PL> For reasons that I do not know, most armed forces in the world do not
 PL> use Redfield-type of scope bases and rings.  It seems they prefer
 PL> Weaver type or Stanag type. Does anyone know why? For the rest of us, I
 PL> suspect that any type of scope bases and rings depends on perosnla
 PL> preference. 
This is speculation on my part, but my guess would be that they like the
quick dismount and remount capability of Weaver rails and the extreme
flexibility in mounting choices and positions.  The Redfield/Leupold system
takes a lot of fiddling to get it dialed in right and you can have major
headaches choosing the right pieces for your particular combination of
firearm and scope.  Once you're set up I think it's a better system, but the
military isn't often looking for that last 1/2 MOA precision.  I hear the
Leupold quick-mount system is as easy as Weaver and as solid as Redfield,
but chose not to spend the extra $ myself.
... Nostalgia was much better in the good old days.
--- FMail 1.22
---------------