a scope where a CCD with digital clocking offsets is used instead of knobs. But it too has no range or wind measurement or even internal ballistic computation.

Your questions appear to asking only about a scope with no environmental measurement or compensation but with target knobs. Those features are all avaiable in a $300 "SuperSniper" (and many other brands). Sure, your scopes are "better" ... or are they? For the price difference one can buy a good rangefinder, a wind meter, a portable computer with ballistics software, and a thousand rounds to practice with. The practice ammo is arguably the thing which will improve accuracy most.

I see no point in answering the specific questions you ask. In the scope I'd want most of them are irrelevant other than weight. The answer to that is always "As light as possible without compromising reliability".

 

[Loner]

Scope 3200.00
kestrel 400.00
lieca 1600 700.00
F-22 Raptor targeting hardware and software 12,000.00

16,300.00

Everything works but that pesky math.

 

[PDA]

I dont think for hunting illumination is worth the money, especially with the MP-8 type reticle (which is my favorite). With the heavy duplex outer bars you can bracket well.

SFP MP-8 type MOA reticle with raised marks on the power ring for TWO settings. Full value at top power and double value in the middle. Raised so it is easier to line up in a hurry than a dot or bar
Low Profile large MOA Adjustments
Side Paralax Adj.
100+ MOA Adjustment
4-24ish power range
Non rotating eye piece (hate that on the NXS)
at least 4" eye relief (constant) for bigger calibers and different shooting positions.

$1500 or less price tag. I have a NXS on my work gun and love the glass, but there is room for improvement in several features. Lighter weight is always better. Im suprised there isnt more use of aluminum/scandium alloys since S&W has done so well with their revolvers. I know this would probably make the cost outrageous, but wonder what the capabilities are for arguments sake.

Im not gonna tell you what tube size, objective size etc. You guys know way more about what is necessary for the package to work than me! Look forward to what you settle on and hopefully offer

 

[Loner]

Scandium just adds strength to a welded aluminum. It's a complete marketing ploy
nothing more.

 

[PDA]

Good to know!

 

[Mikecr]

Start with Mk4, and improve from there.
That is, cover absolutely every attribute of the Mk4 -first.
This includes SFP, low weight, 30mm tube, 50mm objective, non-turning eyepiece, threading for Alumina flip-ups, lit reticle option, as much adjustment range and as accurate.

Improvements:
Med-Fine crosshair with subtension matching NF CH1
Higher quality glass
Micrometer side focus adjustment, calibrated for distance, and a small focus prism added to reticle plane(if possible)
Aluminum 'ScopeLevel'(instead of plastic, and nothing at all like yours), with a lit option.
1/4MOA, 1/4IPHY, 1/8MOA, 1/8IPHY adjustment options
Zero stop

I'm a varmint hunter, this is what I desire for the field.

 

[Boom]

Including an ACI/ADI, already trued with the reticle would be nice. Good luck with the project and thanks for taking input!

 

[Camshaft]

The mark4 isnt a bad starting point, great scope, but seriously, 3x magnification range? I know you are not suggesting that specific attribute, that has always been a gripe of mine when it comes to the Mk4, Leupold needs to get with the program.

 

[LouBoyd]

The mark4 isnt a bad starting point, great scope, but seriously, 3x magnification range? I know you are not suggesting that specific attribute, that has always been a gripe of mine when it comes to the Mk4, Leupold needs to get with the program.

What mark4 riflescope are you talking about. There are several models. When I think of long range and Mark 4 Ithink of the Mark 4 M1 16X40. It's got 140 MOA of vertical adjustment, side parallax, and only weights 22.5 oz. It's my favorite for a "conventional" long range scope with target knobs.

 

[Mikecr]

In Mk4, I use 8.5x25 power & have never needed more, or less, for hunting.
In NXS, I use 8x32 power and this is fine.
But NXS does not first match the Mk4 in every regard.
I have to go to 32x in NXS to get the same 25x in a MK4 by the time I get a reticle focus..
An NXS is also a pound wasted over the Mk4, it mounts too high, and the turning eyepiece would be a serious annoyance in the field.
So I don't hunt with NXS scopes, and mention it only as an example of issues often overlooked.

Sorry Camshaft..
I am unable to see only what I want, while disregarding what I don't.
It's just not in my nature.

 

[jason USO]

Guy's,

Thanks for all the input. I really believe that we came to the right place for this thread. I will keep gathering data from your input and we will definitely let you know what we come up with.

For you guys that prefer SFP why do you prefer it over FFP?

General consensus so far is that you guys want something in the higher magnification range.

Also as far as weight we will try to trim as much weight as possible but anything we produce it will withhold USO standards.

Please keep the comments coming. All of your comments are valuable for us to come up with the perfect scope for your needs.

Jason

 

[Mikecr]

I gain nothing needed in FFP, and with SFP I gain a finer reticle subtension.
I laser range, dial in my elevation, and hold off for wind in inches, so a simple correctly sized crosshair is perfect.
This is a long range hunting/shooting site, and with this I have yet to see where higher magnifications are a problem. Even with Mk4s, which are nothing special in glass, I could take deer at plenty good ranges beyond legal hunting hours, at full 25x.
2yrs ago I took a woodchuck with a headshot at 510yds, 10mins after sunset, at 25x.
Now brightness aside(good enough), a woodchuck head popping above the grassline now & then is pretty small. I need to be able to see this beyond the reticle -to shoot it.
The FFP hunting scopes I've looked through so far were bright with better glass, but the reticle subtensions were not even suitable for deer at distance, much less varmints.
These scopes also did not have the adjustment resolutions needed for any real precision(small killzones) at distance.

Keep in mind that hunters stalk. We actually carry our guns in the field.
We don't drive Humvees over them and expect any good from it.
Think practical, rather than tactical.

 

[Camshaft]

The Mk4 and the NXS have the same exact style of focusing eyepeice with a lockring, so I dont understand that comment. Im not saying the mk4 is a bad scope, I just think leupold needs to update to 4 or 5x zoom. I like to have as low end as possible while keeping 24+ on the topend. Thats why I use a 6-24 sightron sIII. I also dislike the mk4's high profile m1 knobs, but the new NXS knobs are just as tall. Im not realy set on any particular style of focusing eyepeice as I set mine for my eyes, then smash a butler creek cap on and forget about it.