-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes Leupold Mark 4HD
- Thread starter ChrisAU
- Start date
I agree, this is pretty exciting, I feel like it might be a great alternative to the no longer produced Bushnell LRTS 4.5-18 but with a 52mm objective to draw in a bit more light making this a contender for crossover use without the drawbacks of the trendy ultra short scopes.
I'm looking at pricing and I'm thinking something must be wrong, Leupold always charges $500 or more for illumination and I'm only seeing a $200 upcharge here??? Did someone in management finally look at the competition...
I’m pretty sure it’s a different design that’s less expensive. I was told by a Leupold guy a while ago that one of the reasons the illumination option is pricey on the MK5’s is because of the waterproofing requirement that they were built with.
It's because it's push button like the VX5-VX6, not the same that is on the mk5.
3:35
Last edited:
An interesting note on the 4.5-18…
The guns America video says the windage is capped on the 4.5-18 but all the product photos I’m seeing except for one of the in use one where you can make out “4.5” on the dial in a blur show it expose and locking. That photo clearly shows a cover without markings and it has to be a 4.5-18 because of the markings and parallax knob. The Leupold video just posted also says capped windage is available, so they may be able to be swapped out and either ran which would be a nice option to have.
The guns America video says the windage is capped on the 4.5-18 but all the product photos I’m seeing except for one of the in use one where you can make out “4.5” on the dial in a blur show it expose and locking. That photo clearly shows a cover without markings and it has to be a 4.5-18 because of the markings and parallax knob. The Leupold video just posted also says capped windage is available, so they may be able to be swapped out and either ran which would be a nice option to have.
Attachments
That’s a different housing, it’s pretty common for higher magnification models in a line to have less internal adjustment.
My favorite feature of the line, you actually get a reticle that’s usable through the mag range that way and the lower zoom ratio generally has more forgiving image qualities. High zoom ratios that are only useful for part of the range are stupid.
Agreed. The 2.5-10 was the scope I'd be interest in, but the reticle choices aren't great.
I really would have liked to see and adjustable side focus and a tree on the 2.5-10 FFP.
I want the 6-24 but am stuck going with the 4.5-18 because they didn’t stick with the same reticle across the board that I have in my mark5’s. I may just have to stick with nx8’s for my new build. These scopes look intriguing if they actually are durable for once. But I feel they really screwed themseleves on reticle choices.
Great to see leupold listening! Same glass as the MK5 but substantially cheaper is pretty incredible if so.
When are they going to be shipping? Looks like I’m gonna sell the ZCO and get 2 of these.
You mean like 5 or 6?
Leupy says same glass formula as Mark 5 so should be really good. Scope is likely to be very forgiving but where it’s not forgiving is FOV, numbers (if correct) at 23.5’ at 4.5x and 5.2’ at 18x are among the most narrow of modern scopes. The old Bushy was known to be a bit tight but this one even tighter so we’ll see. I have my suspicions as to why but let’s give it a few weeks to iron out typos and details.
Yea the FOV numbers are pretty disappointing, possibly the worst on the market.
FOV’s are tight but they’re not the worst. The 6-24 has the same FOV on the top end as the LHT 4.5-22 and it’s a little wider than the march 3-24. The 4.5-18 is within .5’ of a lot 3-18’s on the top end. FOV’s could certainly be much better but for what these are it’s not a complaint of mine.
How does lack of FOV translate into a detriment in a competition or hunting scenario?
-Stan
Both the March and the LHT have comparatively narrow FOVs also though.
This is only my opinion but anything less than 38ft on 3x is considered narrow, quite a few designs are around the 40ft on 3x mark which I find makes a world of difference in how immersive the image is, which translates to being more comfortable behind the scope, easier to find targets, less zooming out to find targets, and generally a more pleasant experience.
I know it sounds like a silly thing to make a deal out of but for me the FOV and reticle are the two things you can never get away from in a scope. No matter the environmental conditions, light levels, etc, if you have a narrow FOV you forever feel like you are looking through a cardboard tube and if that also comes with a bad reticle, then it bugs the crap out of me and there is no escaping it.
YMMV
Absolute fuckin yawn.
Fix all the moronic issues w the otherwise excellent mk5 before releasing this shit.
Cant wait for a duplex reticle where the windage line is on the back so my spotter can see it in a mirror or some dumb shit.
GD I wish everyone over the age of 50 at Leupold would take a dirt nap and so they'd stop fucking up their products.
Fix all the moronic issues w the otherwise excellent mk5 before releasing this shit.
Cant wait for a duplex reticle where the windage line is on the back so my spotter can see it in a mirror or some dumb shit.
GD I wish everyone over the age of 50 at Leupold would take a dirt nap and so they'd stop fucking up their products.
As long as the image is "filling" up the ocular from edge to edge withouth any black edges they can get away with a narrow FOV.
I’d always rather have a huge FOV but for a mostly target scope it bothers me less. My biggest complaint is the reticles but I can make do with the PR2. FOV is far more of a priority for me on a hunting option though, that’s not what I’ll be using this optic for and if I do it will be longer ranges.
The numbers between the mk5 3.6-18 and the mk4HD 4.5-18 are kinda odd. Looks to me like the Mk5 is 2.5" shorter and has a better mag range.
I circled some of the things that matter to me. You'd think some of these numbers would be swapped and that the Mk5 3.6-18 would be a lot cheaper than it is. I'm curious to hear what people say when they start getting in shooters hands.
MK4 HD 4.5-18
Mk5 3.6-18
I circled some of the things that matter to me. You'd think some of these numbers would be swapped and that the Mk5 3.6-18 would be a lot cheaper than it is. I'm curious to hear what people say when they start getting in shooters hands.
MK4 HD 4.5-18
Mk5 3.6-18
They are totally different animals starting with the different mag ratios that dictate different internals.
Better mag range?
Are you referring to the mag zoom ratio between bottom X and top X?
Yeah, I guess it seems like they are covering the same space but with the Mk4 in kinda an odd spot for practical use. I get the whole 4x and 5x mag ratio but a 5-20 mk4 or a 4-16 mk4 would make more sense to me.
If I'm shopping for a "cross over" scope, I'm willing to compromise on one end or the other but 4.5-18 seems like both. Just my opinion.
How did you reach the conclusion that the MK5 should be cheaper than it is based on what you circled. I am having a super hard time making sense of your post.
It's probably just an early morning poorly formed thought.
But at first glance, they are very similar scopes with very similar spec sheets. I think that the mk4 will give a lot of people pause before they spend the extra on a Mk5.
With that said, the 4.5-18 doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
I suspect the 18x mk4 will have a better eye box, eye relief, DOF and CA control than the much shorter 18x mk5. I'd also think the mk4 is a bit brighter due to the larger bell
The CA control on the little mk5 is really bad in my experience. A common theme for ultra short designs.
Last edited:
I contacted Leupold on their site page for these and was told the 1-4.5x24's were released on 1/11 and should be available soon, but they didn't say anything about the rest.
If one looks at enough of the specs, there will certainly be spots where they are overlapping and covering the same space.
This thread is a great example of why.
The shooting public is never satisfied with reticle choice, magnification choice, MOA vs MIL, illumination, size, FOV, exit pupil, etc. etc. . . . No one scope is going to be perfect for everyone so in an effort to cover all the available market, the major players have to produce a ridiculous number of different SKUs. Even then, they will get roasted on forums for not having something someone wants whether it is a good idea or not.
Also the magnification ratio impacts the physical footprint of the scope and also impacts FOV, exit pupil and optical performance edge to edge. The higher the ratio, the bigger the challenge so something has to be sacrificed to deliver the high ratio.
Most here already know this but for the new guys and gals.....
In the case of Leupold, easy rule of thumb is the number behind the Mk designation is the erector ratio for that series.
Mk 4 = 4x erectors
Mk 5 = 5x erectors
Mk 6 = 6x erectors
So, because the internals are trying to deliver varying degrees of magic, there will be lots of differences in the strengths and weaknesses between each series even if they were to all use the same lens quality and coatings.
.
Similar threads
