Rifle Scopes Premier Vs USO

[NoExpert]

Re: Premier Vs USO

Like LL said, there should be gens or revision numbers. No clue what revision my current USO is (2011 make), but it's more refined and better built than my 2009 make was. The glass appears to be more clear, adjustments are more positive, machining is cleaner... I was pretty amazed at the difference, and that's by the same maker. There are always going to be variables.

 

[NateD33]

Re: Premier Vs USO

I was out last week feeling out some stocks for my custom build and looked through a few USO's and one Premier. Let's just say I know I'm going to be saving for a Premier on my custom build. My opinion is Premier glass was better when I looked at targets past 1000yds and I really like the features and FFP as well.

 

[GUNENTHUSIAST]

Re: Premier Vs USO

I have had many Nightforce scopes over the years and really liked them for the money. I shot them for years in competition. I decided to try out a US Optics and absolutely loved it so I bought another! They feel more solid and robust than any other scope I have owned or handled and I can't imagine not having my internal bubble level!

I have heard many good thing about S&B and Premier but have not had the chance to own them yet. Looking through them, they looked just as clear as my Nightforce and USO scopes.

I cannot say one negative thing about my USO scopes! I can't imagine any of these other companies scopes are as rugged as a USO though.

 

[997/2man]

Re: Premier Vs USO

How many USO's do you have? Which models? New, or used?

Good luck.

 

[Mo_Zam_Beek]

Re: Premier Vs USO

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: GUNENTHUSIAST</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I cannot say one negative thing about my USO scopes! I can't imagine any of these other companies scopes are as rugged as a USO though. </div></div>

Once I set a 5-25x56 S&B on a hip high counter over a concrete floor while getting ready to rattle can it. I ended up having something else fall into it, thereby knocking it off the counter - spinning through the air. It landed on the objective end, bounced a little and then hit again on the top turret. The damage? A slight dent to the very end of the objective housing (just enough that a sunshade is very difficult to get on and off) and otherwise it has been no worse for the wear. That was 4 years ago.

Another time, I opened the door of my truck and my USO 1.8-10x44 mounted to a rifle fell out and banged the optic against the floor pan and the muzzle went in the dirt. Muzzle wasn't plugged so no big deal - right? Wrong. The impact knocked the objective lens completely loose (you could shake it, listen to it rattle and watch it move).

Even though it was in a Pelican case, I had an SN3 3-17x44 that must have gotten rattled around in transit too much and decided to loose the ability to track at an out of town match.

And yet another time I had an S&B 3-12x50 that had been mounted and shot on a variety of rifles simply seize up.




They all can break. None of them are indestructible. Good CS and quick turn around times are very important. And like anything - one is none, two is one.




Good luck

 

[Lofty]

Re: Premier Vs USO

Wow....people get passionate about their glass huh?

I guess a serious investment of money tends to get people to want to feel good about their purchase....which leads to almost an emotional level of support for a specific product.

My $0.02

Ive had all the big names aside from Hensoldt.

Regarding the question of Premier V USO. My USO was a tank. well made, great features, good reticle....so so glass. Not what I would expect from a $3000+ scope. Also didnt like that the illumination knob required removing a cap that was easy to lose.

I currently have a Premier 3x15x56. Love the glass.....every bit as good as S&B. I love the positive clicks but they are almost too hard to turn. Its easy to try for 2 clicks and get 4 or 1 click and get 3. When you turn it hard enough to get it to click over, it usually goes too far.

I dont think either is a bad choice, just depends on what you like.

 

[GUNENTHUSIAST]

Re: Premier Vs USO

I have a 3.2-17 t-pal and a 5-25 t-pal that I bought new. I also recently acquired a used USO spotting scope from here on the hide. Nice for what it is, but I'm not as crazy about it as I am their scopes.

 

[997/2man]

Re: Premier Vs USO

If you know the customer service # by heart, that is a BAD sign.

If you gush about how great their customer service is and how you use them all of the time...

I don't want to have to find out how good their CS is.

 

[PRDRIVER]

Re: Premier Vs USO

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 997/2man</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't want to have to find out how good their CS is. </div></div>

I don't want to know how good a company's CS is from personal experience, but it is great to know how good they are in case you ever do need them.

 

[DP425]

Re: Premier Vs USO

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: David S.</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mike</div><div class="ubbcode-body">AND, if that tube is so thin that it responds negatively to ring over tightening, how is it going to respond to getting banged up?</div></div>
Mike,

the tube is not exactly "thin" at 2 mm wall thickness for the Heritage Tactical models. You're welcome to compare that to your scope of choice, in case you can find manufacturer info or a cutaway model or want to cut up your scope.

As has been mentioned, the reason why some are having problems with overtorqued rings is a tolerance that is tighter than it needs to be. That tolerance was meant for prototypes and could have been loosened for production specs.

Now for everyone shouting "But if the wall thickness was 10 mm, this wouldn't happen!", <span style="font-weight: bold">any</span> amount of material will flex under stress, and if the fit for an internal part is too tight, it may bind. Don't confuse this with a "weak" tube and don't confuse it with a scope that "breaks" under field use.

</div></div>

There is a whole lot more to tube durability than thickness. If it's made from 3003H-14, it can be 25mm thick and still sqush like butter. What alloy is it?

 

[MartyM]

Re: Premier Vs USO

The Premier is made of 6061 T6 aircraft aluminum. Same as S&B, USO and Nightforce.

http://www.gunreports.com/news/accessories/Premier-Reticles-Heritage-Tactical-Riflescope_826-1.html

 

[JL]

Re: Premier Vs USO

I have owned and braked too many top end scopes.

Based to this I find even first hand experiences about "I dropped it, still shooting well" or even fancy hollywood -style torture tests are useless from fair comparsion point of wiew.
ALL scopes lost their zero and/or brake if strong enough impact comes from right angle and hits sweetspot. Too many variables to judge any scope based to individual incidents.

Its all about continuous x/y/z g-forces scope is designed and tested to stand - but unfortunately this is not published in spec sheets.
Sharp edge/strong impact braking lens or aluminium part is different thing, naturally. Standard for this would not be too easy (=impossible) to create, but used material and wall thicknesses would give good idea to consumer what they can except from scope construction in practice.

 

[BIG MASE]

Re: Premier Vs USO

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: avidflyer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've owned a lot of different glass and currently use a 5x25 Premier Gen II xr. Love it but may try a USO Tpal 5x25 same gen II xr. I know glass is very subjective but would like to hear from people who have owned or used both..... </div></div>

Here's a guy who's owned both...

http://www.cstactical.com/index.php?option=com_agora&task=topic&id=223&Itemid=262

 

[EchozRipple]

Re: Premier Vs USO

So what would you guys recommend, the USO SN-9, 3.8x22, or the PH 5x25, w/ the H-37? The application is for ELR, 2,000+. Any positive feed back is appreciated. Thanks.