Nope. It was mentioned on a podcast by Jon Pynch, who's sponsored by Leupold. He mentioned helping to develop the reticle, but not a timeline on it's release.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammer_Man
Nope. It was mentioned on a podcast by Jon Pynch, who's sponsored by Leupold. He mentioned helping to develop the reticle, but not a timeline on it's release.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammer_Man
Not going back to read all the new posts, but did I mention that Midway has the Mark 4 4.5-14 on sale.
https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1362173644
Mil reticle, MOA turrets.Quote:
Originally Posted by army_eod
There is a reason they have been trying to blow them out for the past year.
I never understood what in hell they were thinking with the "MIL/MOA" thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by RHINOWSO
It's Leupold, a lot of what they do mystifies me.... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by gaijin
So...mils have long since been used in the military for artillery. But when the military went to spec out a scope, the standard for optics (hunting or competition) in the US was MOA adjustments. I'm not 100% sure whether this was a mere oversight on failure of requesting mil turrets or was a spec that couldn't be met by the mfg....or likely met in a timely fashion. Regardless...it was a mistake on somebody's part and not done purposefully (at least from a functional standpoint).Quote:
Originally Posted by gaijin
Once these things got delivered, they were stuck in the system.
"Adapt and overcome"... became "that's the way we've done it/teach it". Thus this mismatched abomination existed for far too long.
What's worse is the flawed logic that the military way is the best way and there must be some good reason to go this way...there isn't. However, people blindly follow this logic still. Thankfully, these things are harder to come by these days and people are starting to wise up...relatively speaking.