Stop being a Neanderthal and piggyback and RMR on top.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes Leupold Mark 4HD
- Thread starter ChrisAU
- Start date
Stop being a Neanderthal and piggyback and RMR on top.
If you can even see the FFP reticle at low mag. Better get the illuminated or as stated, RDS.
I am a little bummed about the FOV. I think the MK5 5-25 is too toilet paper tube-ish enough.
I am very satisfied with my VX5HD FOV 3-15X44 and 3-15X56. I will say even though the Leupold page list the FOV of these two scope the same, the 3-15X56 has a larger FOV. (FYI the 2-10X42 VX5HD has a very impressive FOV for the class)
I might keep the Triicon Credo and Tenmile route if the FOV is that bad on the MK4HD...
Last edited:
They need to add parallax to these. As well as any 1-10 scopes to be honest.
While my initial thought was 4-16 would be more appealing, its certainly not a bad compromise to sacrifice 0.5 mag on the bottom for 2x extra up top. As pointed out in another thread, the real question is can you justify going to the 6-24? Dimensions and weight are practically identical, and you would expect the 6-24 to perform better in that 15-18 range. Additionally, its likely the PR2 is much more usable at 6x to begin with.
Piggybacking a RDS for shorter shots, or if not, just to get you on target might be the play with 6-24 being the better choice.
I personally wanted that 4-16x range as well, but given the current options, I am seriously considering the 6-24, a mag range that has never been a thought for me. I might pick up both and just see which one I like better.
I'm ok without parallax on a 1-10. 1-10's with 24-28mm objective lenses work best in the 1-6 range anyway and are a better close range option that can do mid-long range. There's some exceptions, but for the most part thats where they work well and no having parallax really isn't a issue and needing to fuck with one to get a crisp image quickly could be a problem if you're operator AF. The parallax error at mid range for most of this type of stuff also isn't enough to really matter and the error is less with a smaller objective than a larger.
On a 2.5-10x42 though, absolutely it should have parallax because that optic isn't a close up quick engagement optic like a LPVO and is much better suited to living in the top end of the mag range for longer engagements. Also parallax error is higher with the larger objective as mentioned. Leupold did at least do them with a 150 yard fixed parallax though which still has less error at distance than a 100 yard while not making a difference at shorter distances for any practical purposes.
I'd still consider one even without parallax if they put a decent reticle in it. Leupold hates good reticles though.
Exactly. Also another good option for hunting in dark timber is to buy a hunting optic thats actually suited for that use and not a long range tactical style optic.
There's no way to get everything in one optic, it's just not possible, even with dual plane optics. There are going to be sacrifices and compromises with anything no matter how great it is or how much it costs. The best way to play multiple roles is two optics and the only way to get that on one gun in a reasonable package is a mid-high power optic with a RMR on it.
That would be a personal preference for you. I am good without it for my application and use.
I had a old VX R 3-9 that preformed quite well without.
Is the MK4 made in Mexico, since price is only 999-1499$??
Looking good though.
Looking good though.
They might be thinking the market in this price range is already flooded with 4-16s and 5-20s. They might have wanted to be different.
You are assuming Leupold intended this to be a crossover/hunting scope.
While it may look like Leupold tried to create a crossover scope I think that was just by chance, and it's just another target/competition scope.
If Leupold really knew what they were doing they'd have created a decent crossover reticle for the 2.5-10, 4.5-18 and the 2-10, 3.6-18 MK5.
Leupold and modern reticle choices do not exist. I’d be ok with the 2.5-10, honestly, if the TMR at least has some numbering. At this point I’m not even asking for a tree, just a “2, 4, 6, 8, 10” would be nice. Just so I don’t get lost in the counting.
At this point, the chinese made Athlon 2-12 still appears to be the more well thought out optic in this magnification range. I really don’t want to buy a chinese optic, but it still seems to be the best choice.
Does anyone want to place bets on whether or not Leupold fixed the tracking and zero retention issues this time..
I'd be all over these things if the durability is there
I'd be all over these things if the durability is there
Which models have this problem? My VX5HD-6HDs track just fine and hold zeros.
Think he is reminiscing the old MK4 and VX3i line of scopes,and feels the need to crap on Leupold to make himself feel good today.
I am damn sure not trying to start a shit storm here, but maybe he was referring to the old Mk4s. That was one of the areas where Leupold allowed themselves to get left in the dust about 20 years ago. Here ends my experience having owned 4 of the old Mk4s. Having actual DOPE was more important than what the ballistic calculators of the time said. Back in the days when all the cool guys ran a mil/MOA.
I am less familiar with the newer MK5 or the MK6, so I'll let someone else chime in if that happens to be the case too.
Yeah. Leupold is stuck in the 80s when it comes to reticle selection …
But man. I do miss those Mk4 3.5-10 TMR optics for a DMR.
The new PR3 reticle would be good for crossover use due to the extra thick post at the bottom stadia compared to the PR2.
Alas, they only have it in the 6-24x and 8-32x.
There was a time where Leupold deserved it after they sat on their reputation and let everyone pass them by. My experience with them is limited these days, but it seems like they are putting a decent product for price out lately.
He's from rokslide and all those retards can do is talk about how Leupolds don't hold zero and act like it's a thing.
Thank you.
I understand the theory, but was looking for a case study.
I am sorry I was not more specific.
If one truly “Finds the target with their eye and kills it with their scope” like @Lowlight says then smaller FOV shouldn’t be a problem.
Has there ever been a government scope contract for people who might die during usage that dictated an FOV requirement?
I ask as I truly don’t know.
I submit that smaller FOV, like tunneling, is a gripe based on preferences rather than actual case studies.
“I would have killed that (insert big game animal or enemy combatant here) had it not been for (insert less FOV or tunneling here)” said nobody ever.
Of course, as always, I am willing to be proven wrong.
-Stan
Wide FOV vs Narrow FOV is something to consider ... first and foremost ... the ability to see and PID at a wider image is a huge advantage ...
It is all a compromise somewhere somehow though ...
Prob works just like their VX-6 hd line. You enable it via some press & hold deal. Then if you are canted, the illumination flashes.
It’s really irritating when actually shooting, but very convenient when mounting the scope.
They’ve had the tech for years.
Need to see that FOV in person for the 4.5-18. I like the range but the FOV leaves a little to be desired but I genuinely love our LHT 4.5-22 and it's similar in that respect. I want one but just ordered a Tenmile 5-25 for my Sako 260. Granted at a much cheaper price point ($885 to the door). Couldn't find any reviews on the Trijicon so will have to see for myself.
I'm eager for someone to get some these in their hands. Their price point is very appealing.
I'm eager for someone to get some these in their hands. Their price point is very appealing.
There is a good image showing the March wide angle eye piece to the standard on and the difference it makes to FOV.
The lower FOV is similar to what you'll get in the Mark 5/4 the wider is almost the widest FOV on the market but the Burris XTR3 and many Vortex scopes come close to this.
It might seem like a minor detail but a wider FOV allows you to either see more at the same magnification setting, or to see the same area at a high magnifcation, both options come into play in both hunting and and competition settings (maybe not F class or other non dynamic disciplines).
The bigger thing IMO is the "imersion" (I don't have a better word for this, some people say eybox, others scope shadow, other tunnel vision effect).
I've posted these images before as a comparasion and while the arent apples to apples (different magnification) they show the difference well.
While the LVPO image is basically best case scenario there are many higher mag scopes that look similar to this (can't see much of the eyepiece).
I should stress, some people don't have an issue with lower FOV, more "scope body" scopes, the ATACR is the most obvious one and is really common for PRS/NRL/hunting. Personally I can't stand the ATACR for the below reason, it's like having a bad reticle to my eyes, it bugs the crap outta me and no matter how much I use the optic I just can't get used to it.
What do you mean? The tree will just obscure the entire target?
Definitely not the case with a properly designed reticle.
Not the entire target but the better portion of the bottom half. I know when im searching for small critters i can't see through that mess. And some of them are pretty horrible. But hey different strokes for different folks ,not for me,
but what the hell knock your socks off.
I personally use more non tree than tree reticles. But with many reticles, the trees aren't that obtrusive.
"Find it with your eye, kill it with the scope" doesn't pertain to using your rifle optic for scanning. It concerns not getting lost looking for a known target with your rifle optic. If you already know where your target is, then you utilize this mantra. Get the rifle pointed in the right direction where the target is already in your FOV or very close to it. If you don't find it quickly, get off the rifle and find the target again without the optic and start over.
Using your optic for scanning, you aren't looking for a known target to "kill." You're using the rifle optic as a spotting scope. Completely different use.
Also, there is a case to be made, that the wider your FoV, the higher odds you have of the target being in your FoV or very close to it once you move into your scope to "kill" it. Actually not just a case to be made, that's just how it is. Hence why many suggest and/or use lower power when first getting onto the optic to "kill" it and then increasing magnification once you're on target.
So, FoV is literally "free" better odds to get onto the target faster in a "find it with your eye, kill it with the scope" scenario.
I agree with @Cr1775 here, and this is coming from a lover of tree reticles.
Many on this site come from a big to medium-sized game perspective, or worse, they are steel or target shooters (at least from the perspective of this particular niche I’m in) .
Big game = deer+
Medium = coyote
I like to shoot prairie dogs or (much) smaller rodents. They are the color of the dirt and oft-parched grass of their surroundings. And they move. A LOT. A LOT LOT LOT. lol
I am fond Vortex’s EBR-2c and 2d reticles, which are quite open-feeling, have .03mil stadia, and have .5mil graduated hashes. Their XLR-2 in the 4.5-22 razor is good and only uses SHORT .2mil graduated hashes on the horizontal (.5mil vertical).
Conversely, I absolutely loathe their EBR-7 and EBR-7c reticles, which, upon first glance, look remarkably similar to the 2c & 2d. But they are graduated in LONG .2 mils horizontally. Those “dripping” hashes coming from the main horizontal stadia are awful and often right where my game is hiding.
And don’t get me started at the Leupold CCH abomination! That was in my first ever decent scope and it just vibrated my eyes while obscuring my targets.
I have a NF in Mil-XT that I will test this summer. Might be on the edge for me, but I like the scope and the .5mil graduated tree dots…but dislike how many numbers litter up the view.
The open circles of that ZCO reticle look interesting, as does the S&B GR2ID (again, that last one might be too much).
What “bad” (to me) reticles have in common is they add too much visual noise and thus sort of camouflage the little buggers I want to shoot.
Why not just use a spotter or a pair of binos?
I do! That’s how I find these rodents in the first place! I have a 360° pivoting table and usually have about 160° of pivoting happening in a good pdog field. I constantly scan with a 15x Leica LRF bino while a buddy scans with a spotter.
It’s refinding them in the riflescope where this visual clutter sometimes messes me up! If it doesn’t outright confound me, then it makes my brain work harder. And for some reason, looking through the bottom of the scope’s view is easier than using the top half.
I think the human’s natural tendency to look down more than up is at play here. That’s why a person hiding up in a tree is harder for people (and deer) to detect.
This is the crucial bit that most fail to understand.
I should note that even my favorite tree reticles make it harder to see these little beasts. I think taking an EBR-2d and cutting off the vert stadia above 2mils on the top and the lopping the tree off below 3mils on the bottom would be a good compromise for small varmint hunters who often use small fast calibers like .204 out to 450-500yds. Maximize one’s view while still giving the hunter the holdovers he needs.
But who am I kidding? I would find it hard to believe that someone will make a reticle like that. Such a thing would not be useful for, say, a .223 or 6br shooting steel past 600 yards…but maybe it would sell to bigger game hunters shooting at “ethical” distances.
So why not use a simple reticle and dial?
Remember that bit about the pdogs moving a lot? Targets literally disappear down holes right in front of your eyes. It’s WWII foxholes out there lol. One must pivot to the next target quickly…at least if you like to nail a whole bunch. And that target might be hundreds of yards further away. Holdovers are faster.
Last edited:
Exactly the two scopes you just listed..
My vx6 wouldn't hold zero or track, one of my vx5s failed to track after a few months of use.
I owned two Mk5s at the time and they tracked true, when I spoke with a Leupold rep though about my vx5hd issues he told me the internals were the same on the mk5s.
I sold them immediately
One example (albeit not with a variable scope) is the ACOG. Its massive field of view made it incredibly effective when setting up with an SKT, being able to get a little more SA. Or when receiving fire from urban areas or dense palm groves, scanning the areas with that extra magnified FOV really helped so I could observe more and miss fewer things.
I don’t know of any contracts with objectives/thresholds for FOV. In fact, the ATACR 1-8 has a terrible FOV. But that was done to increase the eye box. It was a trade space decision.
Yes, though, FOV is very important when in the field.
From Rokslide?? I'm from Idaho home
slice.. And I can't stand that Form deuce bag or his drop tests.
I speak from experience when I say Leupold has a major history with tracking issues and zero retention.
I didn't have issues with my mk5s but I sure know guys who did
I wish we had some independently wealthy dude who would cut into scopes to show us just wtf is going on it there, especially from an erector / holding zero perspective.
Sort of like a wealthier, “Project Farm” guy. Wouldn’t mind a tad less “yell-y” guy too, but still concise.
Sort of like a wealthier, “Project Farm” guy. Wouldn’t mind a tad less “yell-y” guy too, but still concise.
Good to know we all can agree on something here.
Ok ssteve, if say it was 34mm tube would it be to heavy for you, ssteve.
Say if it would be 6x , well then i cant see the reticle good enough, .
Just what the fuck is a crossover, why not just try to do 1 fucking thing good enough?
Tactical applications,? Just get a S&B you cheap xxxxxx .
Cross over scopes are scopes that work for both hunting and target shooting.
Specifically should be somewhat light weight and compact, lower magnification range, FFP reticle that is actually usable on low magnification, exposed elevation and capped or locking windage.
There are lots of target/competition scopes and lots of hunting scopes, but not so many options the "cross over" and do both jobs well.
Although this 2.5-10x42 is one of the most promising designs to date although that's more down the MVPO path which is much the same but more weighted towards lower magnification.
I can't believe we are arguing about whether or not FOV is useful in this thread.
Similar threads
