OK, as one dirt farmer to another, here is my response as requested. I think the problem is not so much a technical or engineering problem. I think the problem. as far as it actually exists is more of a corporate policy issue. I tend to think Leupold engineers can probably design a functional and reliable erector and turret system. So as to the question I said I'd like to see asked about the military contract issue. Te question would likely never be answered. I'd like to see it asked to gauge reaction. However, this whole effort of Doug's hinges in just who Leupold sends to this party. If not somebody (or more than one somebody) with enough clout to seriously effect corporate consideration, this won't go anywhere. My idea is that the corporate outlook and direction is really the 800# Gorilla in the room. We can tiptoe around it and try not to anger it, but it is the force, and it is there. Liking to see the question is one thing, asking it is another. It would be nice to somehow be able to gain some insight into just what corporate policy is.
I see, and agree with, the point in keeping the discussion on the oft mentioned issues, but we can talk about technical and engineering issues. We can get agreement on erector systems, we can agree on turret movement issues, we can agree on zero retention, lack of reliability in the turret twisting and anything else. It won't matter a bit if we cant get buy in from corporate level.
Steve
Theodore Roosevelt: "Do what you can where you are with what you have"
