I've always been confused by the wide variety of scopes available on the market. My research has shown that price isn't always the grand determinator separating the cream for the whey.
There was a question about US Optics scopes on another forum which happened to draw a interesting response from a friend of mine. This guy is an engineer who has very definite opinions on long guns and optics...because he really has owned, or gotten his employer to test, everything he talks about.
He wrote about an easy test you can conduct on your own to test the measurable quality control that went into a scope. All you need is some distance to focus. I thought readers here might find it interesting...I only had to make one small adjustment < > to make it conform to THR standards of language
I had USO scopes, ST-10 and SN3. After I started using Schmidt and Bender, I never looked back.
First, let me put my flame suit on by saying that I am an electro-optics engineer....so I know what I'm looking for, and more importantly, how to test for it.
I have found consistencies to be an issue with USO. My ST-10 that I had, I could not focus to see pine needles in detail at 100 yards, while my $75 Hensoldt Army surplus bino (circa 1960) can with no issue.
The SN3, on the other hand, was clear as a bell, but then my friend also had exact spec SN3. His was as bad as my ST-10. At the time, I had a few S&B's already...so I ran a simple test.
The test was pretty simple....adjust the objective (parallax) and eyepiece to be out of whack....then look through it...WITHOUT looking at the number or markings.....first adjust to your eyes, then parallax. I set the zoom on all scopes to be 10X and a target at 100 yards.
With S&B (3 of them), the ocular (eyepiece) adjustment went to exactly the same mark for my eye (best focus) and the objective is right at 90m for all 3 scopes for the best picture.
With USO, the two scopes....the ocular lens were in noticeably different mechanical settings (one almost bottom out, the other 1/8" out further) for best focus (ocular)....and for best picture....it's at 450m mark or so....way off....while the other was at 200m, keep in mind that the target is at 100 yrds (~90m).
Not only that, when you start playing with the zoom, you have to constantly adjust the eyepiece through the zoom range. In other words, the USO lose focus through the zoom range (and one scope held focus better than the other). S&B had no problem....it held the best picture through out the zoom after adjustment.
You can ask any S&B scope owner about the rangefinding trick with the parallax adjustment. Adjust the ocular, then adjust parallax for the best picture, then look at the knob....it'll give you the distance.
That being said, I don't own Nightforce, but did get a chance to play with one and I was impressed. USO is mechanically well built, but I think they lack luster in the optics department. I'd stick with Swaro, Zeiss, S&B for high-end scopes.
The fact that one USO ocular almost bottom out....and Parallax markings were off....I concluded that they don't do proper optical alignment there.
I always say....building optics is like building an engine. You can buy the best components in the world and not knowing how to put it together and/or not have proper tools and techniques, it'll be a <pretty worthless> engine.
There was a question about US Optics scopes on another forum which happened to draw a interesting response from a friend of mine. This guy is an engineer who has very definite opinions on long guns and optics...because he really has owned, or gotten his employer to test, everything he talks about.
He wrote about an easy test you can conduct on your own to test the measurable quality control that went into a scope. All you need is some distance to focus. I thought readers here might find it interesting...I only had to make one small adjustment < > to make it conform to THR standards of language
I had USO scopes, ST-10 and SN3. After I started using Schmidt and Bender, I never looked back.
First, let me put my flame suit on by saying that I am an electro-optics engineer....so I know what I'm looking for, and more importantly, how to test for it.
I have found consistencies to be an issue with USO. My ST-10 that I had, I could not focus to see pine needles in detail at 100 yards, while my $75 Hensoldt Army surplus bino (circa 1960) can with no issue.
The SN3, on the other hand, was clear as a bell, but then my friend also had exact spec SN3. His was as bad as my ST-10. At the time, I had a few S&B's already...so I ran a simple test.
The test was pretty simple....adjust the objective (parallax) and eyepiece to be out of whack....then look through it...WITHOUT looking at the number or markings.....first adjust to your eyes, then parallax. I set the zoom on all scopes to be 10X and a target at 100 yards.
With S&B (3 of them), the ocular (eyepiece) adjustment went to exactly the same mark for my eye (best focus) and the objective is right at 90m for all 3 scopes for the best picture.
With USO, the two scopes....the ocular lens were in noticeably different mechanical settings (one almost bottom out, the other 1/8" out further) for best focus (ocular)....and for best picture....it's at 450m mark or so....way off....while the other was at 200m, keep in mind that the target is at 100 yrds (~90m).
Not only that, when you start playing with the zoom, you have to constantly adjust the eyepiece through the zoom range. In other words, the USO lose focus through the zoom range (and one scope held focus better than the other). S&B had no problem....it held the best picture through out the zoom after adjustment.
You can ask any S&B scope owner about the rangefinding trick with the parallax adjustment. Adjust the ocular, then adjust parallax for the best picture, then look at the knob....it'll give you the distance.
That being said, I don't own Nightforce, but did get a chance to play with one and I was impressed. USO is mechanically well built, but I think they lack luster in the optics department. I'd stick with Swaro, Zeiss, S&B for high-end scopes.
The fact that one USO ocular almost bottom out....and Parallax markings were off....I concluded that they don't do proper optical alignment there.
I always say....building optics is like building an engine. You can buy the best components in the world and not knowing how to put it together and/or not have proper tools and techniques, it'll be a <pretty worthless> engine.
