You just can't beat the HAMR optic.

You just can't beat the HAMR optic.

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >can't beat
    Leupold did when they discontinued it.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    What killed those? Was it just a more expensive inferior acog? You hardly see deltapoints anymore too. It’s all rmrs or holosun 4 or 507c’s. They look cool though. What I really wish I woulda got to try is the d-evo

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It's strange. Leupold has had several very innovative tactical optics over the past 20 years. Their Mk.4 CQT of the mid 2000s was the go-to for a lot of people and really pioneered the LPVO as a tactical optic. They never did a 2nd generation. Their HAMR was a slightly heavier competitor to the ACOG, but with nearly double the eye relief and a much more forgiving eye box. They never did a 2nd generation. The Mk.8 1-8x CQBSS is an amazing LPVO, especially for when it came out. It had stats that would make even the newest LPVOs struggle... but Leupold wanted $4,000 for it... They never did a 2nd generation. The LCO-DEVO was a really innovative concept, that in my opinion had a lot of legs. Again, very expensive and they never did a 2nd generation.

      Basically, it seems like Leopold had these great products, all of which were prices pretty high at the time, but market leaders in terms of features and capability. Leupold never developed these ideas further to bring the price down. It's a shame, because when I was in college when the AWB sunset, Leupold were the go-to in terms of American optics. Oh well.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Leupold is a shit company.

        >The LCO-DEVO was a really innovative concept
        I never used a DEVO but the offbore sight axis is probably a problem for some shooters. I do, however, have an LCO. That shit had to be returned to the factory for exchange due to machining issues. How it made it past QC, I'll never know.

        Leupold is a shit company.
        Leupold is a shit company.
        Leupold is a shit company.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah, but once upon a time they weren't. That's the point.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Leupold has a bunch of cool ideas that they immediately just give up on instead of refining, it's utterly bizarre. I wish they would get into prisms more.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          sig is looking into recruiting leupold employees , hence their optic division is based in Oregon

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Anyone else think Arma 3 got the majority of weapons right with the exception of this optic? Crazy how, atleast the vanilla story has you using a Sig 6.8 iirc?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      it was actually a cmmg 6.5mm caseless

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      the vehicles too. they essentially looked at all procurement contracts that were in their infancy back in 2012 and based it around that. the JLTV, XM5, and MHS go back to around that time.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >gay chud name
    >aesthetic of chink airshit garbage
    No thanks

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You'd have to try it in action to understand

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It’s a Leupold product, so no, I would not

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >aesthetic of chink airshit garbage

      The hilarious thing is that the optic being issued on China's new QBZ 191 is basically a direct copy of the HAMR without the deltapoint.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    guys they dont want you to know this but the real name for it was supposed to be HAMA but our designer guy cut off an edge on the last letter and he fucked up

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I think it's the best looking optic available. But I'm not getting one for 1500 fucking dollars.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >I think it's the best looking optic available.
      See an optometrist ASAP

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >I think it's the best looking optic available.
      See an optometrist ASAP

      >caring how equipment looks instead of caring how it works

      NGMI

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >not caring about aesthetics
        Soulless bugman take

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          No, aesthetics often follows function, especially for things without the purpose of being expressly aesthetic. You'll figure it out when you get a little older. There's a reason why shit like a BE Myers MAWL looks cool on a gun. It's because it works, and the people who use stuff like that for real work decide to use them. Pictures get out and everyone wants the ethos associated with the way it looks. There's nothing inherently aesthetic about it, just like there's nothing inherently aesthetic or ugly about the HAMR. On the other hand you have things that are done because it's supposed to look nice, like bespoke engraved guns. But to say a tactical gun looks good or bad is childish.

          Good talk little billy, I hope you learned something.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            This. Never has it been more true than in automobiles. Damn near every aesthetic trend has roots in motorsport: Mag wheels, disc brakes, low profile tires, little gap between tire and fender, wings and spoilers, loud exhaust. What's winning will always be what's cool. This is why /arg/ and tacticool fags are obsessed with emulating what pipehitters use.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >pipehitters
              You mean pole-smokers?

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The HAMR being in popular use is one of the few things ARMA 3 got wrong

Your email address will not be published.