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.....
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes Premier Vs USO
- Thread starter avidflyer
- Start date
Re: Premier Vs USO
Premier has S&B level of glass. It's pretty much an S&B with different tube and reticles.
USO has great tube and turrets and other customizable features but only upper mid range glass quality.
Premier has S&B level of glass. It's pretty much an S&B with different tube and reticles.
USO has great tube and turrets and other customizable features but only upper mid range glass quality.
Re: Premier Vs USO
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CanPopper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Premier has S&B level of glass. It's pretty much an S&B with different tube and reticles.
USO has great tube and turrets and other customizable features but only upper mid range glass quality.</div></div>
Horse feathers.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CanPopper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Premier has S&B level of glass. It's pretty much an S&B with different tube and reticles.
USO has great tube and turrets and other customizable features but only upper mid range glass quality.</div></div>
Horse feathers.
Re: Premier Vs USO
Horse Feathers... this isn't a family forum. It's ok to say Bullpucky.
So... Bullpucky!
I run a USO 5-25 T-pal and it's superb. Do a search on the masses of posts on glass quality and realize that topic is a dead horse.
If you want a USO... you won't be disappointed. You probably would not be disappointed w. a S&B either. But the USO is a superb package and an amazing piece of kit.
Cheers,
Sirhr
Horse Feathers... this isn't a family forum. It's ok to say Bullpucky.
So... Bullpucky!
I run a USO 5-25 T-pal and it's superb. Do a search on the masses of posts on glass quality and realize that topic is a dead horse.
If you want a USO... you won't be disappointed. You probably would not be disappointed w. a S&B either. But the USO is a superb package and an amazing piece of kit.
Cheers,
Sirhr
Re: Premier Vs USO
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sirhrmechanic</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
If you want a USO... you won't be disappointed. </div></div>
I believed the hype on this forum; bought a USO (TPAL 3.2-17) and was disappointed. The glass was sub-par in resolution compared to NF, Leupold, and S&B (verified by more people than just myself) and the US #1 windage knob was vague. The EREK knob was great, as was the GAP reticle, but I ended up selling it off.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sirhrmechanic</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
If you want a USO... you won't be disappointed. </div></div>
I believed the hype on this forum; bought a USO (TPAL 3.2-17) and was disappointed. The glass was sub-par in resolution compared to NF, Leupold, and S&B (verified by more people than just myself) and the US #1 windage knob was vague. The EREK knob was great, as was the GAP reticle, but I ended up selling it off.
Re: Premier Vs USO
Stick with Premier/S&B/Hensoldt. Better scopes overall and they also have glass that is top tier. No one else's glass compares.
Stick with Premier/S&B/Hensoldt. Better scopes overall and they also have glass that is top tier. No one else's glass compares.
Re: Premier Vs USO
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 997/2man</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Go S&B from Eurooptik.
</div></div>
I second that!
You are not going to be disappointed with S&B and the folks at EuroOptic are fantastic to deal with.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 997/2man</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Go S&B from Eurooptik.
</div></div>
I second that!
You are not going to be disappointed with S&B and the folks at EuroOptic are fantastic to deal with.
Re: Premier Vs USO
I do not have nor used a S&B. I stayed away from Premier because they seemed to have far too many issues from the get go.
My USO has been a great scope and a great experience in total with the company. I will get an S&B in the future, but will definitely give USO more business also.
I do not have nor used a S&B. I stayed away from Premier because they seemed to have far too many issues from the get go.
My USO has been a great scope and a great experience in total with the company. I will get an S&B in the future, but will definitely give USO more business also.
Re: Premier Vs USO
Based on what I have had / have / broken
Premier
- Great reticles - esp the XR
- Innovative design on the toolless adj of the turrets after zero
- Goofy ring on the bell that mandates using a proprietary flip cap unless you buy the sunshade
- most folks complain that it is hard to count clicks b/c unless you are turning the turret really slowly you tend to get a double click at the point of each full MIL (you will get singles if you turn it slowly and deliberately)
- Reasonable resolution but nowhere near S&B
- NoneYa parts sourcing
USO
- EREK is one of the smartest design features I have ever seen
- Hit and miss quality (more hits than misses) with long repair times but a company that will ultimately stand behind the optic - including full replacement
- Very active ownership here on the board that does a very good job of being responsive to folks like us
- Reasonable resolution but again nowhere near S&B - but every bit as good as Premier
Hensoldt
- No zero stop
- limited reticles
- resolution not on par with S&B
- outstanding eye box
- compact and (feels) light but sturdy
S&B
- inconsistant turret feedback from unit to unit
- while I have never had an MTC unit - based on what I have read - I'd pass
- physically bigger than they should be
- has a hole in the line up - the only MIL/MIL x16 is an ST 42mm - this will be corrected by the 3-20
- CS is good if you need them
Long way around to saying - to me there is no perfect optic. They have strengths and weaknesses and they will all break if you use them enough. All things considered, for the money (esp a gently used unit here off the board from a trusted seller) it is pretty hard to beat a USO.
Good luck
Based on what I have had / have / broken
Premier
- Great reticles - esp the XR
- Innovative design on the toolless adj of the turrets after zero
- Goofy ring on the bell that mandates using a proprietary flip cap unless you buy the sunshade
- most folks complain that it is hard to count clicks b/c unless you are turning the turret really slowly you tend to get a double click at the point of each full MIL (you will get singles if you turn it slowly and deliberately)
- Reasonable resolution but nowhere near S&B
- NoneYa parts sourcing
USO
- EREK is one of the smartest design features I have ever seen
- Hit and miss quality (more hits than misses) with long repair times but a company that will ultimately stand behind the optic - including full replacement
- Very active ownership here on the board that does a very good job of being responsive to folks like us
- Reasonable resolution but again nowhere near S&B - but every bit as good as Premier
Hensoldt
- No zero stop
- limited reticles
- resolution not on par with S&B
- outstanding eye box
- compact and (feels) light but sturdy
S&B
- inconsistant turret feedback from unit to unit
- while I have never had an MTC unit - based on what I have read - I'd pass
- physically bigger than they should be
- has a hole in the line up - the only MIL/MIL x16 is an ST 42mm - this will be corrected by the 3-20
- CS is good if you need them
Long way around to saying - to me there is no perfect optic. They have strengths and weaknesses and they will all break if you use them enough. All things considered, for the money (esp a gently used unit here off the board from a trusted seller) it is pretty hard to beat a USO.
Good luck
Re: Premier Vs USO
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CanPopper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Premier has S&B level of glass. It's pretty much an S&B with different tube and reticles.
USO has great tube and turrets and other customizable features but only upper mid range glass quality.</div></div>
Uh, no. The S&B is a better scope, period.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CanPopper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Premier has S&B level of glass. It's pretty much an S&B with different tube and reticles.
USO has great tube and turrets and other customizable features but only upper mid range glass quality.</div></div>
Uh, no. The S&B is a better scope, period.
Re: Premier Vs USO
Something to keep in mind is that the Premiers are a bit more finicky with the tension on the rings. If you don't tighten the rings to exactly 20in/lbs then they can have tracking problems due to the thinner tubes that they use. The USO does not have that problem and I've see USO scopes with rings cranked to 80in/lbs and they still track.
Something to keep in mind is that the Premiers are a bit more finicky with the tension on the rings. If you don't tighten the rings to exactly 20in/lbs then they can have tracking problems due to the thinner tubes that they use. The USO does not have that problem and I've see USO scopes with rings cranked to 80in/lbs and they still track.
Re: Premier Vs USO
I think you should judge them based on their websites because I can't tell the difference between the glass.
I've looked through all of them and I would say S&B and Premier are the clearest, there is an almost 3-D quality.
All of them at that level rock!
I think you should judge them based on their websites because I can't tell the difference between the glass.
I've looked through all of them and I would say S&B and Premier are the clearest, there is an almost 3-D quality.
All of them at that level rock!
Re: Premier Vs USO
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: UncleBenji</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Something to keep in mind is that the Premiers are a bit more finicky with the tension on the rings. If you don't tighten the rings to exactly 20in/lbs then they can have tracking problems due to the thinner tubes that they use. The USO does not have that problem and I've see USO scopes with rings cranked to 80in/lbs and they still track. </div></div>
This is not true, over tension on the tube does not cause tracking issues it causes the focal lens for the parallax to bind, additionally it is not due to the tube being too thin it is due to the fact that premier has extremely tight tolerances between the edge of the focal lens and the inside of the tube which allows them to more precisely align the lenses creating a clearer image and mitigating most chromatic aberration. If you want to take a premier and put it in rings torqued to over 20 in/lb simply call them send in your scope and they will make the correct modification to allow it to work.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: UncleBenji</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Something to keep in mind is that the Premiers are a bit more finicky with the tension on the rings. If you don't tighten the rings to exactly 20in/lbs then they can have tracking problems due to the thinner tubes that they use. The USO does not have that problem and I've see USO scopes with rings cranked to 80in/lbs and they still track. </div></div>
This is not true, over tension on the tube does not cause tracking issues it causes the focal lens for the parallax to bind, additionally it is not due to the tube being too thin it is due to the fact that premier has extremely tight tolerances between the edge of the focal lens and the inside of the tube which allows them to more precisely align the lenses creating a clearer image and mitigating most chromatic aberration. If you want to take a premier and put it in rings torqued to over 20 in/lb simply call them send in your scope and they will make the correct modification to allow it to work.
Re: Premier Vs USO
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Troy G</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How would the March scopes compare to SB, USO, Hensoldt, Nightforce? </div></div>
Well I have PMII's, USO's, Hensoldt, Premier,s and Nightforce scopes etc!! I've also had 2x March scopes one was a 3-24x42 FFP, I sold a PMII 4-16x50 to try the March. The March is the worst scope i've ever owned and in my opinion shouldn't even be in the same category as the other top level scopes mentioned.
One of my biggest regrets was selling the PMII to by the March.
To the OP I preferred the Premier 5-25x56 to my USO 5-25 T-pal but its splitting hairs between the two
Thanks
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Troy G</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How would the March scopes compare to SB, USO, Hensoldt, Nightforce? </div></div>
Well I have PMII's, USO's, Hensoldt, Premier,s and Nightforce scopes etc!! I've also had 2x March scopes one was a 3-24x42 FFP, I sold a PMII 4-16x50 to try the March. The March is the worst scope i've ever owned and in my opinion shouldn't even be in the same category as the other top level scopes mentioned.
One of my biggest regrets was selling the PMII to by the March.
To the OP I preferred the Premier 5-25x56 to my USO 5-25 T-pal but its splitting hairs between the two
Thanks
Re: Premier Vs USO
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: UncleBenji</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Something to keep in mind is that the Premiers are a bit more finicky with the tension on the rings. If you don't tighten the rings to exactly 20in/lbs then they can have tracking problems due to the thinner tubes that they use. The USO does not have that problem and I've see USO scopes with rings cranked to 80in/lbs and they still track. </div></div>
Never had any issues with mine and I know my rings are not tightened down to exactly 20 in lbs.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: UncleBenji</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Something to keep in mind is that the Premiers are a bit more finicky with the tension on the rings. If you don't tighten the rings to exactly 20in/lbs then they can have tracking problems due to the thinner tubes that they use. The USO does not have that problem and I've see USO scopes with rings cranked to 80in/lbs and they still track. </div></div>
Never had any issues with mine and I know my rings are not tightened down to exactly 20 in lbs.
Re: Premier Vs USO
I bought a 5x25 USO TPAL w/Gen2XR a few months back. Flipped it, as I didn't think the glass was better, nor the options, than my PR 5x25. In fact, I also had a Henny 4x16 MilDot last summer...flipped it too. I'm not a fan boy, but love my PR for what it does, and how well it does it. Glass is outstanding.
I bought a 5x25 USO TPAL w/Gen2XR a few months back. Flipped it, as I didn't think the glass was better, nor the options, than my PR 5x25. In fact, I also had a Henny 4x16 MilDot last summer...flipped it too. I'm not a fan boy, but love my PR for what it does, and how well it does it. Glass is outstanding.
Re: Premier Vs USO
Looking through the glass on both the s&b and the premier, they look pretty much identical. Both are extremely clear.
I have not had the opportunity to field a USO scope so I cannot comment there. I can tell youth at I am very happy with my Premier and would purchase another one if I had the need for another scope.
Looking through the glass on both the s&b and the premier, they look pretty much identical. Both are extremely clear.
I have not had the opportunity to field a USO scope so I cannot comment there. I can tell youth at I am very happy with my Premier and would purchase another one if I had the need for another scope.
Re: Premier Vs USO
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bth87</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> If you want to take a premier and put it in rings torqued to over 20 in/lb simply call them send in your scope and they will make the correct modification to allow it to work. </div></div>
Thank you for that. I have had the parallax lock up. I have backed the rings off but I am still not real happy with it, the result of twisting the knob is wholly unlike twisting the knob on an S&B - I may call them and see what can be done.
One other note on USO - I have only had ERGOs but I have read several times on here that most folks find that the ERGO allows for more precise adjustment than the TPAL set up.
Good luck
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bth87</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> If you want to take a premier and put it in rings torqued to over 20 in/lb simply call them send in your scope and they will make the correct modification to allow it to work. </div></div>
Thank you for that. I have had the parallax lock up. I have backed the rings off but I am still not real happy with it, the result of twisting the knob is wholly unlike twisting the knob on an S&B - I may call them and see what can be done.
One other note on USO - I have only had ERGOs but I have read several times on here that most folks find that the ERGO allows for more precise adjustment than the TPAL set up.
Good luck
Re: Premier Vs USO
I love to see the backyard expert who never shoot matches give their "opinions"
Rant off
I love to see the backyard expert who never shoot matches give their "opinions"
Rant off
Re: Premier Vs USO
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mo_Zam_Beek</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bth87</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> If you want to take a premier and put it in rings torqued to over 20 in/lb simply call them send in your scope and they will make the correct modification to allow it to work. </div></div>
Thank you for that. I have had the parallax lock up. I have backed the rings off but I am still not real happy with it, the result of twisting the knob is wholly unlike twisting the knob on an S&B - I may call them and see what can be done.
One other note on USO - I have only had ERGOs but I have read several times on here that most folks find that the ERGO allows for more precise adjustment than the TPAL set up.
Good luck</div></div>
For sure, only reason I know is when I went to a Spuhr mount on my TRG I experienced this issue. I called up Paul and he explained everything to me, he had me send back my scope to get modified got it back in a timely manner and everything has been 10-8 since.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mo_Zam_Beek</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bth87</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> If you want to take a premier and put it in rings torqued to over 20 in/lb simply call them send in your scope and they will make the correct modification to allow it to work. </div></div>
Thank you for that. I have had the parallax lock up. I have backed the rings off but I am still not real happy with it, the result of twisting the knob is wholly unlike twisting the knob on an S&B - I may call them and see what can be done.
One other note on USO - I have only had ERGOs but I have read several times on here that most folks find that the ERGO allows for more precise adjustment than the TPAL set up.
Good luck</div></div>
For sure, only reason I know is when I went to a Spuhr mount on my TRG I experienced this issue. I called up Paul and he explained everything to me, he had me send back my scope to get modified got it back in a timely manner and everything has been 10-8 since.
Re: Premier Vs USO
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bth87</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mo_Zam_Beek</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bth87</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> If you want to take a premier and put it in rings torqued to over 20 in/lb simply call them send in your scope and they will make the correct modification to allow it to work. </div></div>
Thank you for that. I have had the parallax lock up. I have backed the rings off but I am still not real happy with it, the result of twisting the knob is wholly unlike twisting the knob on an S&B - I may call them and see what can be done.
One other note on USO - I have only had ERGOs but I have read several times on here that most folks find that the ERGO allows for more precise adjustment than the TPAL set up.
Good luck</div></div>
For sure, only reason I know is when I went to a Spuhr mount on my TRG I experienced this issue. I called up Paul and he explained everything to me, he had me send back my scope to get modified got it back in a timely manner and everything has been 10-8 since. </div></div>
I am curious if this is an issue that affects all of the new production Premier scopes or if it is only an issue with earlier production scopes. Maybe Paul can chime in and let us know.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bth87</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mo_Zam_Beek</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bth87</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> If you want to take a premier and put it in rings torqued to over 20 in/lb simply call them send in your scope and they will make the correct modification to allow it to work. </div></div>
Thank you for that. I have had the parallax lock up. I have backed the rings off but I am still not real happy with it, the result of twisting the knob is wholly unlike twisting the knob on an S&B - I may call them and see what can be done.
One other note on USO - I have only had ERGOs but I have read several times on here that most folks find that the ERGO allows for more precise adjustment than the TPAL set up.
Good luck</div></div>
For sure, only reason I know is when I went to a Spuhr mount on my TRG I experienced this issue. I called up Paul and he explained everything to me, he had me send back my scope to get modified got it back in a timely manner and everything has been 10-8 since. </div></div>
I am curious if this is an issue that affects all of the new production Premier scopes or if it is only an issue with earlier production scopes. Maybe Paul can chime in and let us know.
Re: Premier Vs USO
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RMW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bth87</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mo_Zam_Beek</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bth87</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> If you want to take a premier and put it in rings torqued to over 20 in/lb simply call them send in your scope and they will make the correct modification to allow it to work. </div></div>
Thank you for that. I have had the parallax lock up. I have backed the rings off but I am still not real happy with it, the result of twisting the knob is wholly unlike twisting the knob on an S&B - I may call them and see what can be done.
One other note on USO - I have only had ERGOs but I have read several times on here that most folks find that the ERGO allows for more precise adjustment than the TPAL set up.
Good luck</div></div>
For sure, only reason I know is when I went to a Spuhr mount on my TRG I experienced this issue. I called up Paul and he explained everything to me, he had me send back my scope to get modified got it back in a timely manner and everything has been 10-8 since. </div></div>
I am curious if this is an issue that affects all of the new production Premier scopes or if it is only an issue with earlier production scopes. Maybe Paul can chime in and let us know.</div></div>
I'd give him a call or shoot him a PM, he gave me a very detailed explanation of the problem when I called about it.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RMW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bth87</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mo_Zam_Beek</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bth87</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> If you want to take a premier and put it in rings torqued to over 20 in/lb simply call them send in your scope and they will make the correct modification to allow it to work. </div></div>
Thank you for that. I have had the parallax lock up. I have backed the rings off but I am still not real happy with it, the result of twisting the knob is wholly unlike twisting the knob on an S&B - I may call them and see what can be done.
One other note on USO - I have only had ERGOs but I have read several times on here that most folks find that the ERGO allows for more precise adjustment than the TPAL set up.
Good luck</div></div>
For sure, only reason I know is when I went to a Spuhr mount on my TRG I experienced this issue. I called up Paul and he explained everything to me, he had me send back my scope to get modified got it back in a timely manner and everything has been 10-8 since. </div></div>
I am curious if this is an issue that affects all of the new production Premier scopes or if it is only an issue with earlier production scopes. Maybe Paul can chime in and let us know.</div></div>
I'd give him a call or shoot him a PM, he gave me a very detailed explanation of the problem when I called about it.
Re: Premier Vs USO
Hi Guys,
I sent Mo_zam_Beek a PM letting him know I was here to help him.
As far as an explanation the above posts pretty much sums it up- we designed the scope with Badger rings torqued at 15-18 in lbs in mind and that is why some scopes- not all- may bind inside when using rings torqued to an amount higher than 18 in lbs.
We are aware of this and future scopes will not have this problem .
If you feel you are having this problem, please drop me a PM and we can discuss it to see if you are experiencing this issue.
Rest assured I am here to fix it if something is wrong.
Thanks,
Paul
Hi Guys,
I sent Mo_zam_Beek a PM letting him know I was here to help him.
As far as an explanation the above posts pretty much sums it up- we designed the scope with Badger rings torqued at 15-18 in lbs in mind and that is why some scopes- not all- may bind inside when using rings torqued to an amount higher than 18 in lbs.
We are aware of this and future scopes will not have this problem .
If you feel you are having this problem, please drop me a PM and we can discuss it to see if you are experiencing this issue.
Rest assured I am here to fix it if something is wrong.
Thanks,
Paul
Re: Premier Vs USO
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bth87</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: UncleBenji</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Something to keep in mind is that the Premiers are a bit more finicky with the tension on the rings. If you don't tighten the rings to exactly 20in/lbs then they can have tracking problems due to the thinner tubes that they use. The USO does not have that problem and I've see USO scopes with rings cranked to 80in/lbs and they still track. </div></div>
This is not true, over tension on the tube does not cause tracking issues it causes the focal lens for the parallax to bind, additionally it is not due to the tube being too thin it is due to the fact that premier has extremely tight tolerances between the edge of the focal lens and the inside of the tube which allows them to more precisely align the lenses creating a clearer image and mitigating most chromatic aberration. If you want to take a premier and put it in rings torqued to over 20 in/lb simply call them send in your scope and they will make the correct modification to allow it to work. </div></div>
Uh, sorry, but ours DID NOT TRACK. The point is that all other scopes have the ability to be torqued down a little over 18lbs and not screw with the internals. Paul even just said that they're aware of this "problem" and that their new scopes would not have this issue.
I do not want to get into bashing products, but rather I was trying to give the OP more information about these two scopes, and no one else here mentioned anything this issue. I personally would be pretty pissed if everyone told me to buy a product and didn't give me all the facts. The Premier is a great scope, but you just need to know everything about it.
Finally, to the OP, this is why you should buy an S&B and be done with it.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bth87</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: UncleBenji</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Something to keep in mind is that the Premiers are a bit more finicky with the tension on the rings. If you don't tighten the rings to exactly 20in/lbs then they can have tracking problems due to the thinner tubes that they use. The USO does not have that problem and I've see USO scopes with rings cranked to 80in/lbs and they still track. </div></div>
This is not true, over tension on the tube does not cause tracking issues it causes the focal lens for the parallax to bind, additionally it is not due to the tube being too thin it is due to the fact that premier has extremely tight tolerances between the edge of the focal lens and the inside of the tube which allows them to more precisely align the lenses creating a clearer image and mitigating most chromatic aberration. If you want to take a premier and put it in rings torqued to over 20 in/lb simply call them send in your scope and they will make the correct modification to allow it to work. </div></div>
Uh, sorry, but ours DID NOT TRACK. The point is that all other scopes have the ability to be torqued down a little over 18lbs and not screw with the internals. Paul even just said that they're aware of this "problem" and that their new scopes would not have this issue.
I do not want to get into bashing products, but rather I was trying to give the OP more information about these two scopes, and no one else here mentioned anything this issue. I personally would be pretty pissed if everyone told me to buy a product and didn't give me all the facts. The Premier is a great scope, but you just need to know everything about it.
Finally, to the OP, this is why you should buy an S&B and be done with it.
Re: Premier Vs USO
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KNIGHT11B4</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I love to see the backyard expert who never shoot matches give their "opinions"
Rant off </div></div>
Shooting matches is irrelevant. There are many folks that shoot top tier gear, shoot it very often, are very good with said gear....and coudn't give 2 craps about shooting a match. The notion that someone must shoot matches to be taken seriously in an opinion on shooting gear is laughable.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KNIGHT11B4</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I love to see the backyard expert who never shoot matches give their "opinions"
Rant off </div></div>
Shooting matches is irrelevant. There are many folks that shoot top tier gear, shoot it very often, are very good with said gear....and coudn't give 2 craps about shooting a match. The notion that someone must shoot matches to be taken seriously in an opinion on shooting gear is laughable.
Re: Premier Vs USO
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ggmanning</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KNIGHT11B4</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I love to see the backyard expert who never shoot matches give their "opinions"
Rant off </div></div>
Shooting matches is irrelevant. There are many folks that shoot top tier gear, shoot it very often, are very good with said gear....and coudn't give 2 craps about shooting a match. The notion that someone must shoot matches to be taken seriously in an opinion on shooting gear is laughable.</div></div>
Here's the issue. When you don't shoot matches, we don't see equipment abused. After all, when was the last time you ran an obstacle course with your gear for time, banging the crap out of your scope/rifle in the process? Or when was the last time you ran your gear in a rainstorm full of mud? Did you stand around in the downpour for 8+ hours trying to keep your gear clean and dry while shooting? Comps take gear to its limits plain and simple.
Because if you're not doing these things, you're not putting your gear through the same challenges as those that run comps. So comps may not be an interest to you, but there's no way some fair weather concrete belly shooter is going to put their gear through it's paces like a comp shooter...period.
Now to the OP's question. I wouldn't have another Premier to save my life. I bought one and had the parallax issue and got rid of it. I'm sorry, but if I have to walk a fine line with my ring tension then it's not worth it. 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?
USO is a great scope and John is a great guy. Yes, their glass could be improved and they have their own set of issues but overall their a fantastic scope.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ggmanning</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KNIGHT11B4</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I love to see the backyard expert who never shoot matches give their "opinions"
Rant off </div></div>
Shooting matches is irrelevant. There are many folks that shoot top tier gear, shoot it very often, are very good with said gear....and coudn't give 2 craps about shooting a match. The notion that someone must shoot matches to be taken seriously in an opinion on shooting gear is laughable.</div></div>
Here's the issue. When you don't shoot matches, we don't see equipment abused. After all, when was the last time you ran an obstacle course with your gear for time, banging the crap out of your scope/rifle in the process? Or when was the last time you ran your gear in a rainstorm full of mud? Did you stand around in the downpour for 8+ hours trying to keep your gear clean and dry while shooting? Comps take gear to its limits plain and simple.
Because if you're not doing these things, you're not putting your gear through the same challenges as those that run comps. So comps may not be an interest to you, but there's no way some fair weather concrete belly shooter is going to put their gear through it's paces like a comp shooter...period.
Now to the OP's question. I wouldn't have another Premier to save my life. I bought one and had the parallax issue and got rid of it. I'm sorry, but if I have to walk a fine line with my ring tension then it's not worth it. 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?
USO is a great scope and John is a great guy. Yes, their glass could be improved and they have their own set of issues but overall their a fantastic scope.
Re: Premier Vs USO
I have went back and forth between the S&B, USO, and Nightforce(NF wasn't a direct comparo).
I was able to find a couple guys at the range that had both brands before I dropped the money on my own.
The S&B does have better glass in my opinion(it would take a lab to tell us the facts) but I didn't like the turrets.
The USO had an amazing turret(EREK) that felt far more positive and I liked the range in turn. The glass was great, just not as good as the S&B.
Shopping around I found that there was a lot of value to me with the USO's customizing features and the fact that I pick up the phone and talk to the COO for help.
You have to ultimately decide what is better for your needs. USO by far earned my dollars(lots of them) and I am now waiting for my 5-25TPAL.
A lot of guys have a lot of passion behind their opinions(read that again, they are opinions) because they have love of the sport and pride for the products that they spent a lot of hard earned dollars for. I think all the brands that have been brought up are good in their own respects.
I have went back and forth between the S&B, USO, and Nightforce(NF wasn't a direct comparo).
I was able to find a couple guys at the range that had both brands before I dropped the money on my own.
The S&B does have better glass in my opinion(it would take a lab to tell us the facts) but I didn't like the turrets.
The USO had an amazing turret(EREK) that felt far more positive and I liked the range in turn. The glass was great, just not as good as the S&B.
Shopping around I found that there was a lot of value to me with the USO's customizing features and the fact that I pick up the phone and talk to the COO for help.
You have to ultimately decide what is better for your needs. USO by far earned my dollars(lots of them) and I am now waiting for my 5-25TPAL.
A lot of guys have a lot of passion behind their opinions(read that again, they are opinions) because they have love of the sport and pride for the products that they spent a lot of hard earned dollars for. I think all the brands that have been brought up are good in their own respects.
Re: Premier Vs USO
Here's the issue.....you assume way too much. But hey, most people do not use their gear so I get the sentiment. But, to make some broad sweeping statement premised totally on whether a guy shoots matches is uninformed and arrogant. Some of us are serious hunters and our gear goes all over the country in the worst locations the planet has to offer for days in the field over the worst terrain and weather... not 8 hours with a refreshment tent and a cozy hotel. Some of us are farmers and our gear rides in a saddle bag or strapped to a Mule banged all over hell and back every day of it's life for that one time shot that means saving a calf....not banging some steel. That's just a couple examples. The field of shooters out there is not limited to:
1 match shooters
2 concrete belly shooters
That you obviously see it that way is acute and elitest, period.
Here's the issue.....you assume way too much. But hey, most people do not use their gear so I get the sentiment. But, to make some broad sweeping statement premised totally on whether a guy shoots matches is uninformed and arrogant. Some of us are serious hunters and our gear goes all over the country in the worst locations the planet has to offer for days in the field over the worst terrain and weather... not 8 hours with a refreshment tent and a cozy hotel. Some of us are farmers and our gear rides in a saddle bag or strapped to a Mule banged all over hell and back every day of it's life for that one time shot that means saving a calf....not banging some steel. That's just a couple examples. The field of shooters out there is not limited to:
1 match shooters
2 concrete belly shooters
That you obviously see it that way is acute and elitest, period.
Re: Premier Vs USO
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mike</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ggmanning</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KNIGHT11B4</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I love to see the backyard expert who never shoot matches give their "opinions"
Rant off </div></div>
Shooting matches is irrelevant. There are many folks that shoot top tier gear, shoot it very often, are very good with said gear....and coudn't give 2 craps about shooting a match. The notion that someone must shoot matches to be taken seriously in an opinion on shooting gear is laughable.</div></div>
Here's the issue. When you don't shoot matches, we don't see equipment abused. After all, when was the last time you ran an obstacle course with your gear for time, banging the crap out of your scope/rifle in the process? Or when was the last time you ran your gear in a rainstorm full of mud? Did you stand around in the downpour for 8+ hours trying to keep your gear clean and dry while shooting? Comps take gear to its limits plain and simple.
Because if you're not doing these things, you're not putting your gear through the same challenges as those that run comps. So comps may not be an interest to you, but there's no way some fair weather concrete belly shooter is going to put their gear through it's paces like a comp shooter...period.
Now to the OP's question. I wouldn't have another Premier to save my life. I bought one and had the parallax issue and got rid of it. I'm sorry, but if I have to walk a fine line with my ring tension then it's not worth it. 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?
USO is a great scope and John is a great guy. Yes, their glass could be improved and they have their own set of issues but overall their a fantastic scope.</div></div>
I'm with Mike on this. If the scope is that finicky, then what happens when it takes a digger? I have yet to run a match in the way Mike describes, but I did just drop my S&B scope and DTA yesterday from about 4 feet off a table onto some rocks, picked it up, and shoot a 5 rd sub moa group with ZERO poi shift. The scope is now banged up but still shoots like a champ. I will never spend that kind of money on anything other than an S&B from now on.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mike</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ggmanning</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KNIGHT11B4</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I love to see the backyard expert who never shoot matches give their "opinions"
Rant off </div></div>
Shooting matches is irrelevant. There are many folks that shoot top tier gear, shoot it very often, are very good with said gear....and coudn't give 2 craps about shooting a match. The notion that someone must shoot matches to be taken seriously in an opinion on shooting gear is laughable.</div></div>
Here's the issue. When you don't shoot matches, we don't see equipment abused. After all, when was the last time you ran an obstacle course with your gear for time, banging the crap out of your scope/rifle in the process? Or when was the last time you ran your gear in a rainstorm full of mud? Did you stand around in the downpour for 8+ hours trying to keep your gear clean and dry while shooting? Comps take gear to its limits plain and simple.
Because if you're not doing these things, you're not putting your gear through the same challenges as those that run comps. So comps may not be an interest to you, but there's no way some fair weather concrete belly shooter is going to put their gear through it's paces like a comp shooter...period.
Now to the OP's question. I wouldn't have another Premier to save my life. I bought one and had the parallax issue and got rid of it. I'm sorry, but if I have to walk a fine line with my ring tension then it's not worth it. 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?
USO is a great scope and John is a great guy. Yes, their glass could be improved and they have their own set of issues but overall their a fantastic scope.</div></div>
I'm with Mike on this. If the scope is that finicky, then what happens when it takes a digger? I have yet to run a match in the way Mike describes, but I did just drop my S&B scope and DTA yesterday from about 4 feet off a table onto some rocks, picked it up, and shoot a 5 rd sub moa group with ZERO poi shift. The scope is now banged up but still shoots like a champ. I will never spend that kind of money on anything other than an S&B from now on.
Re: Premier Vs USO
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ggmanning</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here's the issue.....you assume way too much. But hey, most people do not use their gear so I get the sentiment. But, to make some broad sweeping statement premised totally on whether a guy shoots matches is uninformed and arrogant. Some of us are hunters and our gear goes all over the country in the worst locations the planet has to offer for days in the field... not hours. Some of us are ranchers and our gear rides in a saddle bag or strapped to a Mule banged all over hell and back every day for that one time shot that means saving a calf....not banging some steel. That's just a couple examples. The field of shooters out there is not limited to:
1 match shooters
2 concrete belly shooters
That you obviously see it that way is acute and elitest, period.</div></div>
Let me learn you a few more things. It's not a "broad sweeping statement" meant to encompass every centerfire rifle shooting in the world. First, this isn't a "hunting" forum. Read the upper left part of the forum where it says <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">FOR THE SERIOUS TACTICAL MARKSMAN</span></span> not for the hunter, or occasional range shooter. That's why we are "acute". This is a specific forum for a specific style of shooting. When I want to discuss hunting I go to a hunting forum. So take your "elitist" name calling and shove it up your ass.
Next, please...Hunters? Banging around in a truck? Or on a mule? I'm laughing right now. All for your "one shot". Great, your gear held together for that one shot. Fire 300 over three days and come back and talk to me. And you forget that much of this "elitist" gear is the same type of gear that's carried in the field over seas. So you want to talk about banging around in a ranch truck? How about banging around in a Humvee? Oh, and BTW, that one shot may not save a calf, but may save your life or your buddies life.
We've all heard the story of how hunters and ranchers but their gear through the rough stuff, and it's still no where near combat like conditions; the same conditions most of the major comps replicate.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ggmanning</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here's the issue.....you assume way too much. But hey, most people do not use their gear so I get the sentiment. But, to make some broad sweeping statement premised totally on whether a guy shoots matches is uninformed and arrogant. Some of us are hunters and our gear goes all over the country in the worst locations the planet has to offer for days in the field... not hours. Some of us are ranchers and our gear rides in a saddle bag or strapped to a Mule banged all over hell and back every day for that one time shot that means saving a calf....not banging some steel. That's just a couple examples. The field of shooters out there is not limited to:
1 match shooters
2 concrete belly shooters
That you obviously see it that way is acute and elitest, period.</div></div>
Let me learn you a few more things. It's not a "broad sweeping statement" meant to encompass every centerfire rifle shooting in the world. First, this isn't a "hunting" forum. Read the upper left part of the forum where it says <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">FOR THE SERIOUS TACTICAL MARKSMAN</span></span> not for the hunter, or occasional range shooter. That's why we are "acute". This is a specific forum for a specific style of shooting. When I want to discuss hunting I go to a hunting forum. So take your "elitist" name calling and shove it up your ass.
Next, please...Hunters? Banging around in a truck? Or on a mule? I'm laughing right now. All for your "one shot". Great, your gear held together for that one shot. Fire 300 over three days and come back and talk to me. And you forget that much of this "elitist" gear is the same type of gear that's carried in the field over seas. So you want to talk about banging around in a ranch truck? How about banging around in a Humvee? Oh, and BTW, that one shot may not save a calf, but may save your life or your buddies life.
We've all heard the story of how hunters and ranchers but their gear through the rough stuff, and it's still no where near combat like conditions; the same conditions most of the major comps replicate.
G
Guest
Guest
Re: Premier Vs USO
All scope have issues, likes, an returnable faults. The bulk of the fan boys here, have never tested their chosen, past a one day (read hrs) of square range/safe queen time.
The 22X SN-3 that is mounted on my 300wm was dropped (by a DOD/E fuck) 30 feet from a roof, but still won the match, skirts an suites were watching. My side kicks new S&B was DOA, so if you look at that info an draw a life conclusion, that makes you think what?
On any given day from every mfg shit breaks, or gets shipped when it's defective. <span style="font-weight: bold">No one</span> can design, engineer, build, an market a product that satisfies 110% of the masses. An most especially the bulk here who think a one way paper or steel target on a sunny day is the final test.
The bulk of the time we tend to blame the object, instead of looking inward, price point, or task, we purchased the item for in the first place.
Asking a question about gear, on here anymore is a lost cause. The amount of responses by those who are sponsored, is meaningless to those who can read between the lines.
That said, it is refreshing to see the mfgs step up an correct issues not for seen on the drawing board,...
I've a POS 22lr that wears a Bushnell that, I have replaced with everybody over the years but, I always seem to reinstall that same Bushnell, wonder why that is?
All scope have issues, likes, an returnable faults. The bulk of the fan boys here, have never tested their chosen, past a one day (read hrs) of square range/safe queen time.
The 22X SN-3 that is mounted on my 300wm was dropped (by a DOD/E fuck) 30 feet from a roof, but still won the match, skirts an suites were watching. My side kicks new S&B was DOA, so if you look at that info an draw a life conclusion, that makes you think what?
On any given day from every mfg shit breaks, or gets shipped when it's defective. <span style="font-weight: bold">No one</span> can design, engineer, build, an market a product that satisfies 110% of the masses. An most especially the bulk here who think a one way paper or steel target on a sunny day is the final test.
The bulk of the time we tend to blame the object, instead of looking inward, price point, or task, we purchased the item for in the first place.
Asking a question about gear, on here anymore is a lost cause. The amount of responses by those who are sponsored, is meaningless to those who can read between the lines.
That said, it is refreshing to see the mfgs step up an correct issues not for seen on the drawing board,...
I've a POS 22lr that wears a Bushnell that, I have replaced with everybody over the years but, I always seem to reinstall that same Bushnell, wonder why that is?
Re: Premier Vs USO
<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 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.
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>
David,
Great explanation, thanks for clearing that up.
However, whatever the cause is, it's unacceptable. I get it, it's being fixed. When it is fixed completely, let us all know. I'd prefer not to have a scope, have to send it back for a fix, or as I said walk that fine line of exact ring tension.
Also, whether it's a tube that's too thin or tolerances that are too tight, the results would remain the same if a mishap was to occur, correct?
<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.
David,
Great explanation, thanks for clearing that up.
However, whatever the cause is, it's unacceptable. I get it, it's being fixed. When it is fixed completely, let us all know. I'd prefer not to have a scope, have to send it back for a fix, or as I said walk that fine line of exact ring tension.
Also, whether it's a tube that's too thin or tolerances that are too tight, the results would remain the same if a mishap was to occur, correct?
Re: Premier Vs USO
You blow it well out of proportion for sake of grandstanding with the talk of lives on the line.....etc. The next time you stand to lose anything but a trip to the prize table at a match let me know.
Let's stay focused here without all the fervent rant.....
1. The bottom line is you don't think anybody that doesn't shoot a match really uses there gear....you cannot contest that because you have made that sentiment very clear.
2. I contend the simple fact that there are people that don't shoot matches that do indeed put their gear through hard use....just as hard as any match shooter.
What do I know though? I don't shoot matches so I am a "concrete belly shooter" by default.
Mike don't take any comment as personal in my threads...I have nothing against you whatsoever, we just totally disagree on this topic. My apologies for both of us though to the original poster. Our disagreement has thoroughly crapped on this thread so I will sign off.
You blow it well out of proportion for sake of grandstanding with the talk of lives on the line.....etc. The next time you stand to lose anything but a trip to the prize table at a match let me know.
Let's stay focused here without all the fervent rant.....
1. The bottom line is you don't think anybody that doesn't shoot a match really uses there gear....you cannot contest that because you have made that sentiment very clear.
2. I contend the simple fact that there are people that don't shoot matches that do indeed put their gear through hard use....just as hard as any match shooter.
What do I know though? I don't shoot matches so I am a "concrete belly shooter" by default.
Mike don't take any comment as personal in my threads...I have nothing against you whatsoever, we just totally disagree on this topic. My apologies for both of us though to the original poster. Our disagreement has thoroughly crapped on this thread so I will sign off.
Re: Premier Vs USO
I always hesitate to get involved in a "scope thread" as it could be too readily apparent that I am biased. However, in speaking of purely technical terms I always get a laugh about folks that talk about one scope having "better glass" which is usually conjoined with the term "brighter".
A clear image is obviously highly desired in an optic.
The rub comes in when your looking at "standard targets" which for all intents and purposes are mostly black, tan and white. The lens coatings on most production scopes are "tinted" or color corrected to enhance these visual effects.
Analogy: Blue blocker sunglasses. [add valley girl voice here] "Everything is so much cleared and brighter than my regular sunglasses."
The problem with enhancing the yellow spectrum to make things "brighter" is that it also has the side effect of washing out the shades of blue,green and yellow which allows for great contrast between dark and light but not so much for differentiating shades of green and tan.
Think ghillie suit for a moment. Never quite correct but pretty close for the environment.
A color corrected or tinted scope may well gloss right over the subtle differences of a ghillie vs. a lump of growing grass. An uncorrected lens will show those differences but will appear "darker" because of the lack of enhancement. This is true color, which is actually very difficult to produce when dealing with passing light through multiple lenses.
I would submit that I would rather have an optic that showed me true color vs. an enhanced color simply for the reason that coming off an enhanced optic the eye will have to adjust back to normal. This is why shooters have eye strain when on a scope for a long period of time. Either they are looking with only one eye (facial muscle strain AND eye strain) OR they are looking with both eyes open and their brain is having fits trying to coordinate 2 very different images. Consider the physiologic effects. Pupils (more precisely the iris) operate as a pair, the right (looking through the scope) needs to constrict because the image is "bright" the left needs to open because the image is "dark". Good recipe for a head ache.
Food for thought.
Cheers,
Doc
I always hesitate to get involved in a "scope thread" as it could be too readily apparent that I am biased. However, in speaking of purely technical terms I always get a laugh about folks that talk about one scope having "better glass" which is usually conjoined with the term "brighter".
A clear image is obviously highly desired in an optic.
The rub comes in when your looking at "standard targets" which for all intents and purposes are mostly black, tan and white. The lens coatings on most production scopes are "tinted" or color corrected to enhance these visual effects.
Analogy: Blue blocker sunglasses. [add valley girl voice here] "Everything is so much cleared and brighter than my regular sunglasses."
The problem with enhancing the yellow spectrum to make things "brighter" is that it also has the side effect of washing out the shades of blue,green and yellow which allows for great contrast between dark and light but not so much for differentiating shades of green and tan.
Think ghillie suit for a moment. Never quite correct but pretty close for the environment.
A color corrected or tinted scope may well gloss right over the subtle differences of a ghillie vs. a lump of growing grass. An uncorrected lens will show those differences but will appear "darker" because of the lack of enhancement. This is true color, which is actually very difficult to produce when dealing with passing light through multiple lenses.
I would submit that I would rather have an optic that showed me true color vs. an enhanced color simply for the reason that coming off an enhanced optic the eye will have to adjust back to normal. This is why shooters have eye strain when on a scope for a long period of time. Either they are looking with only one eye (facial muscle strain AND eye strain) OR they are looking with both eyes open and their brain is having fits trying to coordinate 2 very different images. Consider the physiologic effects. Pupils (more precisely the iris) operate as a pair, the right (looking through the scope) needs to constrict because the image is "bright" the left needs to open because the image is "dark". Good recipe for a head ache.
Food for thought.
Cheers,
Doc
Re: Premier Vs USO
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ggmanning</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You blow it well out of proportion for sake of grandstanding with the talk of lives on the line.....etc. The next time you stand to lose anything but a trip to the prize table at a match let me know.
Let's stay focused here without all the fervent rant.....
1. The bottom line is you don't think anybody that doesn't shoot a match really uses there gear....you cannot contest that because you have made that sentiment very clear.
2. I contend the simple fact that there are people that don't shoot matches that do indeed put their gear through hard use....just as hard as any match shooter.
What do I know though? </div></div>
What do you know? I am open minded and man enough to admit if I'm wrong so if you can explain to me how people that don't shoot matches put their gear through equivalent use I welcome your detailed accounts.
Grandstanding! Classic! I love your subtle slights. I could learn from you.
We will agree on one thing, we have derailed this topic and I, as well, will bow out. I think I've got something elitist to do like take my BMW to the polo match.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ggmanning</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You blow it well out of proportion for sake of grandstanding with the talk of lives on the line.....etc. The next time you stand to lose anything but a trip to the prize table at a match let me know.
Let's stay focused here without all the fervent rant.....
1. The bottom line is you don't think anybody that doesn't shoot a match really uses there gear....you cannot contest that because you have made that sentiment very clear.
2. I contend the simple fact that there are people that don't shoot matches that do indeed put their gear through hard use....just as hard as any match shooter.
What do I know though? </div></div>
What do you know? I am open minded and man enough to admit if I'm wrong so if you can explain to me how people that don't shoot matches put their gear through equivalent use I welcome your detailed accounts.
Grandstanding! Classic! I love your subtle slights. I could learn from you.
We will agree on one thing, we have derailed this topic and I, as well, will bow out. I think I've got something elitist to do like take my BMW to the polo match.
Re: Premier Vs USO
Ive had all three, 2 USO's, 2 PH, 1 SB, and have had to send 3 of the 5 back for one reason or another.
USO tpal went back for a parralax issue.
SB 4-16 x50 had unacceptal distortion around the edges, and still awaiting a replacement.
PH essentally went in for turret upgrades and a full checkup.
Go with what you like. Go and try to look through them first is the key.
Ive had all three, 2 USO's, 2 PH, 1 SB, and have had to send 3 of the 5 back for one reason or another.
USO tpal went back for a parralax issue.
SB 4-16 x50 had unacceptal distortion around the edges, and still awaiting a replacement.
PH essentally went in for turret upgrades and a full checkup.
Go with what you like. Go and try to look through them first is the key.
Re: Premier Vs USO
It's not being blown out of proportion, when the optic continues To be the weakest link in the system, manufacturers need to address it.
Last week at Gunsite, six shooters in the XLR class and 2 scopes were unusable. One was deemed during calibration completely unexceptable, the other died shooting it. (low round at the class too) . That means we all need to stop and address the issue or else move on without the shooter.
Same thing at matches, we always see a minimum of 2 to 4 scopes break and during a class of 10 you can guarantee 2 scopes are going down.
I will give my only props to IOR here, they at least understand when a problem comes up and they release the next scope with a Gen rating. So you know whether you have a Gen2 or Gen4. At least you try and figure out the potential problems that way. I think it is high time when a problem is identified and the manufacturer claims it is addressed, you can say, "I have a Gen 2" then if the same problem shows up we can start to rate the actual effort. Too often we continue to see the same old problems from the same people and very few problems with others. Sure we can all caveat it with the line, " anything mechanical can break, or all scopes can be broken" but when it is the same players over and over, we need to adjust out debate points. Like software we need to know you have S&B 4-16x v2.0 or a Vortex Gen 2 Razor, with a note that says the eye piece was changed to open up the eye box. Something like that. We fixed the sticking parallax, so we know. Like software.
Optics are a necessity, having to carry 2 for some people is a bad way of doing business. You spend $1k to attend a course, $500 for the flight, $500 for the car, $500 for the hotel, then find out your scope went down on day two only to get a wave of the hand is not the answer. Great customer service doesn't replace a failed trip, the best service on my mind is the one I never use. Guarantee me you tested it before you shipped it, Guarantee me you as the builder did everything you could to make sure it is right, and when a problem happens twice you did something to assure me there won't be a third.
It's not being blown out of proportion, when the optic continues To be the weakest link in the system, manufacturers need to address it.
Last week at Gunsite, six shooters in the XLR class and 2 scopes were unusable. One was deemed during calibration completely unexceptable, the other died shooting it. (low round at the class too) . That means we all need to stop and address the issue or else move on without the shooter.
Same thing at matches, we always see a minimum of 2 to 4 scopes break and during a class of 10 you can guarantee 2 scopes are going down.
I will give my only props to IOR here, they at least understand when a problem comes up and they release the next scope with a Gen rating. So you know whether you have a Gen2 or Gen4. At least you try and figure out the potential problems that way. I think it is high time when a problem is identified and the manufacturer claims it is addressed, you can say, "I have a Gen 2" then if the same problem shows up we can start to rate the actual effort. Too often we continue to see the same old problems from the same people and very few problems with others. Sure we can all caveat it with the line, " anything mechanical can break, or all scopes can be broken" but when it is the same players over and over, we need to adjust out debate points. Like software we need to know you have S&B 4-16x v2.0 or a Vortex Gen 2 Razor, with a note that says the eye piece was changed to open up the eye box. Something like that. We fixed the sticking parallax, so we know. Like software.
Optics are a necessity, having to carry 2 for some people is a bad way of doing business. You spend $1k to attend a course, $500 for the flight, $500 for the car, $500 for the hotel, then find out your scope went down on day two only to get a wave of the hand is not the answer. Great customer service doesn't replace a failed trip, the best service on my mind is the one I never use. Guarantee me you tested it before you shipped it, Guarantee me you as the builder did everything you could to make sure it is right, and when a problem happens twice you did something to assure me there won't be a third.
Re: Premier Vs USO
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mike</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Also, whether it's a tube that's too thin or tolerances that are too tight, the results would remain the same if a mishap was to occur, correct?</div></div>
Hardly, because it takes a lot more stress to cause a <span style="font-weight: bold">permanent</span> (plastic) deformation of the tube, while the flex caused by the rings is temporary (elastic) deformation. Of course the elastic deformation caused by the rings is sort of "permanent" since it persists as long as the rings stay on, but mechanically there is a big difference.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mike</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Also, whether it's a tube that's too thin or tolerances that are too tight, the results would remain the same if a mishap was to occur, correct?</div></div>
Hardly, because it takes a lot more stress to cause a <span style="font-weight: bold">permanent</span> (plastic) deformation of the tube, while the flex caused by the rings is temporary (elastic) deformation. Of course the elastic deformation caused by the rings is sort of "permanent" since it persists as long as the rings stay on, but mechanically there is a big difference.
Re: Premier Vs USO
Lowlight's last paragraph sums it up. These rifles/scopes are expensive and this isn't a cheap endeavor, but time is even MORE important to me. When I have to return 50% of a manufacture's products that are new, or nearly new because of QC issues, that isn't cutting it.
Lowlight's last paragraph sums it up. These rifles/scopes are expensive and this isn't a cheap endeavor, but time is even MORE important to me. When I have to return 50% of a manufacture's products that are new, or nearly new because of QC issues, that isn't cutting it.
Re: Premier Vs USO
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's not being blown out of proportion, when the optic continues To be the weakest link in the system, manufacturers need to address it.
Last week at Gunsite, six shooters in the XLR class and 2 scopes were unusable. One was deemed during calibration completely unexceptable, the other died shooting it. (low round at the class too) . That means we all need to stop and address the issue or else move on without the shooter.
Same thing at matches, we always see a minimum of 2 to 4 scopes break and during a class of 10 you can guarantee 2 scopes are going down.
I will give my only props to IOR here, they at least understand when a problem comes up and they release the next scope with a Gen rating. So you know whether you have a Gen2 or Gen4. At least you try and figure out the potential problems that way. I think it is high time when a problem is identified and the manufacturer claims it is addressed, you can say, "I have a Gen 2" then if the same problem shows up we can start to rate the actual effort. Too often we continue to see the same old problems from the same people and very few problems with others. Sure we can all caveat it with the line, " anything mechanical can break, or all scopes can be broken" but when it is the same players over and over, we need to adjust out debate points. Like software we need to know you have S&B 4-16x v2.0 or a Vortex Gen 2 Razor, with a note that says the eye piece was changed to open up the eye box. Something like that. We fixed the sticking parallax, so we know. Like software.
Optics are a necessity, having to carry 2 for some people is a bad way of doing business. You spend $1k to attend a course, $500 for the flight, $500 for the car, $500 for the hotel, then find out your scope went down on day two only to get a wave of the hand is not the answer. Great customer service doesn't replace a failed trip, the best service on my mind is the one I never use. Guarantee me you tested it before you shipped it, Guarantee me you as the builder did everything you could to make sure it is right, and when a problem happens twice you did something to assure me there won't be a third. </div></div>
Lowlight -
Were the two scopes that went down Premier? What scopes to you see go down the most?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's not being blown out of proportion, when the optic continues To be the weakest link in the system, manufacturers need to address it.
Last week at Gunsite, six shooters in the XLR class and 2 scopes were unusable. One was deemed during calibration completely unexceptable, the other died shooting it. (low round at the class too) . That means we all need to stop and address the issue or else move on without the shooter.
Same thing at matches, we always see a minimum of 2 to 4 scopes break and during a class of 10 you can guarantee 2 scopes are going down.
I will give my only props to IOR here, they at least understand when a problem comes up and they release the next scope with a Gen rating. So you know whether you have a Gen2 or Gen4. At least you try and figure out the potential problems that way. I think it is high time when a problem is identified and the manufacturer claims it is addressed, you can say, "I have a Gen 2" then if the same problem shows up we can start to rate the actual effort. Too often we continue to see the same old problems from the same people and very few problems with others. Sure we can all caveat it with the line, " anything mechanical can break, or all scopes can be broken" but when it is the same players over and over, we need to adjust out debate points. Like software we need to know you have S&B 4-16x v2.0 or a Vortex Gen 2 Razor, with a note that says the eye piece was changed to open up the eye box. Something like that. We fixed the sticking parallax, so we know. Like software.
Optics are a necessity, having to carry 2 for some people is a bad way of doing business. You spend $1k to attend a course, $500 for the flight, $500 for the car, $500 for the hotel, then find out your scope went down on day two only to get a wave of the hand is not the answer. Great customer service doesn't replace a failed trip, the best service on my mind is the one I never use. Guarantee me you tested it before you shipped it, Guarantee me you as the builder did everything you could to make sure it is right, and when a problem happens twice you did something to assure me there won't be a third. </div></div>
Lowlight -
Were the two scopes that went down Premier? What scopes to you see go down the most?
Re: Premier Vs USO
There were no Premiers in the class, the statement was a generalization of the idea that a debate calling out known problems is blowing the problems out of proportion.
If the scope owners want to out the builder, that is their choice, but they were both from the same company.
I did not direct my comments towards any single builder.
There were no Premiers in the class, the statement was a generalization of the idea that a debate calling out known problems is blowing the problems out of proportion.
If the scope owners want to out the builder, that is their choice, but they were both from the same company.
I did not direct my comments towards any single builder.
Re: Premier Vs USO
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If the scope owners want to out the builder, that is their choice, but they were both from the same company.</div></div>I would appreciate it if the owners would chime-in.
I've recently seen some dodgy stuff from very experienced scope makers: Not issues that would turn a hit into a miss, but quality at the low end of the QC spec that I would not have seen a few years ago. I suspect that it's because the manufacturers are making huge quantities of scopes for the military. The military has procedures to replace a scope that goes down and it doesn't care if the coatings are not perfectly done or if the lenses are at the bottom of the QC spec.
But civilians who spend thousands of dollars of their own money do care, and I wonder out loud whether the individual buyer is becoming the victim of the economic success of the manufacturers.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If the scope owners want to out the builder, that is their choice, but they were both from the same company.</div></div>I would appreciate it if the owners would chime-in.
I've recently seen some dodgy stuff from very experienced scope makers: Not issues that would turn a hit into a miss, but quality at the low end of the QC spec that I would not have seen a few years ago. I suspect that it's because the manufacturers are making huge quantities of scopes for the military. The military has procedures to replace a scope that goes down and it doesn't care if the coatings are not perfectly done or if the lenses are at the bottom of the QC spec.
But civilians who spend thousands of dollars of their own money do care, and I wonder out loud whether the individual buyer is becoming the victim of the economic success of the manufacturers.
Similar threads
