I can see where you're coming from, but never in a thousand years will you be able to convince me that a customer, who pays top dollar for a specialty product, should be responsible for modifying the scope or developing elaborate computer programs in order to create a firing solution. There is just no excuse for it not being right when it leaves the factory. I'd easily forgive an occasional mishap if it were backed up with a fast, no cost repair, but threatening to sue your customers for demanding that their company hold true to their advertisements is nothing but disgusting.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR> I've seen some posts on other forums that are incredibly vicious and destructive in their negativity <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Every kettle has it's boiling point, and after seven years of defective products, outright lies, ( Such as Premier Reticles patent pending Gen 2 in USO's catalog without Premier's authorization ) warning posts from USO's attorneys, their threats to sue customers who reported their failures first hand, and their suing of highly respected members of this community, and most recently – the not so subtle hint that web boards and those who participate on them ( may be ) their next target, I'd have to say that it's over due for that pot to boil over!
You reap what you sew. All I can say is that they brought this down upon themselves.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR> It is possible to be critical in a supportive way and I would hope that we as a community can move away from the rabid attacks that serve little purpose other than to inflict as much damage as possible and shift instead into positive, healthy criticism. As consumers, we can only benefit from the latter approach. It does not serve our interests to have fewer choices in the marketplace. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Perhaps fewer choices that actually do work would be more desirable. If they can't get the **** things to function properly on a consistent basis, then why the H3ll are they still shipping them? What benefit is there to having another market choice if that choice that is defective? So far as constructive criticism goes, H3ll - I offered to buy one of their scopes providing they actually get them to perform as advertised. Then Nighthawk posted an email reply from Williams warning of "a change on the web after the first of the year". No change in quality control or engineering or service, just a not so discreet warning that more lawsuits are immanent. Tell me, how can we "work with" that mindset?
Here is another way of looking at it. Few people will detract from USO about their entire reticle illumination. Often I have heard, if USO can do it, why can't others do it? But have they done it? By that I mean that perhaps, just perhaps, the reason we don't see this feature in other scopes is because their engineers have found that such a design would compromise the correct operation of the turrets. (?) I don't know. But it's food for thought.
USO bills themselves as a CUSTOM SCOPE MAKER. Now, when I think about custom anything, two principles cross my mind. 1.) Expensive ( Ok, USO has that covered ) 2.) Quality above and beyond what could be produced from a mass production facility. - Sorry, USO does not meet this standard. But the insinuation here is criminal. Claim you're a custom scope maker and charge a custom price. But without alluding to the fact that you may have to devise your own method of attaining a firing solution specific to that and only that scope. … Gee, what a great deal over their competition.
So far as their being an American made; well they are assembled in America, yes. But with who's parts? Made on who's machines? With raw materials shipped in from where? So basically, they are just as "America" as Leupold or Nightforce. Again, given the choice of a defective product versus a well working one, location of assembly is irrelevant, at least to me.
As I pointed out earlier, the problems with USO are not new. They have had years to correct them. But instead of fixing what's wrong, what do they do? Announce their new expanded product line!!!
That begs the question, how many more years should we give them and what is the number of lawsuits that we in this community should deem as "acceptable"?
So far as Vicious & destructive comments from many members of this community against USO, well, where there's smoke - there's fire.
Regards,
Big John
