PRS FFP scope with thicker reticles?

[TNSleeper99]

Looking for suggestions, as I get older I am having a lot of trouble resolving my reticle subtentions for hold overs/hold unders. Currently running a mk5hd 5-25x with PR2. I have to be in the 18x or greater range to discern the reticle, which is compromising my target acquisition.

At this point I would even consider something like. 4-20x if I had a line thickness of greater then 0.03. Maybe go to a half mil subtention scope with a 0.05 line thickness if I can find one.

 

[stanley_white]

Depending on your reticle needs, US Optics might work.

While I don’t know what their thickness is, I know that I can see my USO reticles better than others.

Paging @rothgyr for further USO insights.

-Stan

 

[FredHammer]

Ha. I was just talking about this today. Yup, I hit old man stage I guess with near sightedness and readers! Need thicker reticles to keep them in focus. Bushnell Elite HDMR has decent thickness reticle starting at 12X. The DMR3 G3 reticle isn't bad either, though I can see it ok at 15X.

 

[65x55guy]

Bushnell LRHSi or LRTSi? 4.5-18x mag range with the circle of death that is a 2 Mil radius?

 

[Mike Casselton]

Just grab something with the H-59 reticle.
It's like looking through fence posts.

 

[koshkin]

JVCR reticle in US Optics scopes is worth looking into.

ILya

 

[rothgyr]

Depending on your reticle needs, US Optics might work.

While I don’t know what their thickness is, I know that I can see my USO reticles better than others.

Paging @rothgyr for further USO insights.

-Stan

The 17x has a thicker reticle than the 25x. Both pictures at 15x.

FDN 17x:

FDN 25x (pardon the filthy lens, it gets a lot of use in the elements):

OP, If you switch to something with a bigger fov, you might not mind running at 18+ power. I know a few guys who recently stepped up to the XTR pro or Razor III who run at higher mag than they did with the mk5, since there's less of an fov penalty at high power. I usually run at 20x these days with my ATACR or USO.

 

[rothgyr]

For reference, this is the FDN 25x at 20x. Note the fov:

 

[stevenc23]

Vortex Gen II Razors had the EBR-2C reticles which were in 0.5 mil increments. Can be had for relatively cheap in the PX. Great scopes with lifetime warranties

 

[waveslayer]

Just a thought. Maybe go with a SFP to get the thicker strata lines, then keep it on a set power that will work, just sit it to know the drops for that set power, if that made sense

 

[209jones]

I understand what your dilemma is, I have a Delta Stryker I find pretty useable, a Tract that takes a bit more concentration, but is OK, and a Sightron that is a fairly thick one in comparison to the other two.

 

[Baron23]

Maybe go to a half mil subtention scope with a 0.05 line thickness if I can find one.

That sounds a lot like Leupold’s TMR reticle they offer in the Mk 4 spotting scopes. They have variations in the TMR line (1st plane, 2nd plane, and for spotting scopes) so maybe take a quick look online at their site and see if it’s at all what you’re looking for. Cheeers

 

[wade2big]

Vortex Gen II Razors had the EBR-2C reticles which were in 0.5 mil increments. Can be had for relatively cheap in the PX. Great scopes with lifetime warranties

The gen 2 4.5-27 are .03 mil thick and the Gen 2 3-18 are .04 mil thick.

I prefer .04 - .05mil myself. Not many FFP reticles that fit this description anylonger unfortunately. I have a couple gen 3 razors but don’t like the thin reticle that forces me to be at the top quarter of the magnification range. The large field of view does help in this regard though.

 

[just browsing]

+1 for the FDN17 or 25x w/ JVCR.

Jake designed it to be slightly thicker with the thought being that it’s more usable at lower/mid-range mag levels, where a vast majority of guys will shoot positional stages.

Obviously it works very well for that type of competition use, but I imagine it would work equally as well for your application too. It’s thick to the point where it’s much easier to use when not at max magnification, but certainly not thick to the point that it becomes a hindrance when you do have it cranked up.

 

[rothgyr]

I feel like I need to clarify what I mentioned about running at higher magnification - in order to get a MK5 reticle to show up at the same size as I have my USO, I have to crank the MK5 to 20x. By the time it's at 20x, the FOV becomes tiny, because the scope is nearly 4" from my face. My USO's eye relief is somewhere around 3.2" and the eyepiece fills your view quite a bit more. Think of it as looking at a picture on your phone and zooming in 20% vs just bringing the phone 20% closer to your face.

In order to pick up your PR2, you're saying you need to increase your magnification to at least 18x. With a scope that has better FOV such as an ATACR/NX8/USO FDN/XTR III or Pro/Steiner/Razor III/March you can run 18X and see your reticle just as well, while having a SIGNIFICANT amount of FOV still, and your target acquisition won't suffer.

Honestly, I like MK5s despite not having my favorite turrets, but the thing that really distances me from them is that the FOV is like peeking through a coffee straw by comparison to nearly every other $600+ optic.

 

[Emerson0311]

The 17x has a thicker reticle than the 25x. Both pictures at 15x.

FDN 17x:View attachment 8204293

FDN 25x (pardon the filthy lens, it gets a lot of use in the elements):

View attachment 8204295

OP, If you switch to something with a bigger fov, you might not mind running at 18+ power. I know a few guys who recently stepped up to the XTR pro or Razor III who run at higher mag than they did with the mk5, since there's less of an fov penalty at high power. I usually run at 20x these days with my ATACR or USO.

That’s where I’m at also. I run 16 with my Ares ETR, but the reticle would work better for me at 18-20 for holdovers. Problem is, I would lose to much FOV.

 

[YotaEer]

Zeiss LRP S3 MRi reticle is thicker than most. Nice scopes overall too

 

[AznTactical]

My Bushnell Forge 4.5-27's Deploy's reticle center dot was very big. Too big for precision .22lr work. If I remember correctly the center dot was Ø0.12 mils.

 

[smcfarland]

Another vote for USO. While not doing PRS, I prefer the thicker reticle for my older eyes when hunting.

 

[Grubber]

My best advice is take your time. Look through as many as you can. Take note what you like and what you do not like. When you have looked through enough of them you will form your own opinion what you like and what you do not like.

Point is what’s good for my eyes or someone else’s eyes may not be so hot with yours. In your budget you have a good number of them to explore. Best of luck in your adventure.

 

[rothgyr]

My best advice is take your time. Look through as many as you can. Take note what you like and what you do not like. When you have looked through enough of them you will form your own opinion what you like and what you do not like.

Point is what’s good for my eyes or someone else’s eyes may not be so hot with yours. In your budget you have a good number of them to explore. Best of luck in your adventure.

This is the hard truth. In the quest for finding your favorites, trading on the PX is your friend. I've pretty much settled on what I like, but it's after running a PST II, SWFA 10x, Ares ETR, Maven RS.4, M7Xi, USO FDN, K525i, Razor II, ATACR 7-35, more USOs, and and XTR III. I'm surprised how many I could trade dollar:dollar on the PX.

A lot of people are doing the same thing at the same time, and in 2023, there's a lot of premium stuff from five years ago going around for great prices/trades as people upgrade to the cutting edge every SHOT iteration.

 

[B y r o n]

Instead of looking for a new scope, maybe it is time to look at a new eye glass prescription. Speaking from experience here. Also, it will be less expensive.

 

[DeathBeforeDismount]

Something you need to consider. When you are starting out shooting PRS, you are going to shoot on lower magnification. Target finding and all the chaos is going to keep you backed off so you can get the target into the scope. You won't be smooth, probably fighting some gear ect. All this contributes to shooting on 10-12x so you dont time out search for targets in the scope.

What is going to happen is, in 6 months or a year when stuff starts clicking and you get comfortable, you will realize you need to see more detail so you can make finer adjustment in reticle. Instead of aiming at the target you will pick a place on the plate to aim, and need to see where you hit OR miss so you can make the proper correction on the next shot.

I went from a G2 razor to a ZCO to ZCO and Tangent and now to G3 Razor due to reticle size. ZCO has very thick reticles, but i found for me, they were covering up to much of the target for my liking. The last 2 years shooting on 12-14X, that was perfect. I tried a Tangent for a few weeks with a XR Gen 3, and shooting at the same mag the reticle was WAY too thin and sold it for another ZCO.

Now that I am better at finding targets and putting my gun on a prop where I dont have to search around , I shoot on 18-22x so I can see more detail of the target. The ZCO at 20x was just too damn big for the small ass targets they shoot here on east coast. So i switched to G3 razor which is thinner. Had I know a year ago what I know now, I would have kept the Tangent, which is pretty much the perfect PRS scope all around. I lost alot of money switching back and forth.

It would be better to go with a thinner reticle, since you will migrate to that most likely, and get used to finding targets with naked eye and throwing gun down on bag or prop pointed at the target. Thats one of the biggest things that separates the upper from the lower shooters. They don't waste time finding targets, fucking with mag or parralax on the clock. Its also one of the cheapest and MOST effective ways you can practice, just building and breaking positions on a target, and dry firing. Doesn't cost you anything but will build a ton of good habits and make this game easier.

I wish I had my Tangent back, but the G3 razor is also one hell of a scope for the money.

 

[DeathBeforeDismount]

+1 for the FDN17 or 25x w/ JVCR.

Jake designed it to be slightly thicker with the thought being that it’s more usable at lower/mid-range mag levels, where a vast majority of guys will shoot positional stages.

Obviously it works very well for that type of competition use, but I imagine it would work equally as well for your application too. It’s thick to the point where it’s much easier to use when not at max magnification, but certainly not thick to the point that it becomes a hindrance when you do have it cranked up.

Watching Jake have to switch scopes on day 2 becuase his USO shit the bed and he couldnt hit shit Day 1 (this was a few months ago) is not inspiring. There is a reason no one uses USO anymore and they have the worst resale among optics. They have a terrible reputation going back over a decade, and that was before they sold the company.

 

[rothgyr]

Watching Jake have to switch scopes on day 2 becuase his USO shit the bed and he couldnt hit shit Day 1 (this was a few months ago) is not inspiring.

The same thing can be said about every optic seen going down at a match. It's happened with Leupolds, Kahles, AMGs, and Gen III razors too. Stuff works until it's busted. Jake's still managed to win a lot over the last decade with USO despite any issues he's had to deal with.

We all have crappy situations at matches pop up now and again. My Bix'n Andy failed at a match last year. So did my buddy's Trigger Tech. Neither of us switched trigger makes over it. @JC Steel - how long did you run that USO before it died?

 

[just browsing]

Watching Jake have to switch scopes on day 2 becuase his USO shit the bed and he couldnt hit shit Day 1 (this was a few months ago) is not inspiring. There is a reason no one uses USO anymore and they have the worst resale among optics. They have a terrible reputation going back over a decade, and that was before they sold the company.

Last 2 I’ve seen shit themselves at a match were ZCOs. Grease traps got a little loose from sitting in the sun and splooged all over the inside of the lense. Looked like they got hit with a shotgun blast. Guess those do compromise afterall?

Before that, 2 Tangents, a NF, and countless Razors. Assuming those are not inspiring as well?

Like rothgyr said, literally every scope made has failure points. Jake having one go down makes the USO no less inspiring than anything else that has a failure.

 

[DeathBeforeDismount]

> becuase his USO shit the bed and he couldnt hit shit Day 1 (this was a few months ago) is not inspiring.

The same thing can be said about every optic seen going down at a match. It's happened with Leupolds, Kahles, AMGs, and Gen III razors too. Stuff works until it's busted. Jake's still managed to win a lot over the last decade with USO despite any issues he's had to deal with.

We all have crappy situations at matches pop up now and again. My Bix'n Andy failed at a match last year. So did my buddy's Trigger Tech. Neither of us switched trigger makes over it. @JC Steel - how long did you run that USO before it died?

Thats a bullshit cop out. Its not black or white. Everything fails, but not at the same rate. Leupolds fail at a much higher rate than Razors. NF/ZCO/Tangent fail at a pretty low rate. Saying they all fail is just ignorance and whitewashing the issue.

USO has a 20 year history putting out shit. There was a time when there two "Alpha" scope choices were a S&B PM2 or a USO. They were super popular here in the early 00's, back when George (who is dead now I think, and owned USO) posted on the Hide, before the scout days. There just weren't any good options. You had MK4 which was the standard back then, but they had their own issue. Premier did the conversions putting a better reticle into the MK4 before they came out with their line (that eventually turned into TT). IOR had not proven it self to be the piece of shit they are yet, so a ton of us ran them because the glass was superb and the reticles/features were great for the time. SuperSnipers were the cheap popular scope. USO was the only place you could order custom shit. Want a custom reticle? Design it and pay the fee. Custom turrets, illum, ect. Then they just stopped innovating. Other than coming out with the first real 1-8 dfp that actually worked, they slowly died out. They were notorious for for reticle failure and debris inside the scope. It was so bad people just stopped buying their shit, except for those who bought shit based on reputation from years ago. Guys migrated to S&B, Premier before they went tits up, Vortex came out with the razor and guys were still running SFP NXS before the ATACR/Beast came out. The company was eventually sold and most of their shit ended up being Chinese until they started to re-release their "flagship" scopes which don't look much different then shit designed over 20 years ago, at prices that rival the top alphas on the market.

USO is dead. They sponser a few shooters, and some of their dick hangers still run stuff becuase a legend like vibbert does. Some guys have owned them for 20 years and dont see a reason to change. But for anyone not already invested in them, they are a really poor choice that is going to cost them more money in the long run. Guys are lucky to get half price on the used market of what a new one costs today. No one wants that shit.

 

[rothgyr]

Thats a bullshit cop out. Its not black or white. Everything fails, but not at the same rate. Leupolds fail at a much higher rate than Razors. NF/ZCO/Tangent fail at a pretty low rate. Saying they all fail is just ignorance and whitewashing the issue.

USO has a 20 year history putting out shit. There was a time when there two "Alpha" scope choices were a S&B PM2 or a USO. They were super popular here in the early 00's, back when George (who is dead now I think, and owned USO) posted on the Hide, before the scout days. There just weren't any good options. You had MK4 which was the standard back then, but they had their own issue. Premier did the conversions putting a better reticle into the MK4 before they came out with their line (that eventually turned into TT). IOR had not proven it self to be the piece of shit they are yet, so a ton of us ran them because the glass was superb and the reticles/features were great for the time. SuperSnipers were the cheap popular scope. USO was the only place you could order custom shit. Want a custom reticle? Design it and pay the fee. Custom turrets, illum, ect. Then they just stopped innovating. Other than coming out with the first real 1-8 dfp that actually worked, they slowly died out. They were notorious for for reticle failure and debris inside the scope. It was so bad people just stopped buying their shit, except for those who bought shit based on reputation from years ago. Guys migrated to S&B, Premier before they went tits up, Vortex came out with the razor and guys were still running SFP NXS before the ATACR/Beast came out. The company was eventually sold and most of their shit ended up being Chinese until they started to re-release their "flagship" scopes which don't look much different then shit designed over 20 years ago, at prices that rival the top alphas on the market.

USO is dead. They sponser a few shooters, and some of their dick hangers still run stuff becuase a legend like vibbert does. Some guys have owned them for 20 years and dont see a reason to change. But for anyone not already invested in them, they are a really poor choice that is going to cost them more money in the long run. Guys are lucky to get half price on the used market of what a new one costs today. No one wants that shit.

Guys are lucky to get 1/2 price used on the market because that's what most of us paid for it. Same goes for Mil/Leo priced ATACRs, Razor IIIs, etc. Everyone knows how much you actually paid for your optics, and used prices reflect that. That's why TT and ZCO sells secondhand for close to their retail prices. Eurooptic sells the USA made USOs for 80% of USO's asking price. A PRS discount (which OP likely qualifies for) is even more discounted.

Odds are in favor that you've never even used a USO? 99% of the posts about USO problems are second/third hand accounts by people who've never used one, especially one of the current production.

I didn't mean to offend you and get you riled up, sorry. I strongly agree with your earlier statements about reticle thicknesses, gradually needing more magnification for more precision, etc., and I appreciated what you have to say about your own optics journey.

 

[just browsing]

Thats a bullshit cop out. Its not black or white. Everything fails, but not at the same rate. Leupolds fail at a much higher rate than Razors. NF/ZCO/Tangent fail at a pretty low rate. Saying they all fail is just ignorance and whitewashing the issue.

USO has a 20 year history putting out shit. There was a time when there two "Alpha" scope choices were a S&B PM2 or a USO. They were super popular here in the early 00's, back when George (who is dead now I think, and owned USO) posted on the Hide, before the scout days. There just weren't any good options. You had MK4 which was the standard back then, but they had their own issue. Premier did the conversions putting a better reticle into the MK4 before they came out with their line (that eventually turned into TT). IOR had not proven it self to be the piece of shit they are yet, so a ton of us ran them because the glass was superb and the reticles/features were great for the time. SuperSnipers were the cheap popular scope. USO was the only place you could order custom shit. Want a custom reticle? Design it and pay the fee. Custom turrets, illum, ect. Then they just stopped innovating. Other than coming out with the first real 1-8 dfp that actually worked, they slowly died out. They were notorious for for reticle failure and debris inside the scope. It was so bad people just stopped buying their shit, except for those who bought shit based on reputation from years ago. Guys migrated to S&B, Premier before they went tits up, Vortex came out with the razor and guys were still running SFP NXS before the ATACR/Beast came out. The company was eventually sold and most of their shit ended up being Chinese until they started to re-release their "flagship" scopes which don't look much different then shit designed over 20 years ago, at prices that rival the top alphas on the market.

USO is dead. They sponser a few shooters, and some of their dick hangers still run stuff becuase a legend like vibbert does. Some guys have owned them for 20 years and dont see a reason to change. But for anyone not already invested in them, they are a really poor choice that is going to cost them more money in the long run. Guys are lucky to get half price on the used market of what a new one costs today. No one wants that shit.

Certainly won’t hear any argument from me about their past flops, and I didn’t mention anything about paying MSRP… but that’s not specific to USO. Pay for new, you’re taking a loss regardless.

I also don’t get the 20 year old design argument. By that logic, S&B, NF, and Leupold are all in the same boat… that’s literally all those companies have done. Rework legacy designs that made them popular in the first place, integrate them into packages with updated aesthetics, and charge whatever the market supports.

Again, not even disagreeing with your sentiments, just your outdated view of USO being this terrible, vastly inferior option because that’s what you’ve heard regurgitated for the last 10 years. It also doesn’t change the fact that the FDN’s are very solid scopes for current street/secondary market prices. I would absolutely put them in the same class as the MK5, Gen 3, Kahles, ATACR, or pretty much any optic in the sub $2500 range.

 

[FuhQ]

Looking for suggestions, as I get older I am having a lot of trouble resolving my reticle subtentions for hold overs/hold unders. Currently running a mk5hd 5-25x with PR2. I have to be in the 18x or greater range to discern the reticle, which is compromising my target acquisition.

At this point I would even consider something like. 4-20x if I had a line thickness of greater then 0.03. Maybe go to a half mil subtention scope with a 0.05 line thickness if I can find one.

Zeiss LRP S3 has a fairly thick reticle. Pick your poison in 4-25x50 or 6-36x56 with either MOA or MRAD reticle.

I have one of the 6-36x56 ZF-MRI (MRAD) versions on my 700 5R .260 Rem. The scope is amazing for the price. Highly recommend taking a good look at it.

Zeiss LRP S3 Riflescopes

Zeiss LRP S3 Riflescopes are available at EuroOptic!

www.eurooptic.com

 

[Rob01]

I was going to mention the Zeiss S3 also. The numbers don’t tell the tale as it says it’s .03 but it’s very easy to see. Maybe because it’s very dark. I have older eyes and have no problem seeing that reticle even at lower powers.

 

[DeathBeforeDismount]

Guys are lucky to get 1/2 price used on the market because that's what most of us paid for it. Same goes for Mil/Leo priced ATACRs, Razor IIIs, etc. Everyone knows how much you actually paid for your optics, and used prices reflect that. That's why TT and ZCO sells secondhand for close to their retail prices. Eurooptic sells the USA made USOs for 80% of USO's asking price. A PRS discount (which OP likely qualifies for) is even more discounted.

Odds are in favor that you've never even used a USO? 99% of the posts about USO problems are second/third hand accounts by people who've never used one, especially one of the current production.

I didn't mean to offend you and get you riled up, sorry. I strongly agree with your earlier statements about reticle thicknesses, gradually needing more magnification for more precision, etc., and I appreciated what you have to say about your own optics journey.

Wrong again. The fact is, whoever bough the company tried to use what little reputation the company still had (Most on this website were already over them and their issues) and started selling shitty chicom OEM optics with the US optics name on the side. The ONE scope that was actually made in the US, was now Chinese. Leupold got their dicks slapped by the FTC by saying they were made in the US, yet were importing glass and other componets (which eventaly changed), Nightforce were coming from japan, S&B were obviously German. US optics until the Vortex AMG came out was the only real US made scope.

Ive owned 2 or 3 of them over the years. Can't remember exactly, but I did have a ST10 and a SN-3 with EREK or whatever it was called. Glass was good for the time, but it was a boat anchor and the reticle failed. I sent it back, got it repaired then sold it to buy a PM2, which I had for almost 10 years before stupidly selling it.

I am not offended at all. I just have a different perspective because I have used and been around their products since this website started, like a few others here. We also have used all the competition and know how they stack up. If you can't see that US optics is dead in the precision rifle community, I don't know what to tell you man.

 

[DeathBeforeDismount]

Certainly won’t hear any argument from me about their past flops, and I didn’t mention anything about paying MSRP… but that’s not specific to USO. Pay for new, you’re taking a loss regardless.

I also don’t get the 20 year old design argument. By that logic, S&B, NF, and Leupold are all in the same boat… that’s literally all those companies have done. Rework legacy designs that made them popular in the first place, integrate them into packages with updated aesthetics, and charge whatever the market supports.

Again, not even disagreeing with your sentiments, just your outdated view of USO being this terrible, vastly inferior option because that’s what you’ve heard regurgitated for the last 10 years. It also doesn’t change the fact that the FDN’s are very solid scopes for current street/secondary market prices. I would absolutely put them in the same class as the MK5, Gen 3, Kahles, ATACR, or pretty much any optic in the sub $2500 range.

S&B is the only one you could argue is using 20 year old design. And that is becuase it was SO FAR AHEAD of its time, it became the gold standard for almost 20 years and is still sold today, even if you can get better shit for the money. They also came out with a bunch of new designs in that same time, the 3-27, 5-20 ultrashorts and a bunch of others. S&B did not stop innovating, they just kept offering their tried and true optic, that almost EVERY western military uses, so why would they stop making it.

Leopold was dead in the water for a while but they eventualy came out the the MK6 and now the MK5 which is leaps better than their old shit. I don't even like them as a company or their products, but they have made up a ton of lost ground. Go shoot a PRS match or see what guys have on their western hunting optics. Mk5 Galore. Every non socom MK22 is going to be wearing a MK5 as well.

How did NF stop inovating? They came out with the NXS which crushed leupold in the military and tactical world. Then they even made F1 versions for DOD and alphabet agencies. They came out with the ATACR and the Beast. Not long ago they came out with the 7-35 ATACR which dominated for a few years before ZCO and TT took hold.

Those scopes you mentioned are not in the same class. The Kahles is the most overpriced POS on the market. The MK should cost like $1500, the mil pricing it actually sells for. The ATACR glass is pretty meh but its a very reliable optic. The Gen 3 razor kicks the living shit out of all those listed, and compares better to a ZCO or Tangent.

No one is running a USO but a handful of people. Why would you? Shitty past reputation and a ton of great PROVEN optics that are the same price or cheaper. What does USO offer that is going to peel anyone else away? Maybe if they start paying for my match fees and travel expenses.....

 

[rothgyr]

If you can't see that US optics is dead in the precision rifle community, I don't know what to tell you man.

No one is running a USO but a handful of people. Why would you? Shitty past reputation and a ton of great PROVEN optics that are the same price or cheaper.

By the sounds of it, you gave up on US Optics two business iterations ago. I'm digging my FDNs, one of my buddies is too. Neither of us were sponsored by USO, we just bought at good prices. For $2k, I'd take a USO over a MK5 or XRS3 every time. My buddy ditched his MK5 in favor of the USO and has seen improved scores in the mean time. The reason you see so many Leupolds is because they bought half of the top 100 PRS shooters, they're 5 oz lighter than the standard weight precision 5-25 scope, so of course you'll see it on hunting guns. Ain't nobody packing a 40oz ATACR on a western hunting rig. Leupold's marketing department and corresponding marketing budget know their audience very well. Beyond that the old hunting crowd loves Leupold for the brand name.

If US Optics is dead in the precision rifle community, and if you only see a few people running USO, it's because guys like you like to dig up the "shitty past reputation" and paste that over their current production line. Your personal experience with an ST-10 and SN-3--while appreciated for being actual first hand experience--are dealing with two business models/ownerships past, and on models that have been out of production for nearly a decade.

Also, sorry OP, the thread has veered off course dramatically.

 

[just browsing]

For our uses (largely civ, competition or leisure-based, non-life depending, etc.) there are 2 tiers of “alpha” optics. You have Tangent and ZCO at $3k+ (street price), and then everything else that competes under them.

There are only minute differences for everything grouped “under the line.” They’re all comparably priced with comparable quality and comparable failure rates. There are maybe some small differences in features, aesthetics, whatever, but ultimately it comes down to preference. If you want to try to justify $2500 on the NF or S&B because they’re used by military/.gov agencies or you prefer the name recognition that comes with them, knock yourself out. But there’s little to no practical or performance difference for our uses compared to the $2k Vortex, USO, or MK5. If your life depended on it MAYBE there’s a different discussion to be had.

And that’s exactly the point, guys like you don’t care that the FDN series might be a perfectly solid optic, or that it’s a full iteration (going on 5 years now?) removed from any that had chronic issues. Instead you just go around blindly repeating “USO sucks” because you got a bad one 10 years ago and that’s what everyone else says. No one will argue that they put out some questionable optics in the past, or that they’re trying to compete at the wrong retail price point… but none of that makes it this indefensible investment that you’re making it out to be or has any bearing on the quality of their current offerings.

Seems to me that there’s some deeper-rooted animosity you old guys have towards USO the company that maybe we don’t understand. It’s the only logical explanation I can think of.

Also just wanted to point out the irony of making these 2 statements separately without making the connection…

… Go shoot a PRS match or see what guys have on their western hunting optics. Mk5 Galore.

…Maybe if they start paying for my match fees and travel expenses.....

 

[stanley_white]

“If a cat sits on a hot stove, that cat won't sit on a hot stove again. That cat won't sit on a cold stove either. That cat just don't like stoves.”

-Mark Twain

 

[Basher]

S&B is the only one you could argue is using 20 year old design. And that is becuase it was SO FAR AHEAD of its time, it became the gold standard for almost 20 years and is still sold today, even if you can get better shit for the money. They also came out with a bunch of new designs in that same time, the 3-27, 5-20 ultrashorts and a bunch of others. S&B did not stop innovating, they just kept offering their tried and true optic, that almost EVERY western military uses, so why would they stop making it.

Leopold was dead in the water for a while but they eventualy came out the the MK6 and now the MK5 which is leaps better than their old shit. I don't even like them as a company or their products, but they have made up a ton of lost ground. Go shoot a PRS match or see what guys have on their western hunting optics. Mk5 Galore. Every non socom MK22 is going to be wearing a MK5 as well.

How did NF stop inovating? They came out with the NXS which crushed leupold in the military and tactical world. Then they even made F1 versions for DOD and alphabet agencies. They came out with the ATACR and the Beast. Not long ago they came out with the 7-35 ATACR which dominated for a few years before ZCO and TT took hold.

Those scopes you mentioned are not in the same class. The Kahles is the most overpriced POS on the market. The MK should cost like $1500, the mil pricing it actually sells for. The ATACR glass is pretty meh but its a very reliable optic. The Gen 3 razor kicks the living shit out of all those listed, and compares better to a ZCO or Tangent.

No one is running a USO but a handful of people. Why would you? Shitty past reputation and a ton of great PROVEN optics that are the same price or cheaper. What does USO offer that is going to peel anyone else away? Maybe if they start paying for my match fees and travel expenses.....

Bruh…

We get it. You have a hardon for hating USO. Been that way for a LOOOONG time.

But guess what? This isn’t the “shit on USO thread” you’re looking for. Take your crap elsewhere if you’re not going to stay on topic and give the OP some useful info. Know what else is dead besides USO? You bagging on them in other peoples’ threads…

OP, you might consider the Bushnell DMR2/3 or XRS2/3. The G2/G3 reticles are a little thicker than many others out there, not by a ton but a measurable amount. I’ve not been able to look at a G4 in person so can’t comment there. But the G2/3/4 are clean, uncluttered reticles that still offer useful holdovers, so they’re worth looking in to.

 

[DeathBeforeDismount]

For our uses (largely civ, competition or leisure-based, non-life depending, etc.) there are 2 tiers of “alpha” optics. You have Tangent and ZCO at $3k+ (street price), and then everything else that competes under them.

There are only minute differences for everything grouped “under the line.” They’re all comparably priced with comparable quality and comparable failure rates. There are maybe some small differences in features, aesthetics, whatever, but ultimately it comes down to preference. If you want to try to justify $2500 on the NF or S&B because they’re used by military/.gov agencies or you prefer the name recognition that comes with them, knock yourself out. But there’s little to no practical or performance difference for our uses compared to the $2k Vortex, USO, or MK5. If your life depended on it MAYBE there’s a different discussion to be had.

And that’s exactly the point, guys like you don’t care that the FDN series might be a perfectly solid optic, or that it’s a full iteration (going on 5 years now?) removed from any that had chronic issues. Instead you just go around blindly repeating “USO sucks” because you got a bad one 10 years ago and that’s what everyone else says. No one will argue that they put out some questionable optics in the past, or that they’re trying to compete at the wrong retail price point… but none of that makes it this indefensible investment that you’re making it out to be or has any bearing on the quality of their current offerings.

Seems to me that there’s some deeper-rooted animosity you old guys have towards USO the company that maybe we don’t understand. It’s the only logical explanation I can think of.

Also just wanted to point out the irony of making these 2 statements separately without making the connection…

Lifes too short to throw good money after bad. Us "old" guys have something you clearly don't, experience. Its ok though, maybe one day you will gain some. What you see is a tiny little frame, instead of the big picture.

And as far as irony. How many non sponsored MK5 do you see on the line or on a hunting rig vs how many non sponsors, hell throw the sponsored shooters in there to for USO. ALOT of people are running them who don't get shit out of it. Now they may have limited funds or they are happy with how it performs. Either way, they are very popular. The fact that a guy who doesn't even like them is defending them, tells you all you need to know.

What has USO done to EARN anyone's attempt to buy their products? I don't see them on prize tables. I don't see them doing an Social media trying to show us how they have changed their ways, what their manufacturing and acceptance processes look like. I don't see them sending out their optics to unbiased testers to see how they stack up against everyone. I don't see them doing tracking tests. What I do see is a company who had changed hands multiple times after damn near going out of business. I see a company who changed their business model to importing chinese garbage. I see the same "flagship" optics with essentially the same ugly soviet block esc scope bodies from 20 years ago. The same shitty turrets, the same shitty reticles. What has changed other than the name and the owner?

Explain to us how your glass has gotten better, how you fixed tracking issues, how you fixed reticle failures , how you assemble them in a clean room so you don't have a ton of debris inside. Show us the data and the side by side testing.

Are we all just supposed to take the word of some random, ill informed asshole on the internet when we have a mountain of past performance data and current observational data that contridicts that?

 

[MarshallDodge]

Ha. I was just talking about this today. Yup, I hit old man stage I guess with near sightedness and readers! Need thicker reticles to keep them in focus. Bushnell Elite HDMR has decent thickness reticle starting at 12X. The DMR3 G3 reticle isn't bad either, though I can see it ok at 15X.

I have a G2DMR reticle in a Bushnell XRS. The reticle is actually thicker than I would like but may be good for the OP. The glass is great for my eyes.

 

[R_A_W]

@DeathBeforeDismount were you using the MPCT2 on your ZCO?

Why did you go G3 Razor over ATACR? Just curious, seems like the Mil-XT would be an easy switch

 

[DeathBeforeDismount]

@DeathBeforeDismount were you using the MPCT2 on your ZCO?

Why did you go G3 Razor over ATACR? Just curious, seems like the Mil-XT would be an easy switch

Great questions!.

I was using the MPCT3 and MPCT3X with NLE. I got hooked on the dots and its been rough training off them but its coming.

The G3 razor has better glass, better features and a better reticle IMO than the ATACR. I also hate oculars that turn when you change magnification. And they were sub $2K each, which is just icing on the cake. Not a fan of NF reticles or the Mil-XT, I don't like grids.

The only ATACR I really liked was the 4-16x42 F1. It goes really good on a gas gun, similar to the S&B PM 2 4-16x42 that are long discontinued.

We will see how this season goes, but I may go back to Tangent Theta with the XR Gen 3 Fine. Its right at the top for resolution and optically and that thing sees through mirage like no other IMO. And the turrets are to die for.

 

[R_A_W]

Gotcha. I bought a NIB 7-35 ATACR from a SH vendor for 85% of what you normally see ATACRs retail for. It’s a good scope & I’m a huge fan of the Mil-XT, but still feel like the value isn’t quite where it should be for the price.

I’m probably either going to go ZCO or G3 Razor when I need another scope in 6 months. I haven’t shot a ZCO, but that MPCT3x w/ a 10mil turret is… something else

 

[DeathBeforeDismount]

Gotcha. I bought a NIB 7-35 ATACR from a SH vendor for 85% of what you normally see ATACRs retail for. It’s a good scope & I’m a huge fan of the Mil-XT, but still feel like the value isn’t quite where it should be for the price.

I’m probably either going to go ZCO or G3 Razor when I need another scope in 6 months. I haven’t shot a ZCO, but that MPCT3x w/ a 10mil turret is… something else

The 10 mil turret feels great and is much bigger for bad eyes but it has one drawback. In PRS when you shoot a long range stage and hit that 2nd rev, its common for people to forget to reset their turrets, and start the next stage with an extra 10 mils. Obviously you can train yourself out of it, but i saw it happen to 2 very acomplished shooters this past weekend , and it cost them a few points.

 

[R_A_W]

Didn’t think of that. I’m new to comps & making enough mistakes as it is. Thanks.

 

[Rifle Barrel Blanks]

Hey guys! Jake here.

Some people love to bash products, that’s just the way they are. They usually are not good shooters anyway, so maybe they want to be involved in someway but do not have much to offer in the way of constructive advice. Don’t know and don’t care.

I’m not interested in bashing any optics companies. My days of being a whiny little bitch are long gone. And, fyi I don’t know who these people are on the thread. Just my opinion. Also, I’m not calling anyone out, don’t care too. Actions speak louder.

I think everyone at the highest level makes very good equipment that can take abuse and keep on ticking.


Ok, I’ve had the pleasure to win 36 national pro series events. 1 was with a premier 5-25. 2 with a Schmidt and bender pm2 5-25. The rest with a US Optics 5-25. Either foundation which is the newer model or the t pal. (Which was replaced by the FND)

My premier stopping tracking at 2 mils. Was great and consistent but going up over 2 mils and nothing moved. But man was it clear and nice. Gen2xr reticle. Loved this reticle. But thin. Maybe the clicks on turret were a little too hard to turn. Maybe.

So i got a Schmidtty. Actually a pair of them. Both gen2xr. What a great optic. Super glass, positive turrets, but a little too hard to turn.
I had to take the Illum off because I’m a lefty. I got the shift and bender model though. Every once in a while it would shift about an inch and stay there until it went back. Pretty frustrating. But a few other optics did that as well. You guys know.

I then got my first uso 5-25. Man, overall quality was nice. Built like a tank. Not quite as clear as either of the other two. But gen2xr reticle was familiar. I liked that. The ergo turret is awesome. Big and just enough tactile clicks to go fast but be accurate with my dialing.

My zero and tracking on them were just spot on. Fly to a match, pull my gun out, dead nuts. Did not hardly change my zero over the course of 10-12 matches in a season.
Zero problems with my t pals. Just a solid set of optics i was using.

Then the B series. Was not my favorite because of the locking turret that would strip if you gorilla palmed it. I still did good with them because i knew how to tighten stuff properly. But i get not everyone knows the best way to do that.

Uso got rid of that scope and went to the foundation. It’s like getting back to my favorite optic in the T pal.
Man I am impressed with the foundation.
I’ve had a couple problems over the years.
One time my scope bell came loose. I screwed it back on as tight as i could. Shot at the zero range. Was still perfect. Went and won the match. But still upset me. Just needed a little lock tite. Still use the scope.
One time I dropped my rifle on the concrete, scope first. It did not act right after that. So I sent back and they fixed it up. Still use that scope as well.

Another time, recently, I kept doubting everything. My data was not lining up, I was shooting like garbage, and I changed my scope before Sundays stages. Still shot like crap but did the best I could.
Ended up being my rangefinder was off 14-15 yards. So my data has been wrong. Shooting a slow 6.5 creed, that data needs to be spot on.
Still use that scope. Actually put it back on and won’t be South Dakota prs match a few weeks ago. Yes, also had a new rangefinder. Lol. So frustrating.

All this being said, I really love the durability and usability of the uso foundation optics. Excellent features, giant field of view, and the best reticle on the planet (JVCR-yes I designed it so I’m biased on that) The next best is the pynch reticle. PR2 from luppy.

I hear stuff all the time about “I’d shoot USO if they paid my match fees too”. Or whatever crap people say.
Look, I can shoot about any optic want. And Yes they would all give me a pile of optics if I picked them as my scope of choice. Just the nature of performing at a high level for this long.
That being said, I went the the range for a practice session today, as I do a few times a week, and I shot a USO foundation 5-25.

 

[carbonbased]

Did some research a while back and called NF as they didn’t have their newer scopes in the subtension charts:

Mil-R
.036 mil ATACR 7-35

Mil-XT

	Main line thickness
4-16 ATACR	0.043 mil
2.5-20 NX8	0.041 mil
4-20 ATACR	0.040 mil
4-32 NX8	0.036 mil
5-25 ATACR	0.033 mil
7-35 ATACR	0.033 mi

Maybe this will help someone.

 

[rothgyr]

Did some research a while back and called NF as they didn’t have their newer scopes in the subtension charts:

Mil-R
.036 mil ATACR 7-35

Mil-XT

	Main line thickness
4-16 ATACR	0.043 mil
2.5-20 NX8	0.041 mil
4-20 ATACR	0.040 mil
4-32 NX8	0.036 mil
5-25 ATACR	0.033 mil
7-35 ATACR	0.033 mi

Maybe this will help someone

Bookmarking this. Thanks for doing the Lord's work.

I've noted my buddy's nx8 4-32 mil xt is thicker than the one in my 7-35 ATACR. It's nice to have the numbers behind it

 

[KevinWood44]

Slightly off topic but I have been taking supplements for my eyes for the past year....I cant say for sure they have improved but they certainly stopped getting worse.

I take something called AREDS 2 it can be found at any CVS

 

[Midwestside]

USO has a 20 year history putting out shit.

...which don't look much different then shit designed over 20 years ago, at prices that rival the top alphas on the market.

USO is dead..... Guys are lucky to get half price on the used market of what a new one costs today. No one wants that shit.

What has USO done to EARN anyone's attempt to buy their products? I don't see them on prize tables.

How did you acquire one of their cert's with your opinion of them?

 

[DLS]

My USO is the first high end optic I ever owned and it’s been a solid performer and have no issues with it except my eyes have gotten worse as I approach 70 and the tiny numbers on the dial are hard to see.