Rifle Scopes Leupold Mark 4HD

#501
Not the easiest to keep in stock, but we have the Mark 4HD 6-24 PR2 and PR3 in stock :) -Richard
www.snipershide.com

Optics - Leupold Mark 4HD 6-24x52 in stock!

Leupold Mark 4HD 6-24x52 PR2-MIL - 183823 $1,499.99 in stock! Leupold Mark 4HD 6-24x52 PR3-MIL - 183824 $1,499.99 in stock! https://cstactical.com/leupold-mark-4hd-6-24x52/ Call 916-670-1103 for package deals :)
www.snipershide.com www.snipershide.com
 
#502
fortify503 said:
finally tested both SFP and FFP 2.5-10 with Ill. TMR. at 3-Gun
not a fan of the reticle, but after getting it dialed in, the 2.5x is very intuitive for hold over even for 15 yard engagements (I'm usually running offset red dot) and nailing 300 yard engagements on first hit isn't because im the luckiest person ever.

biggest worry was lack of parallax adjustment between 15 and 300 and the size of reticle lines at 10x.... Both non issues. This will be my primary setup moving forward in 3-Gun.

Leupold nailed this Mark 5HD quality optic at a fraction of the cost - HUGE fan
Click to expand...
Sorry, which scope are you moving forwards with? The SFP or FFP model? I assume SFP for 3 gun but then you talk about reticle thickness...
 
#505
Sullypants1 said:
Sorry, which scope are you moving forwards with? The SFP or FFP model? I assume SFP for 3 gun but then you talk about reticle thickness...
Click to expand...
yeah to clarify - I have both setup but the SFP with an offset red dot (can't use the reticle info at lower powers so stays up near the high end, close engagements on the red dot). The FFP plane will live by itself on the gun because I can use the reticle info at any power and its very intuitive to use at low power for close engagements
 
  • Like
Reactions: PBWalsh
#507
sjbryan65 said:
Anybody compared the 2.5-10 sfp to the nxs compact 2.5-10x42? Thinking about selling my nightforce and trying one of these on a 14.5" AR....
Click to expand...
yes, and also to the Primary Arms GLx 2.5-10.

No contest compared to the Primary Arms, its not even in a comparable field (blurring at edge of image when zooming in, rough power selector, and the only talking point I ever hear is it has parallax adjustment - which by proper design of a scope, the Leupold doesn't need at mag ranges<10x)

The Nightforce is comparable quality, although I was comparing the Ill. models to the Ill. Leupold models and Nightforce reticles have a lot to be desired in terms of their reticle quality. The Ill. was very granular and spotty, wasn't consistent and where the holdover dots should have been illuminated its like the illumination only existed at 10-11 o'clock on the reticle features. Very low quality looking once you flip on the Illumination. I do like the illumination dial compared to push button style, but i'll gladly have a better reticle picture than sacrifice my useable part of the scope for a preferred tactile Illumination control (I would buy a FFP and a SFP instead of the NXS 2.5-10, and still have money left over for mounts, lol)
 
#508
fortify503 said:
yes, and also to the Primary Arms GLx 2.5-10.

No contest compared to the Primary Arms, its not even in a comparable field (blurring at edge of image when zooming in, rough power selector, and the only talking point I ever hear is it has parallax adjustment - which by proper design of a scope, the Leupold doesn't need at mag ranges<10x)

The Nightforce is comparable quality, although I was comparing the Ill. models to the Ill. Leupold models and Nightforce reticles have a lot to be desired in terms of their reticle quality. The Ill. was very granular and spotty, wasn't consistent and where the holdover dots should have been illuminated its like the illumination only existed at 10-11 o'clock on the reticle features. Very low quality looking once you flip on the Illumination. I do like the illumination dial compared to push button style, but i'll gladly have a better reticle picture than sacrifice my useable part of the scope for a preferred tactile Illumination control (I would buy a FFP and a SFP instead of the NXS 2.5-10, and still have money left over for mounts, lol)
Click to expand...
Awesome, any comments to glass and eyebox?
 
#509
sjbryan65 said:
Awesome, any comments to glass and eyebox?
Click to expand...
just another comparison to the Mark 5HD. Seems just as crisp and bright in low light, Illumination in really bright light didn't seem enough at full illumination setting, but we were talking zero clouds and 101°F that day. Eyebox seems no more constrained or different than Mark 5. Transistions from prone to barricades to offhand standing didn't require any turtling of the neck to find my mark
 
  • Like
Reactions: sjbryan65 and PBWalsh
#511
fortify503 said:
just another comparison to the Mark 5HD. Seems just as crisp and bright in low light, Illumination in really bright light didn't seem enough at full illumination setting, but we were talking zero clouds and 101°F that day. Eyebox seems no more constrained or different than Mark 5. Transistions from prone to barricades to offhand standing didn't require any turtling of the neck to find my mark
Click to expand...
Never looked through a mk5 unfortunately. Just curious specifically with how it compares to the NF 2.5-10x42 if you don't mind commenting on that in regards to image and eyebox. I have the NF currently and am considering swapping it out. Thanks in advance!
 
#512
Took the mk5 3.6-18 and the mk4 4.5-18 out this afternoon and once I got past 800yds, I may sound crazy, but the mk4 looked just so slightly better. Could be the longer tube or larger objective, I’m not an optics guru, but the clarity of the image and glass was just clearer on the mk4. Could be different compared to the 5-25 but I don’t have one of those.

Both pr1 mil illum reticles.
 
#513
levi8599 said:
Took the mk5 3.6-18 and the mk4 4.5-18 out this afternoon and once I got past 800yds, I may sound crazy, but the mk4 looked just so slightly better. Could be the longer tube or larger objective, I’m not an optics guru, but the clarity of the image and glass was just clearer on the mk4. Could be different compared to the 5-25 but I don’t have one of those.

Both pr1 mil illum reticles.
Click to expand...
I would expect the 4.5-18 to easily trump the 3.6-18 all day long. An ultra short with a 5x erector and smaller objective vs a full size arguably long, 4x erector with a larger objective, both with the same glass. The more forgiving design is going to win every time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jumrobe, stanley_white, FredHammer and 2 others
#516
I’d say so but I’ve only had the vx5hd, mk5hd, and now the mk4hd. I’ve taken the 4.5-18 out to 1300 and it’s not alpha glass by any means but it was very good especially inside 1000
 
  • Like
Reactions: tucaz
#517
tucaz said:
question on the mark 4 glass vs the vx6hd glass.....are they comparable? i have a couple vx6hd's and at longer range (500 yards) they seem not so great. those being the 2-12 and a 3-18.
Click to expand...
Not an exact answer to your question but maybe relevant.

The glass on the new Mk4s are the same exact glass as used on the Mk5HD series with the exception of one anti-scratch top coat that the Mk5HD needed to meet Mil contract requirements.

In addition to sharing almost the same glass, the dual erector spring design used in the Mk5HD was carried over to the new Mk4s since it didn't impact the price point too bad. That should be a big plus on repeatability, especially as the scope starts racking up a lot of hours of use.
 
  • Like
Reactions: xsn10s, BenW, Tnc and 10 others
#518
Searched all around this thread for a recent post about comparison to a NF NX8 4-32. Is everyone with hands on the mk4hd’s still saying they have a better set optics as far as say resolution and color?
 
#526
8-32x56 PR3

I'll shoot it tomorrow (fingers crossed).

First impressions vs R3: sorry, the MK4HD is closer to black label than single-barrel, its turrets are, well, umm, kind of sad actually... I have one of the black Razors with the latest/best R3 turrets which are actually kind of great, and I almost couldn't bring myself to perform the swap lol. The glass looks ok (so far, from my kitchen out to ~100 yards), but why I went through with it and why I'm willing to go through the trouble of swapping scopes was to try the PR3 reticle, and it might be worth it.

To my eyes at least, the PR3 reticle looks fucking amazing. Looking through it as compared to the EBR-7D, it's like my eyes let out a huge approving sigh of relief. It's so much less visually complex, I think I'm going to dig it.

tempImage6zZt5k.png
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Steel+Killer and Guns&WhiteWater
#527
So I got to shoot the MK4HD... and I have got to admit that for ~$1500 the glass on my example is actually really good, I was pleasantly surprised. It was sunny when I left for the range and then was pouring as I pulled up for a little while (that's TN in the summer), so darker-than-normal conditions for the middle of the day with zero mirage and I could see well enough out to 1250 yards and clearly see impacts on white-painted steel enough to where I really didn't notice too much of a difference from what I'd expect from the R3.

The PR3 reticle feels really great to shoot. I know the glass isn't as good as the Razor's and yet it felt like I could see the plates as good or better than I have in a long time.

The turrets... the turrets feel like going to a little kid's scope coming from the Razor, there's no sugar-coating it, the turret feel sucks, it just is what it is. The numbers are big enough to be seen with 40y/o eyes but the indicator lines are ridiculously small for some reason, which when combined with the weak click-feel and turret slop makes it hard to dial it confidently. I hope Leupold can improve them.

That said, the reticle looks/feels good enough that I'm going to continue to shoot it (at least for a while)... but I think it's already convinced me to pony up for the ZCO with their MPCT1X reticle if that's the cheapest way to get top-level build quality and turrets combined with the open/simple PR3/MPCT1X/JTAC-style reticle.


tempImagemM47DW.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: CSTactical, Guns&WhiteWater, chiroz and 3 others
#528
I picked up a 6-24 in pr2. I will shoot it next to my 5-25 pr2 tomorrow.

Glass feels same. Turrets actually not as bad as people have been speaking of here but my comparison is with mk5. I love the windage mark on the scope body, hated it on mk5.

However before picking this 24x i played with a 4.5-18 and the elevation turret on that scope felt quite mushy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CK1.0
#529
I think they got a hell of a lot more right than wrong. Everything else being so good is probably what makes me feel like it deserves better turrets. Maybe they'll get better with use or maybe it's an individual unit thing, some of them might be better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: drglock
#530
The turrets I think are going to be hit or miss. I handled a 4.5-18 and a 6-24 today.
The 4.5-18 had horrible turrets, pure mush literally worse than a vx hunting scope, but the 6-24 had really nice crisp turrets that felt almost as good as an NXS…. 🤷
 
#532
Here's what I was talking about a few posts earlier...


Screenshot 2024-07-28 at 7.50.21 AM.png



The numbers are a good size, but they didn't stick the landing with the itty bitty tenth-mil indicator lines. 🤦‍♂

My suggestion: Dear Leupold, make some alternate caps that ditch the 3rd rev numbers (that will probably never get used on a centerfire anyway) and raise the numbers for revs 1 & 2 higher up to make room for making the 0.1mil indicator lines larger and actually legible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Steel+Killer
#533
CK1.0 said:
Here's what I was talking about a few posts earlier...


View attachment 8467905


The numbers are a good size, but they didn't stick the landing with the itty bitty tenth-mil indicator lines. 🤦‍♂

My suggestion: Dear Leupold, make some alternate caps that ditch the 3rd rev numbers (that will probably never get used on a centerfire anyway) and raise the numbers for revs 1 & 2 higher up to make room for making the 0.1mil indicator lines larger and actually legible.
Click to expand...

The bigger problem to me is that the hash on the scope body is 3x as wide as the hashes on the turret. If they were the same size it’d be a lot easier to know where you are. But as is you could interpret 2 different readings from just about any angle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CK1.0
#534
ChrisAU said:
The bigger problem to me is that the hash on the scope body is 3x as wide as the hashes on the turret. If they were the same size it’d be a lot easier to know where you are. But as is you could interpret 2 different readings from just about any angle.
Click to expand...

Yep, I agree, I noticed that too.

I hope I don't sound like I'm nitpicking... the glass, eyebox, and especially reticle, are all great. While shooting it I honestly forgot it was a lower-price-point scope (until it came to the turrets) and if it proves itself reliable I'd have no issue running one in a 2-day.

JMHO, but I think they're on the cutting edge and ahead of many of the more expensive usual suspects with the PR3 reticle. As more guys try reticles like the PR3, I wouldn't be surprised to see the ubiquitous xmas trees start to fade from popularity...
 
  • Like
Reactions: chiroz and ChrisAU
#535
Just picked up a Mark4HD 6-24. What scope caps are you guys using? I run Tenebrex on everything else but can’t seem to find anything on their site for the Mark4HD yet. Will any of the Leupold Alumina caps work?
 
#536
DR0331 said:
Just picked up a Mark4HD 6-24. What scope caps are you guys using? I run Tenebrex on everything else but can’t seem to find anything on their site for the Mark4HD yet. Will any of the Leupold Alumina caps work?
Click to expand...

Yeah the Alumina caps work great. Have them on my 2.5-10 and on the 4.5-18 I just sold.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DR0331
#539
So my 4.5-18 arrived yesterday and I immediately mounted it on the Sig Cross and took it out to sight it in. That was uneventful in spite of the light rain. I'm impressed with many things on this scope but then I took it out to 500 and something weird happened.

I dialed the parallax and had a crystal clear image. After a few shots, things went completely fuzzy. I turned the parallax up and down and got it back into focus. This happened a few times. I tried shooting through the hazy image and couldn't hit crap, even at 200 yards. Something was terribly wrong.

I then speculated that maybe my eye was playing tricks by focusing on the reticle and maybe I hadn't adjusted the diopter correctly. I re-focused the diopter and that seemed to help all-around. I ran out of time and ammo so I didn't get many shots after this.

Before I get too worked up and send it to Leupold, I need to get it back out. It was hot, humid and just nasty last night. Could it have been sweat in my eyes? Could it have been mirage? Could the diopter really have caused this? I don't know. I'll be able to spend more time with it next week and will get a better idea. I hope it doesn't need to go back... I really like the scope otherwise.
 
#540
cliffy110 said:
So my 4.5-18 arrived yesterday and I immediately mounted it on the Sig Cross and took it out to sight it in. That was uneventful in spite of the light rain. I'm impressed with many things on this scope but then I took it out to 500 and something weird happened.

I dialed the parallax and had a crystal clear image. After a few shots, things went completely fuzzy. I turned the parallax up and down and got it back into focus. This happened a few times. I tried shooting through the hazy image and couldn't hit crap, even at 200 yards. Something was terribly wrong.

I then speculated that maybe my eye was playing tricks by focusing on the reticle and maybe I hadn't adjusted the diopter correctly. I re-focused the diopter and that seemed to help all-around. I ran out of time and ammo so I didn't get many shots after this.

Before I get too worked up and send it to Leupold, I need to get it back out. It was hot, humid and just nasty last night. Could it have been sweat in my eyes? Could it have been mirage? Could the diopter really have caused this? I don't know. I'll be able to spend more time with it next week and will get a better idea. I hope it doesn't need to go back... I really like the scope otherwise.
Click to expand...
I’d have a hard time believing it’s your eye if you’re coming off the optic and are seeing fine.

I’d send it in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BCP
#541
Had what sounds like the same experience with a XTRIII, ended up being a screw not tight on the parallax knob? Anyway after sending it in 2 times i got a III i.
 
#542
Well I went back out this morning and I'm 99% sure it isn't the scope. I'm pretty sure it was heat coming from the end of my suppressor. I've shot this thing in hot weather but never as many in a row as I did the other night or this morning. The suppressor is the Silencerco Scythe Ti with the built-in brake at the front. That brake is not covered by the Armageddon Gear cover and the vents sends heat waves out in all directions.

I was getting the same problem with an out of focus sight picture but realized that blowing down the barrel cleared it up immediately. A few nights ago when I was fiddling with the parallax knob "fixed" it but that was really just the time it took for the heat waves to dissipate enough to see again.

I've ordered a new end cap without the brake. That will keep the whole thing under the cover and hopefully eliminate my problem.
 
#543
cliffy110 said:
Well I went back out this morning and I'm 99% sure it isn't the scope. I'm pretty sure it was heat coming from the end of my suppressor. I've shot this thing in hot weather but never as many in a row as I did the other night or this morning. The suppressor is the Silencerco Scythe Ti with the built-in brake at the front. That brake is not covered by the Armageddon Gear cover and the vents sends heat waves out in all directions.

I was getting the same problem with an out of focus sight picture but realized that blowing down the barrel cleared it up immediately. A few nights ago when I was fiddling with the parallax knob "fixed" it but that was really just the time it took for the heat waves to dissipate enough to see again.

I've ordered a new end cap without the brake. That will keep the whole thing under the cover and hopefully eliminate my problem.
Click to expand...
This situation right here is why I pulled my suppressor off my match AR.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fortify503 and cliffy110
#544
2nd session shooting Mk4HD 6x24 MOA today out to to 515yds. Very impressed with the scope. Coming out of a PSTG2. Purchased from Cabelas for $1308 including tax (Vetern’s and other discounts). Really like the turrets as I’m a dialer (Mk 5HD was weird with push button elevation and capped windage) and picture is very clear. Parallax at 100 yds seems to be sensitive, so have to pay attention. Noticed when have parallax set correctly, image is very crisp on target and areas in front / back of target are blurred out.
Compared to PST G2, XTR3 and Tract, in my opinion only the MK4HD is superior.
Looking forward to testing it out to 1500 yards.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fortify503 and Modoc
#545
I got to shoot my MK4HD 8-32x56 PR3 again this morning and have decided it's a keeper.

Yeah, the turrets aren't the greatest I've ever felt... but from talking to a couple of other guys I know who've been running MK5s for the last couple of years, mine are on par with the MK5's turrets and feel pretty much the same as those (so I'm told). I've probably just got to get used to them.

I said it before, but the glass is really good (and not just for the money). There was a fair amount of mirage happening, but I was still able to crank up to 32x to confidently make hits on an IPSC at 1250 yards. From 100-750 yards off the bag/props everything looked great, and I never really felt like I was sacrificing much as compared to my usual Razor G3 and its (arguably) alpha-tier glass.

I think Leupold has a winner here with the MK4HD, especially with the PR3 reticle. I spent some time dialing in 1-1.5 mils of "simulated wind" and 1-2 mils of purposely too little elevation for a holdover so I could get a feel for what it's like to "hold off in space" and it was no problem at all. I was making hits on a 33% IPSC at 750 yards without any issues and it felt almost like my brain was superimposing the Xmas tree for me even though there wasn't anything there (probably since, like many around here, I've spent plenty of time staring at one). I wholeheartedly recommend trying the PR3 if anyone reading this is even remotely interested in running something more open and less visually complicated, I dig it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: PBWalsh, Steel+Killer, stanley_white and 1 other person
#547
Got my 4.5-18 with PR2 reticle in yesterday and got it leveled and mounted up. Put it on my tripod and set it up for my eye. Looking through it at a tree that’s 746yds away I’m pretty impressed. Compared it to my Gen II and Gen III Razors and after going back and fourth between the three I have to say the Mark 4 HD is right there and maybe a tad better clarity wise than the Gen II. It’s 83* and the mirage is pretty heavy already but I could make out a tad more with the Leupold. The color is a bit duller and on the yellow side compared to the Gen II but optically you won’t be disappointed. Yes the turrets aren’t as nice as the Razors but I don’t see that being a problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CSTactical
#548
drglock said:
Got my 4.5-18 with PR2 reticle in yesterday and got it leveled and mounted up. Put it on my tripod and set it up for my eye. Looking through it at a tree that’s 746yds away I’m pretty impressed. Compared it to my Gen II and Gen III Razors and after going back and fourth between the three I have to say the Mark 4 HD is right there and maybe a tad better clarity wise than the Gen II. It’s 83* and the mirage is pretty heavy already but I could make out a tad more with the Leupold. The color is a bit duller and on the yellow side compared to the Gen II but optically you won’t be disappointed. Yes the turrets aren’t as nice as the Razors but I don’t see that being a problem.
Click to expand...
This is an impressive review.

How do the turrets compare to a Mk5? I wouldn't call the turrets on my Mk5 7-35 amazing, but I love them. The zero stop is great, the zero reset is easy, and you know what you've dialed. If the Mk4 has those turrets I'm happy.

I'm kind of amazed that the 2.5-10 seems better than the Mk5 2-10 in every way except for parallax. It's got a standard tube size, 10mil/rev, a much larger objective (better low light performance & easier clip-on compatibility), and it's light. It and the 4.5-18 are probably superb hunting scopes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PBWalsh
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

CSTactical
Optics Leupold Mark 4HD 6-24x52 and 8-32x56 in stock!
Replies
6
Views
2K
CSTactical
CSTactical
abn_surfer
SOLD Leupold MK 4HD 8-32 PR3 Mil **Price Drop**
Replies
5
Views
520
CK1.0
CK1.0
vegashelipilot
Optics Leupold Mark 4HD 2.5-10 Illuminated TMR FFP
Replies
7
Views
1K
cadepatterson
C
B
Rifle Scopes FFP scope’s with 1/4 mil reticles?
Replies
3
Views
308
Baron85
B
B
Burris xtr3 3-18 vs leupold mark 4hd
Replies
10
Views
1K
redneckbmxer24
R
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts