Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
PSA
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 4/27/2011 2:11:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/27/2011 2:11:42 PM EDT by Melvin_Johnson]
USMC Awards Contract to Leupold® Tactical for Mark 8™ CQBSS™ Riflescopes

BEAVERTON, Ore. — Leupold’s® Tactical Optics Division has won a contract with the United States Marine Corps (USMC) to supply 728 Mark 8™ 1.1-8x24mm CQBSS™ riflescopes for use with M2 heavy machine guns and MK19 grenade machine guns. The sight will carry the M521 designation.

Ordered to meet the need of Afghanistan-based Marine units for a Heavy Day Optic, the Mark 8 CQBSS scopes will be employed to support combat operations.  A key feature of the scope is Leupold’s new Marine-Tactical Milling Reticle (M-TMR™), which is designed to allow successful range estimation and target engagement with more flexibility than generally possible with other reticle styles.  The M-TMR’s “staircased” configuration preserves the instinctive-fire capabilities on low magnification while allowing precise range estimation at any power setting.

“The Marine Corps’ innovative employment of this new technology will bring enhanced lethality to two combat-proven systems, the M2 and MK19 heavy machine guns,” said Kevin Trepa, vice president of Leupold’s Tactical Division.  “We will continue working hard to deliver the new tools that our warfighters need to succeed on the battlefield.”
The Mark 8 CQBSS has a state-of-the-art lens system providing operators with the capability of an 8-power precision riflescope in one rugged, field-proven unit.  The 34mm maintube features a fully checkered ocular bell for making quick magnification adjustments even while wearing gloves.

A front focal plane reticle, the M-TMR is accurate at all magnification settings.  Eight illumination settings allow for optimum contrast with or without night vision.  An off position between each intensity setting makes returning to the preferred setting nearly immediate.
In addition, the Mark 8 CQBSS has Auto-Locking Pinch and Turn turrets with 0.10 mil clicks that are extremely easy to adjust, yet eliminate accidental adjustment in the field.  Leupold’s Index Matched Lens System® with DiamondCoat 2™ helps enhance optical performance by providing increased light transmission and scratch resistance that exceeds mil-specs.

Mark 8 CQBSS riflescopes have a matte black finish and are filled with an argon/krypton gas blend, making them second-generation waterproof, fog proof and shock proof.  Flip-open lens covers and a 2.5" sun shade are standard issue.
Leupold Tactical Optics undergo arduous environmental and impact testing to ensure they meet the highest quality standards for durability and dependability.  Leupold Tactical Optics are backed by the company’s long history of customer-satisfaction warranties.  For warranty information on specific products, call 1-800-LEUPOLD (Option 4) or e-mail tacticaloptics@leupold.com.  For additional product information, go to www.leupold.com.

Supported by a team of dedicated engineers, the Leupold Tactical Optics staff works with American warfighters, law enforcement personnel, and competitive shooters to design and build products that meet their needs.  Currently, more long-range Leupold Tactical Optics are in service with the U.S. military than any other brand.

Leupold & Stevens, Inc., the preeminent American-owned and -operated optics company, employs more than 700 people in its state-of-the-art facility near Beaverton, Ore., where Mark 4® and Golden Ring® optics are designed, machined and assembled.  Leupold & Stevens, Inc. is a fifth-generation, family owned company.  The product line includes rifle, handgun and spotting scopes; binoculars; rangefinders; trail cameras; flashlights; mounting systems; and optical tools and accessories.
Link Posted: 4/27/2011 3:17:24 PM EDT
Very nice but If I could afford that I would get NV instead. 3600 is realy pushing the envelope on scope pricing
Link Posted: 4/27/2011 8:39:52 PM EDT
Guess the price won't be coming down to sane levels if the .gov is willing to pay it.
Link Posted: 4/27/2011 9:13:14 PM EDT
Maybe after the .mil buys all that they are going to buy Leupold will bring the price down to sell some to civilians. I agree that at almost 4 grand night vision would be a better buy.
Link Posted: 4/27/2011 9:27:35 PM EDT
No body called WTF on the fact they are for M2's and Mk19s????

I'll say it. "WTF!!!"  Some gunner somewhere has lost his damn mind.
Link Posted: 4/27/2011 9:43:59 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DvlDog:
No body called WTF on the fact they are for M2's and Mk19s????

I'll say it. "WTF!!!"  Some gunner somewhere has lost his damn mind.


You beat me to it but...WTF?  Getting the proper eye relief for that type of scope will make it pretty difficult to run a crew serve weapon system don't you think?
Link Posted: 4/27/2011 10:04:00 PM EDT
728x3600= $2,620,800.00

Money well spent.
Link Posted: 4/27/2011 10:33:20 PM EDT
I guess the 31's get something new to play with...
Link Posted: 4/28/2011 12:36:56 AM EDT
I guess these will be used in the Mk19 with a designated marksman grenade.  
Link Posted: 4/28/2011 3:27:12 AM EDT
Yeah on the M2 it would be a little odd with spade grips and nothing to support your eye relief consistently. It could be done but the eye relief would need to be pretty generous.
The MK19?? That just sounds wrong all together. The projectiles trajectory is way different than a 50 cal so how is the reticule going to work between the 2. Two different trajectories??
Link Posted: 4/28/2011 4:53:28 AM EDT
That's just....odd.
Link Posted: 4/28/2011 5:45:59 AM EDT
Originally Posted By RFutch:
728x3600= $2,620,800.00

Money well spent.


And I wonder why I can never get my travel claim!


Look out! Everyone is going to start lining up to get one now that the .mil is using them.
Link Posted: 4/28/2011 7:45:18 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DvlDog:
No body called WTF on the fact they are for M2's and Mk19s????

I'll say it. "WTF!!!"  Some gunner somewhere has lost his damn mind.


When I clicked on this thread I thought SAM-R type rifles.... then I read its for MG's.... really?
Link Posted: 4/28/2011 9:04:52 AM EDT
I agree that using the scope on a crew served weapon seems weird.
Maybe Larue will make a buttstock+cheek riser for the M2?

I still don't get why Leupold thinks they can make a scope worth this amount of money.
I guess they need to charge a bunch so they can pay bonuses to their very successful
marketing department.

IMO, automobiles are all about the technology of the drivetrain, and scopes are all about the quality of the glass.
Of course, Leupold does not manufacture lenses, they are just monkeys who stuff Chinese manufactured
glass into Leupold tubes.  The tubes may be nice and sturdy with good reticle adjustment mechanics, but the glass...

Link Posted: 4/28/2011 9:06:21 AM EDT
Well, that explains the price.
Link Posted: 4/28/2011 12:49:12 PM EDT
Price won't come down now
Link Posted: 4/28/2011 2:39:39 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Lumpy196:
That's just....odd.


Welcome to the Corps.
Link Posted: 4/28/2011 3:02:05 PM EDT
For the sr25/m110/mk11 cool.
For the m40 or next gen sniper system, of course
For a new version of the dmr/sam rifle. Good to go
For the hk lmg /m249/m240, ahhhh sure why not

For two non shoulder fired crew serves???? What the fuck! Seriously, I see that the retardation that caused me to walk away from the Marines after one enlistment is still going strong

Retards
Link Posted: 4/28/2011 3:23:45 PM EDT
Originally Posted By engineer201:
Originally Posted By RFutch:
728x3600= $2,620,800.00

Money well spent.


And I wonder why I can never get my travel claim!


Look out! Everyone is going to start lining up to get one now that the .mil is using them.


yup, waste of time and tax dollars. This is what ike meant when he talked about the dangers of the mil-industrial complex.
Link Posted: 4/28/2011 4:55:27 PM EDT
Well, it being The Corps, you know that shit will end up on a DMR eventually.
Link Posted: 4/28/2011 6:13:53 PM EDT
I guess they need to charge a bunch so they can pay bonuses to their very successful
marketing department.


I think they call them lobbyists. Hey guess the one city in the U.S. where housing prices, and wages are not decreasing. Hint: its also the one city where you get a write of on your federal taxes for living.
Link Posted: 4/28/2011 6:35:47 PM EDT
Seems kinda odd to me too, but if they can get it work. It might be a baddass setup.  I would figure each would need a different reticle though.
Link Posted: 4/28/2011 7:49:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/28/2011 7:50:55 PM EDT by DvlDog]
Originally Posted By scarnar:
Seems kinda odd to me too, but if they can get it work. It might be a baddass setup.  I would figure each would need a different reticle though.


How in any possible way could this be a "baddass setup"???    I'll tell you what this is... It's a way for some CWO-4 to leave a legacy. He gets to spend $2,000,000 on his dumb fucking idea six months before he retires to his sales liason job at HK or Leupold or wherever the fuck. He probably knows the gunner that shit out the genius idea to replace the saw with rifle and got jealous that he won't be able to leave behind something everyone hates.

I've get a better idea. Buy a fuck load of Steiner 10x Tactical binos with the mil-dot reticule in them. Issue them with Mk19s. If they pay full MSRP for the steiners and purchase the same amount it will save them 66%. Or better yet, buy 3x as many set of Bino's and issue them with every Mk19.


This has "STUPID" written all over it. I'm hoping R0N gets wind of this thread and can give us some dope on wtf is going on.
Link Posted: 4/28/2011 8:01:15 PM EDT
Originally Posted By eightring:
I agree that using the scope on a crew served weapon seems weird.
Maybe Larue will make a buttstock+cheek riser for the M2?

I still don't get why Leupold thinks they can make a scope worth this amount of money.
I guess they need to charge a bunch so they can pay bonuses to their very successful
marketing department.

IMO, automobiles are all about the technology of the drivetrain, and scopes are all about the quality of the glass.
Of course, Leupold does not manufacture lenses, they are just monkeys who stuff Chinese manufactured
glass into Leupold tubes.  The tubes may be nice and sturdy with good reticle adjustment mechanics, but the glass...



The kind of crap a company has to go through is insane. The BS cost lots of expensive man hours.  

Txl

Link Posted: 4/29/2011 5:43:45 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/29/2011 5:44:35 AM EDT by Slu54]
Leupold has some pretty damn good salespeople. The Army doesn't even have a dayscope that expensive.
Link Posted: 4/29/2011 6:33:06 AM EDT
I heard the airforce is trying to figure out how to put a picatinny rail on this thing so
they can mount a Leupold.



Link Posted: 4/29/2011 9:13:38 AM EDT
Apparently there's some interface that will make this whole thing make sense. At this point it's hearsay, but by all accounts the guy is a trusted source. Read this on another forum so take with as many grains of salt as you need.
Link Posted: 4/29/2011 9:16:57 AM EDT
Originally Posted By eightring:
I heard the airforce is trying to figure out how to put a picatinny rail on this thing so
they can mount a Leupold.

http://randyroberts.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/100-0774.jpg



Ha ha it all makes perfect sense now. lol
Link Posted: 4/29/2011 9:43:43 AM EDT
Geez. No wonder our government is as f'd up as a football bat. No wonder why I don't own any Leupold product either.
Link Posted: 4/29/2011 9:50:28 AM EDT
tag



first I've heard of this, on the surface sure sounds like a wtf moment...



Link Posted: 4/29/2011 1:16:52 PM EDT
The real WTF moment was when they decided to start wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, and soon Syria.  

Wars are the biggest destroyer of wealth known to mankind.  America will collapse financially just like the Soviet Union as a result of ignoring this truth.
Link Posted: 4/29/2011 4:31:31 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/29/2011 4:33:31 PM EDT by 9divdoc]
The Marine Corps doesn't start wars

Politicians do

Sometimes for legitimate reasons and sometimes for evil

Wars aren't the biggest destroyer of wealth...they are the biggest "redistributor" of wealth though...

As long as the Corps was in the mood to adopt such a scope...

I wish they would have adopted the Premier 1-8 X 24 as they have the Premier 3-15 X 50
Link Posted: 4/29/2011 4:35:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/29/2011 4:39:09 PM EDT by teamroper2004]
...............and the Gov't wonders why they're (we're) broke!!!


Link Posted: 4/29/2011 6:55:42 PM EDT


Maybe using this mount for the scope? We used them for Pas13's, I cant really imagine using it for that scope.
Link Posted: 4/29/2011 8:36:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/29/2011 8:36:40 PM EDT by benellimax4]
War destroys the wealth of the target (real property destruction / human destruction) and the person pulling the trigger.  It costs $1M a year to put a soldier in Afghanistan.  Gas for the troops costs $400 a gallon.  For what?  Those tribal sand monkeys have been fighting and killing each other for centuries.  Nothing will change except the value of the dollar.  It is collapsing.  Sun Tsu would laugh in our face at the stupidity of our decisions.

It is about winning. You fight wars that matter and ones you can win.  None of our current wars fit either of the two classifications.  

Total financial collapse is our destiny.
Link Posted: 4/30/2011 6:05:47 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/30/2011 6:13:27 AM EDT by Lindy_Hoppin_Gun_Nut]
I think our math is a little off.  This war costs a percentage of the GDP, out of control social programs such as the Medicare, for example cost about three times of the GDP - 36 trillion dollars of "Unfunded Mandates".  That is what driving the value of the $$ down - Dept. or Treasury keeps printing and borrowing more money to pay for those unfunded obligations.  Additionaly, maintaining defense and protecting national security (and unfortunately, that also means going to war) is actually a government obligation that is mandated by the constitution - creating one bloated entitlement program after another, on the other hand, is not.
Link Posted: 4/30/2011 7:11:37 AM EDT
^^^ +1 ^^^
Link Posted: 4/30/2011 9:20:09 AM EDT
I have nothing against national defense.  Invading third world countries for a decade or more is not national defense.  It is a classic mistake of dying empires.  We spend $2T on the military.  It is part of the reason for our upcoming financial collapse.  Unfunded obligations is one of the other parts.  

Wasteful spending and debt.   Dollar collapse.  Checkmate.
Link Posted: 4/30/2011 9:28:02 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Lindy_Hoppin_Gun_Nut:
I think our math is a little off.  This war costs a percentage of the GDP, out of control social programs such as the Medicare, for example cost about three times of the GDP - 36 trillion dollars of "Unfunded Mandates".  That is what driving the value of the $$ down - Dept. or Treasury keeps printing and borrowing more money to pay for those unfunded obligations.  Additionaly, maintaining defense and protecting national security (and unfortunately, that also means going to war) is actually a government obligation that is mandated by the constitution - creating one bloated entitlement program after another, on the other hand, is not.


Defense has a responsibility to spend money wisely. gov't waste is gov't waste, no matter if its entitlement fraud or dubious, unnecessary, infalted, gold plated  weapon systems.

but thats me. i see waste as waste no matter who is spendng it.
Link Posted: 4/30/2011 10:23:23 AM EDT
Originally Posted By benellimax4:
I have nothing against national defense.  Invading third world countries for a decade or more is not national defense.  It is a classic mistake of dying empires.  We spend $2T on the military.  It is part of the reason for our upcoming financial collapse.  Unfunded obligations is one of the other parts.  

Wasteful spending and debt.   Dollar collapse.  Checkmate.


Two trillion dollars over how many years?  And how many percentage of GDP that is compared to other major wars we have fought before?  Also, how much more does this war cost in addition to our peace time defense spending?  Please put some context into this.
Link Posted: 4/30/2011 11:21:35 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Bandit117:
Originally Posted By Lindy_Hoppin_Gun_Nut:
I think our math is a little off.  This war costs a percentage of the GDP, out of control social programs such as the Medicare, for example cost about three times of the GDP - 36 trillion dollars of "Unfunded Mandates".  That is what driving the value of the $$ down - Dept. or Treasury keeps printing and borrowing more money to pay for those unfunded obligations.  Additionaly, maintaining defense and protecting national security (and unfortunately, that also means going to war) is actually a government obligation that is mandated by the constitution - creating one bloated entitlement program after another, on the other hand, is not.


Defense has a responsibility to spend money wisely. gov't waste is gov't waste, no matter if its entitlement fraud or dubious, unnecessary, infalted, gold plated  weapon systems.

but thats me. i see waste as waste no matter who is spendng it.


Agreed - I am not advocating any government waste - regardless of which bureaucratic arm of the government is spending it.  My response was directed toward OP's assertion that wartime spending will drive us financially to the ground, which I disagree.  As I have stated, unfunded obligations caused by failed, bloated, unnecessary social programs encompass three times of our GDP, and that is for Medicare alone.

We are not even counting other ineffectual governmental agencies.  

This year, for instance, social security reported that they are 45 billions in the red - that is just for this year alone - the annual operation cost in Afghanistan was approx 50 billion dollars from 2003 to 2006, a four year period.  Yes, it has gone up drastically ever since - in 2009 it reached approx 60 billion dollars, which was actually less than USPS annual budget (of approx 70 billion / annum).  Heck, even the Department of Education spends more money than our .Mil in Afghanistan (Department of Education annual budget is approx 60 billions / year).  

I think the USPS is a good example to use here.  In the next decade, the USPS will loose 238 billion dollars on top of their annual operating budget.  Let us do the math: 700 billions + 238 billions = 938 billions.  Our war cost in Afghanistan: 15  billions / year for 2003 - 2004, 20 billions / year for 2005-2006, 34 billions for 2007, 44 billions for 2008, 60 billions (2009), 105 billions (2010) and 119 billions (2011) = 30 + 40 + 34 + 44 + 60 + 105 + 119 = 432 billions (over 9 years).  So the USPS alone will actually spend twice as much money in the next ten years as the US military fighting the war in Afghanistan for nine years.  

That is why I disagree with the OP's opinion that the war cost will drive us to ruin financially.  We waste much more money through other avenues than the military can ever dream up by fighting a war.
Link Posted: 4/30/2011 12:43:44 PM EDT
The tech forum is probably not the place to discuss government spending policy.
Link Posted: 4/30/2011 1:58:34 PM EDT
This whole thing started because our US Government is going to pay an absurd price of $3600 per scope that is really not needed.  I clarified my position that $2T per year of military spending is ONE of the things that WILL cause the financial implosion of America.  All waste is bad - entitlements and a bloated military industrial complex.  Democrats love welfare.  Republicans love warfare.  

Either way, we are past the point of no return.  

P.S.  Print this out and save it.  You can read it again when the day of reckoning for America comes.  The banks will be closed, your savings will be worthless, and there will be martial law and rioting in the streets.
Link Posted: 4/30/2011 3:43:06 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Enigma102083:
Well, it being The Corps, you know that shit will end up on a DMR eventually.


BINGO!
Link Posted: 4/30/2011 3:46:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/30/2011 3:46:01 PM EDT by Zhukov]
Thread is WAY off-topic
Top Top