No, I found the scope very comfortable to be behind, the picture was nice, I like the new PR3 Reticle, super simple, the turrets were very accurate and responsive
Rifle Scopes Leupold Mark 4HD
- Thread starter ChrisAU
- Start date
My 2.5-10 is fine easy to get behind as well.
People always ask about glass quality and it's very good although a little too "bright" for my eyes whereas my meopta and zeiss seem to have better contrast/more realistic colors.
People always ask about glass quality and it's very good although a little too "bright" for my eyes whereas my meopta and zeiss seem to have better contrast/more realistic colors.
It's one of the better hunting scopes I've had, without question. I do probably 50% of my hunting solo, so I'm sitting there operating the call, being DJ FieldGauge with the FoxPro FoxFusion, while also trying to range any potential engagements. When it comes time to get behind the rifle, I gotta be on it quick, and the MK4 2.5-10 makes that easy peasy.
Have you had a chance to shoot it yet? Any issues with tracking/zero retention so far?
Not yet, been super busy with work. Hope to get a free range day in the next couple weeks.
I haven't noticed anything weird with mine dialing it to 600-700 and back. Also the place where I shoot is at the end of a washboard road jeep trail so everything gets bounced the fuck around. Of course it could break in the future but so far it's been good.
Finally more MK4HD 6-24x52's in stock! Only a few left if you want to grab one 
-Richard
-Richard
It's exactly what you think it would be. Illum is steady when level, blinks when not level. I don't have a YT account so I can't supply a video, but here is a potato gif of what it looks like (I suck at holding a phone and moving my rifle around, but you get the idea).
FYI, I doubt anyone would use this for anything other than maybe just benchrest shooting for groups recreationally. I tried it in a match, and while hunting, and it is incredibly distracting.
The only good thing about that feature is when mounting & leveling your scope. Then it’s pretty handy.
When I had a MK5 I used it for that and then turned it off.
This can sometimes be a cheap or easy way of meeting the feel and damping requirements that design or marketing has laid out.
Pretty common in the ratcheting tool world. Our marketing department would do blind field tests only changing the grease amount or weight.
Customers almost universally relate a heavy grease or a highly packed ratchet head positively with "quality, longevity, robustness, strength, etc". Simply because of the heavy or solid or damped feel of the pawl and springs due to the copious amounts of heavy grease. This is of course regardless or uncorrelated to actual tool performance.
Not saying they are doing that here but I see it done in other consumer goods.
Same. I always do the string setup (in my case I use my garage door pull), but I did use the electronic level to do a sanity check on the work I did as well.
If every scope had that electronic leveling feature it would be worth the extra $25.
Because it would reduce the “howdoilevelmyscopebruh” q’s on this site by 87.5%.
There still would remain the “howdeeznutzdoilevelmyrifle” q’s, however.
Yea lol. We need to get flashing rifles next. Then all of our problems will be solved.
Sir, the people are now asking how to level their ammo...
OH FOR PETES SAKE!
You’ll never win. My Dad was grumping at me that the last 4 scopes that I mounted for him are canted about 10-15 degrees to the left. Turns out when he shoulders a rifle, he cants it that much to the left.
Get that man a cantable and height adjustable buttpad STAT! lolYou’ll never win. My Dad was grumping at me that the last 4 scopes that I mounted for him are canted about 10-15 degrees to the left. Turns out when he shoulders a rifle, he cants it that much to the left.
But seriously, it sounds like he needs it. I like mine.
Finally just received more Leupold Mark 4HD 6-24x52 PR2-MIL 183823 https://cstactical.com/leupold-mark-4hd-6-24x52/
I’m using the illuminated 2.5-10 ffp for my truck rifle. My impressions are the glass is fine and the turrets are honestly pretty bad. This will be subject to literally tons of abuse. Things hitting it and me driving on washboard gravel all day running wells. I’ll let yall know if it holds zero.
What’s your take on the clarity and how the reticle is? Idk if you’ve had a Steiner t6 3-18, but if you have how would you compare those? May switch out my Steiner for the leupold.
Or any other comparisons you would say. How about compared to the 3.6-18 mk5?
Last edited:
Finally got a chance to look at this thing outside and compare it directly to my PST G2. It was a 4.5-18 with the PR2 MIL reticle
Definitely looks a lot better the further out you go. Inside 100, not a huge difference, you can see it, but once you get to 200+ yards, you can really see a much cleaner image.
The turrets were crisper than I remembered from looking at it in the store. Parallax and zoom were stiff, but smooth.
Then I started to play with the turret and I have to ask, why did Leupold put those huge numbers on the elevation dial such that you cannot determine if the dial is exactly on the x10 mark? Look at the turrets and the 2, 3, 5, 6, the larger numbers. The number is right at the bottom of the dial where you’d expect to see a tick mark. They basically cover the x.9 and x.1 marks as well.
When I tried to dial elevation, I had to look twice to make sure I was on 2, or 3 or 5 or whatever. Same as 1.9, 2.1, 2.9, 3.1, etc., you cannot tell exactly where you are with a quick glance. Who cares when I’m shotting at a target off a bench, but having to look twice on a PRS or NRL stage seems like a time suck. I’m not sure I understand why Leupold put THREE revolution indicators on the dial when it has a lock at the 0.0. Do they really think someone is going to dial past 10 and read that little tiny “10” or “11” or “20” and know they’re at +10?
I really wanted to switch to this scope, but it seems like Leupold just made some poor decisions and having to spend another $80 on sun shade is making me lean towards probably not.
Maybe it’s not a big deal and I’d “get used to it”, but the get used to it phase will suck for a few matches.
Definitely looks a lot better the further out you go. Inside 100, not a huge difference, you can see it, but once you get to 200+ yards, you can really see a much cleaner image.
The turrets were crisper than I remembered from looking at it in the store. Parallax and zoom were stiff, but smooth.
Then I started to play with the turret and I have to ask, why did Leupold put those huge numbers on the elevation dial such that you cannot determine if the dial is exactly on the x10 mark? Look at the turrets and the 2, 3, 5, 6, the larger numbers. The number is right at the bottom of the dial where you’d expect to see a tick mark. They basically cover the x.9 and x.1 marks as well.
When I tried to dial elevation, I had to look twice to make sure I was on 2, or 3 or 5 or whatever. Same as 1.9, 2.1, 2.9, 3.1, etc., you cannot tell exactly where you are with a quick glance. Who cares when I’m shotting at a target off a bench, but having to look twice on a PRS or NRL stage seems like a time suck. I’m not sure I understand why Leupold put THREE revolution indicators on the dial when it has a lock at the 0.0. Do they really think someone is going to dial past 10 and read that little tiny “10” or “11” or “20” and know they’re at +10?
I really wanted to switch to this scope, but it seems like Leupold just made some poor decisions and having to spend another $80 on sun shade is making me lean towards probably not.
Maybe it’s not a big deal and I’d “get used to it”, but the get used to it phase will suck for a few matches.
I've experienced the numbers vs marks goat fuck with the VX5HD CDS dials. It's lead me to consider using "target tags" on the standard dial and not dicking with the CDS anymore.
My hold up is on whether the 4.5-18 or 6-24 considering their physical specs are identical. My guess is like all other scopes, probably the glass brighter on the 4.5-18? Maybe the FFP reticle becomes usable at lower mag on the 4.5-18?
My SFP TMR illuminated isn't very thick. The FFP one I saw in 2.5-10 looked like it was drawn with crayons or something.
The illuminated TMR is dummy thick per the specs at .1mil. The regular TMR falls in line with every other precision based reticle at .05mil. This is for the main stadia extending 5 total mils in the X/Y axis. The lines extending further are the same .2mil thickness for both.
Other differences include a dot center for the illuminated version and an open center for the regular TMR. Leupold has these specs on their site for reference.
If the glass is the same as the MK5 which they claim it is. Yes i would say so you’re talking about being closer to ATACR quality.
It is. My 4.5-18 Mk4HD looks the same as my 5-25 Mk5HD, glass wise.
Kinda nuts when you consider how cheap the MK4 is. That is damn good glass at 1000-1600 with a good reticle. It will be hard pressed for me to really look at any other brand on a whim when trying to assemble something where the sky isn't the limit. It's interesting how taste change. When I first got the MK5 right when it launched I really didn't care too much for the turrets, Prefered my kahles at the time. Now I love them lol.
I guess the other question I have is, I am also looking at the 2.5-10 scope on a long action hunting rifle. I hunt a lot of fresh clear cuts and have shots out to 500. Lots of debris (Tops, ect) left on the ground so falling a lot can be an issue, how is durability on these things?
I know the model does not have any sort of parallax adjustment, and it seems the old adage is if its under 10 power no parallax is needed... I don't know if that's true or not anymore... Would the lack of parallax impact longer shots? Ive had a 3-9 vx3i a long time ago and was able to shoot steel no problem.
Im also guessing the scope might be a pain to mount on a long action 700? Meaning rings may be close enough together to get in the way of bolt.
I know the model does not have any sort of parallax adjustment, and it seems the old adage is if its under 10 power no parallax is needed... I don't know if that's true or not anymore... Would the lack of parallax impact longer shots? Ive had a 3-9 vx3i a long time ago and was able to shoot steel no problem.
Im also guessing the scope might be a pain to mount on a long action 700? Meaning rings may be close enough together to get in the way of bolt.
Nope. <= 500 with a long action isn't a long shot at all, especially with whatever you're going to be hunting with a long action. I hit coyotes out to ~400 just fine with a 22-250 using this the 2.5-10, and that's a much tougher shot than an animal needing a LA @ 500
Last edited:
Agreed. Another shooter and I were discussing this same thing. Right now, the Mk4HD is probably the best bang for the buck out there. Then add to that the reduced weight of the Mk4HD, and you have to ask "Why would you buy anything else right now? (For a decent mid-grade optic)
Granted, some of that depends on whether they have a reticle that suits a shooter, but feature-wise, the Mk4HD ticks off a lot of boxes for a very reasonable price point.
Yup it’s excellent value. I wish they offered T3 and that the 2.5-10 had a more practical reticle but the fact that PR2 is standard across the board is great. I don’t have a rifle to put one on and am wanting to pick one up lol
I’m strongly considering the 4.5-18x52 for my 16” 6.5 Creedmoor and topping it with a 12 o’clock red dot. That seems like a much more appropriate optic setup than the current Zeiss LRP S3 6-36x56 it’s currently wearing.
Those who have the 6-24, what's the FOV like? Looking into one of these for an upcoming NRL Hunter build and worry the FOV might be a little on the tighter side.
I've never shot an NRL Hunter match before so not sure how much magnification I need, figured this was a safe mag range though.
I've never shot an NRL Hunter match before so not sure how much magnification I need, figured this was a safe mag range though.
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
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
Not the easiest to keep in stock, but we have the Mark 4HD 6-24 PR2 and PR3 in stock -Richard
www.snipershide.com
-Richard
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
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...
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....
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
