Leatherwood USMC sniper scope release date

[al in oregon]

just received mine sn#168. From Creedmore.

[holdover]

Al, a few questions please; quality, fit finish, does it fit original mounting blocks well, can't wait to hear how it holds up shooting.. I know i speak for many who have been waiting for them to finally be available

[Brazos]

Got mine in, #221. Cant speak to whether it fits original blocks, but I did notice that the rear block does not extend past the front of the mount...so you cannot mount the rear block flush up against the rear sight base as on originals.

I am impressed with the scope. Nicely blued. Very positive clicks on the rear mount. Finish on the blocks is very durable...I tried to cratch it off and could not.

The front mount seems very stiff on the scope, but maybe it will move more freely when it is locked down and unable to twist and bind. The manual is good...but I dont understand how to set the paralax adjustment. The scope body is marked 100, 200, & 50 yards. The ring is marked 0-9. A little help there would be appreciated.

[holdover]

"but I did notice that the rear block does not extend past the front of the mount...so you cannot mount the rear block flush up against the rear sight base as on originals."

This may not be a good thing, have to look into this.

[GcS]

Al, a few questions please; quality, fit finish, does it fit original mounting blocks well, can't wait to hear how it holds up shooting.. I know i speak for many who have been waiting for them to finally be available

#169. Optics look decent enough -- considering I just back from the optimetrist and my dilated pupils are still the size of saucers. Scope body shows some finish wear from the rear mount, but nothing that can't be hidden with a little oxpho-blue. Tried to mount the scope on my H&R M12 and the front mount slid in place easily. The rear started and hung up, so there might be a bur on the block or -- more likely -- the mount that needs to be dressed.

If the rear mount tracks reliably I'm sure I'll be happy with the scope.

[Floyd1977]

""but I did notice that the rear block does not extend past the front of the mount...so you cannot mount the rear block flush up against the rear sight base as on originals."

This may not be a good thing, have to look into this. "

If this is important, the sight bases made by Standard Parts LLC fit just fine flush. Otherwise the scope looks nice - #250 arrived this afternoon but I'm heading off on a trip so I won't be able to mess around with it much.

[k arga]

just got mine ser no 150 , my luck is still as good as usual, rear stop bent and no threads for the front lens cover it just falls out of the scope

[Greg Ficklin]

Received mine #00187 from Creedmoor Sports. I am very pleased with it. The biggest difference from a vintage Unertl is the lazer printing of the model, serial number, and objective lens graduations on the Malcolm, Vs the original marking process that resembles a stamping that can be remarked by filling with fresh paint. This is a cheaper way to permanently mark the scopes that clearly differentiates them from an vintage scope that has no effect on it's performance. They have done a great job with this scope.

[Jim S.]

I got my scope a couple of days ago (00300). While mine had no problems (not counting the bad blocks), a number of those that went out from my dealer did have the problem with the front lens cover. All in all it should go quite nicely with my 1903 sniper build.

[TW56]

Any range reports on how the micrometer mount adjustments worked ?

Are elevation changes between different yardage repeatable?

Any range report information welcome.

TW56