Rifle Scopes Leupold Mark 4HD

[CK1.0]

Thanks. I see. Sounds like the whole turret assembly is junk imo.

Yep, pretty much.

It could be even simpler though. I'm no optical design engineer, but I wouldn't be surprised if half of the problems I experienced came down to a design flaw in how the caps are secured: the caps are set/secured by 2 (and only 2) of the smallest hex grub screws I've ever seen/experienced on a scope turret. Any real torque would surely strip them out and they don't have a whole lot of engagement.

They're 1/16" hex, which for comparison, is smaller than the little 3/16" hex screw used to secure the rear Sevigny Competition sights on Glocks (so pretty damn small). I had to order a couple of 1/16" hex wrenches and throw them in my pack's toolkit for the Mark4HD as none of my other rifle shit utilizes anything that small (they're like toothpick-sized).

 

[Agracer]

Got a 6x24 PR2. The cap and marks all line up fine at 0.0. At +3 they are off just a little bit, but the 3-mark on the cap is in the width of the mark on the scope body, but just slightly out of center. At 5.0, it lines up perfectly again.

The clicks all match with the cap/marker though. Not like CK1.0 posted where 60 is 6.2. 60 clicks on mine = 6.0 on the cap.

The optical clarity at the range when put back to back with my DMR3 is noticeably better on the MK4HD. Everything looks much cleaner and details are more crisp.

 

[FLIGHT762]

The optical clarity at the range when put back to back with my DMR3 is noticeably better. Everything looks much cleaner and details are more crisp.

So, Is your DMR3 noticeably better than the MARK 4 HD or is the MARK 4 HD noticeably better than the DMR3?

 

[Agracer]

So, Is your DMR3 noticeably better than the MARK 4 HD or is the MARK 4 HD noticeably better than the DMR3?

I edited my post. The MK4HD is better than the DMR3

 

[FLIGHT762]

Perfect. Thanks.

 

[CK1.0]

Leupold got back to me, they confirmed mine had a defect, and they're replacing my scope. How long that will take is up in the air (they said a repair of the scope I sent in would be faster, but I'd rather have a fresh example free of bad vibes so I opted for the replacement option).

At this point I have mixed feelings about their CS... in the end, it appears they are going to make things right, so I have a hard time giving them too much more shit about things, and the Mark4HDs are really good glass for relatively low money.

 

[TonyAngel]

On an impulse, I picked up a 2.5-10x Mk 4HD. I've gotta say, I like it. Image quality, depth of field and field of view are all fine. I really like that it's light and relatively short. I like compact scopes.

The whole issue with the zero stop not lining up is something that I noticed right off. I read of some fixes a couple of pages back and took a good look at it and made some observations.

First, i noticed that the hash mark on the body is much wider than the marks on the dial and further noticed that there is slop in the turrets. I don't know if this was by design or a fortunate accident, but the hash mark on the body is about as wide as the amount of slop in the turrets. What I did was zero the scope. I then dialed up 1 mil and reset the turret lining the 1 mil mark up with the mark on the body, such that twisting in the slop, leaves the mark on the dial lined up within the mark on the body. There is no mistaking where the dial is. Now, no matter where you dial, the mark on the knob is within the mark on the body.

If you reset the dial with the dial at zero, it will leave the marks misaligned throughout rotation.

On my particular scope, once the knob was set to track correctly, the zero stop wouldn't fully engage at zero. This is where I tried what was mentioned earlier by another poster. I removed the knob and used a file to slowly remove material from the zero stop collar until the zero stop locked into place. Don't remove too much. In my case, removing too much would have resulted in possibly being able to dial -.1 mil with the zero stop engaged.

Now, my OCD is satisfied and everything lines up. I took it out to 500 yesterday and the scope seems to track correctly and I never had to question where the dial was.

I agree that we shouldn't have to deal with these issues, but it seems that unless you're willing to spend north of 2500 on a scope, you're gonna be dealing with something. Shoot, Nightforce NX8 LPVO (I have tape around the diopter because the locking ring won't stay put), Vortex Razor (I keep managing to bend the ocular bell), Primary Arms PLXc (gotta adjust diopter to get a decent image on 8x, if you set it up on 1X), Vortex PST 2-10x (turrets seems to have a mind of there own and won't stay put).

In the end, im happy with the Mk4. Kinda wish the illumination was better. The anti cant feature is useless if you can't see the illumination. Or maybe I'm doing something wrong.

 

[zinny]

I recently got a 6-24 mk4hd. For the price, the thing is really hard to beat. Glass is top tier (for the price bracket), I really like the zero stop knob/ rev indicator design, and it's very light weight. At its price bracket I don't think any competitors scope completely eclipses it. They may have separate areas that are better, but the leupy is a good over all choice. Especially for the LE/Mil crowd.

Have had to use leupold CS on two separate occasions. Both times were very positive experiences. Both scopes were taken care of without any excuses or excessive delays.

 

[stello1001]

I recently got a 6-24 mk4hd. For the price, the thing is really hard to beat. Glass is top tier (for the price bracket), I really like the zero stop knob/ rev indicator design, and it's very light weight. At its price bracket I don't think any competitors scope completely eclipses it. They may have separate areas that are better, but the leupy is a good over all choice. Especially for the LE/Mil crowd.

Have had to use leupold CS on two separate occasions. Both times were very positive experiences. Both scopes were taken care of without any excuses or excessive delays.

So now tell us, do your hash marks line up to the indicator line?
Or do you get lost not knowing where you're at.

 

[zinny]

We actually use these things on rifles to shoot and stuff!? I was just here for internet camaraderie .

 

[dzeke]

After reading CK1.0's experience I decided to send my optic in and give Leupold a chance to fix the turret. I got it back today, just shy of two weeks, they did fix the elevation turret, lines up perfectly now. They did not fix the windage turret. Overall I'd say I'm satisfied and I'm glad Leupold took care of it.

 

[white_rushin]

How does the 2.5-10 perform at 800-1,000 yards without parallax adjustment? I ask regarding image quality. I know the Credo 2-10s seem to struggle with clarity due to lack of side focus. I wasn’t sure if that was the same with the 2.5-10 model.

Also, the non-illuminated TMR reticle looks promising since it’s 1/2 as thin at max magnification

 

[Bigwilly556]

How does the 2.5-10 perform at 800-1,000 yards without parallax adjustment? I ask regarding image quality. I know the Credo 2-10s seem to struggle with clarity due to lack of side focus. I wasn’t sure if that was the same with the 2.5-10 model.

Also, the non-illuminated TMR reticle looks promising since it’s 1/2 as thin at max magnification

I just received my 2.5-10 illuminated TMR and took it out from 200 to 812 last weekend on a 350 legend. Obviously not the best cartridge to experiment with at longer ranges. I didn't feel the need to have parallax adjustment but it would have been nice. Slight movement in the reticle if you don't have a close to perfect cheek weld. Image quality is very nice but slightly washed out past 800 ( I have mostly nightforce to compare it with ). Illuminated TMR is thick beyond 400 and if you dont need it I'd consider non-illuminated. My elevation turret doesn't line up perfectly but it seems to track fairly well.

 

[stanley_white]

I just received my 2.5-10 illuminated TMR and took it out from 200 to 812 last weekend on a 350 legend. Obviously not the best cartridge to experiment with at longer ranges. I didn't feel the need to have parallax adjustment but it would have been nice. Slight movement in the reticle if you don't have a close to perfect cheek weld. Image quality is very nice but slightly washed out past 800 ( I have mostly nightforce to compare it with ). Illuminated TMR is thick beyond 400 and if you dont need it I'd consider non-illuminated. My elevation turret doesn't line up perfectly but it seems to track fairly well. View attachment 8535531

SFP or FFP?

If FFP, how useful is the reticle at 2.5x?

-Stan

 

[Bigwilly556]

SFP or FFP?

If FFP, how useful is the reticle at 2.5x?

-Stan

FFP. I haven't had it out in darker conditions yet but it's completely usable as a dulex reticle at 2.5x with or without illumination.

 

[stanley_white]

FFP. I haven't had it out in darker conditions yet but it's completely usable as a dulex reticle at 2.5x with or without illumination.

Thank you!

-Stan

 

[TonyAngel]

I found the reticle to be a bit thick, but i dial with this scope and the center aiming point is fine enough. I was on the fence about the illuminated reticle, but I'm glad I got it. The anti cant feature has come in pretty handy.

 

[white_rushin]

I just received my 2.5-10 illuminated TMR and took it out from 200 to 812 last weekend on a 350 legend. Obviously not the best cartridge to experiment with at longer ranges. I didn't feel the need to have parallax adjustment but it would have been nice. Slight movement in the reticle if you don't have a close to perfect cheek weld. Image quality is very nice but slightly washed out past 800 ( I have mostly nightforce to compare it with ). Illuminated TMR is thick beyond 400 and if you dont need it I'd consider non-illuminated. My elevation turret doesn't line up perfectly but it seems to track fairly well.

Thanks for the thorough feedback. It sounds and looks well designed for a lot of use cases. It probably thrives within 500.

I’ve done a lot of back and forth between this and the Steiner 2-12x Mil. The latter has the extra 2x, side focus, and more purpose built reticle to get that extra stretch out around 600-900M.

I wish Leupold had put in a modified TMR with a little more data for the modern era, not even a full blown tree, just something with 2/4/6/8/10 mil marks and a couple more wind holds.

Edit: even then, this scope still looks so good that I’d consider it since I do truly love the MK5 glass, price point, non-illuminated option, locking turret, and size/weight

 

[Bigwilly556]

Thanks for the thorough feedback. It sounds and looks well designed for a lot of use cases. It probably thrives within 500.

I’ve done a lot of back and forth between this and the Steiner 2-12x Mil. The latter has the extra 2x, side focus, and more purpose built reticle to get that extra stretch out around 600-900M.

I wish Leupold had put in a modified TMR with a little more data for the modern era, not even a full blown tree, just something with 2/4/6/8/10 mil marks and a couple more wind holds.

Edit: even then, this scope still looks so good that I’d consider it since I do truly love the MK5 glass, price point, non-illuminated option, locking turret, and size/weight

I agree. If they had a PR1 Mil or even a tree similar to a nightforce DMX it would be a killer scope. Im not a leupold fan but it check a lot of boxes for me. If you need glass for midrange lightweight hunting or gas gun out to 400-500 yards it works very well.

 

[white_rushin]

I agree. If they had a PR1 Mil or even a tree similar to a nightforce DMX it would be a killer scope. Im not a leupold fan but it check a lot of boxes for me. If you need glass for midrange lightweight hunting or gas gun out to 400-500 yards it works very well.

Right, I fully admit I’m likely in the minority since I don’t think there are many people trying to push a 10x 5.56 beyond 600 yards. It seems like for 80% of users this looks to be a very practical setup that Leupold hit well on. I know C_DOES looks to be a huge fan of it

 

[stanley_white]

The PR1 reticle is .25, .50, .75.

The TMR reticle , if you use the gaps, is .25 (gap), .50 (line), .75 (gap).

-Stan