Re: Trouble justifying USO
This is directed to the OP as info he may find useful, as I have no interest in debating anyone here about one scope vs. another. I own both a NF and a USO, so I feel I am qualified to offer an opnion based on owning both company's scope.
I have a USO SN3, 3.8-22 ERGO that I have owned for about a year and a half. It had to go back a couple times. First time was for minor issues (not built to order), and it was there 6 weeks. Second time was because after I went to the effort to check if the knobs and reticle were both IPHY as was represented, I found the knobs in IPHY and the reticle (RDP-MOA) was in True moa. Was there 5 weeks waiting for a reticle changeout, until I got tired of waiting, called, and then the next week it was on the way back to me. Now the knobs/reticle match and all is fine. They will jump through their ass to send you a free replacement if your Granny backs her 18-wheeler over yours and flattens it, but if you're just a guy who bought one of their scopes and they goof it, it can languish there for way too long when you send it back. Appears to me that making it right isn't as high a priority as other mfr's like NF.
I like it now, but for me, the process of getting there was not at all what I would call good customer service performance. I think if they are fixing an issue they caused, you should get head of the line priority on the fix (instead of new production getting the resource). If you send it in for an upgrade or whatever that you want, then I'd be ok with waiting that long.
My biggest concern about my USO scope is their QA/QC. How can a scope that is considerd world-class leave their facility after supposedly going through a QC check process that does not catch that the knobs/reticle are in diffferent systems? Are tracking checks done? The tracking checks that discovered this were the ones I did. Either they didn't do it, or didn't do it effectively enough, that I receive a $2,000+ scope with knobs/reticle that are not the same system and I have to figure it out with my own rudimentary, rigged-up methods? Others may think that is no big deal, but to me that is a huge deal. It leaves me wondering if their QC process is that weak, what else may have not been done right that I can't catch? YMMV, but for me, that is piss-poor for a scope of this expense.
I won't support German scope companies, or chi-comm (Leupold). So the last scope I bought was a NF. Zero issues, so admittedly I have not had to send one back to see how they do. I really like it a lot.
I really wanted to like USO, too, but I don't like the way they do things, considering I spent that much money and then I have to be the QC man, and then get the distinct feeling that they didn't care near as much as I did about fixing issues and returning it to me. As far as the scope itself...glass, options, etc....I really like it. I didn't get to keep my first choice reticle, since I'm funny about wanting matching knobs/reticle, but everything else about the scope is excellent, now that the issues seem resolved.
Plenty of people here had great experiences with USO, and good for them. I'm not saying you would have an experience like I did, but this is how it went for me, and being I'm not interested in taking a chance again, I will go with NF again next time I decide to buy a scope. Extra bonus is, as you said, NF is also less expensive. And I have more confidence it will stay good for the long term.