-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes Leupold Mark 4HD
- Thread starter ChrisAU
- Start date
Interesting. I'm on the hunt for a 3.6-18 MK5 for my LMT 6.5CM gas gun. What do you prefer more about the MK4? I did want a lighter optic, but from my understanding the MK4 is supposed to be more budget than the MK5HD?
What is the point of the 4.5-18? It has the same dimensions and is within 1oz of the 6-24. Does anyone really need that extra 1.5 on the low end?
I want to see this too. I have a NX8 4-32 and I really do love it. However, I am using a lightweight 7 PRC for backpacking Elk and Muley in November and am thinking about trying the 6-24 MK4HD instead of buying another NX8. It's a touch lighter than the NX8 and has a locking elevation turret. I am also thinking it may be even more forgiving considering the 4x erector. Maybe a bit better in low light due to the 52mm objective too. Money is not a consideration between the two at all. The thing the NX8 has going for it is its a known entity and I feel like its likely more durable and is a historically good tracker. Kind of torn on the right move here.
I probably want the 4.5 more than I do the. I'm a FOV whore vs magnification.
The main reason I'm looking at the 4.5-18 is because they offer an illuminated reticle. Don't understand why they don't offer it with 6-24
The weight is actually the same. I liked the mk5 being smaller but the clarity was better at distance past 700yds for me with the mk4.
The mk5 was on a bolt action btw so going to the slightly bigger scope was fine for me. May be different for a gas gun setup
Agree. Should've been a 4-16x42 and a 30mm tube.
4.5-18 puts it in a weird spot IMO, both too much and not enough magnification at the same time.
Is the reliability of the Leupold MK4 that much less credible? I thought that the MK4/MK5 line of scopes didn't have much durability issues.
Did want to ask you about thoughts on reliability - I'll be going to Louisiana for some hog hunting and did want some thoughts.
I’ve had mk5s a few years back, vx5hd on my hunting rifle for a couple seasons, and now these. I’ve never had an issue with tracking or reliability on any of their scopes. Maybe people have had different experiences. I also had an NX8 4-32 and didn’t care for it at all. Wasn’t even usable past 22x to me. Glass was good but wasn’t a fan. The mk4 turrets are slightly “softer” than the mk5 but don’t bother me either. Some people like a more crisp feel, but that’s just my opinion.
I am curious if a a 6-24 MK4 is more usable at 20-22x than a 4-32 NX8. My NX8 seems very usable at that magnfication.
With it being a 4x erector I’d say most certainly. 22x was usable on the nx8 but past that the fov gets so small I didnt like it. The slightest movement id have black in the image and it was not forgiving at all. Like I said just my personal preference. I’d bet the 24x on the mk4 is just fine.
I believe in a hunting application I would never want to go above 3-4.5 on the low end of mag (given where and what I plan to hunt). Because the MK4 is a cross over scope family of both FFP and SFP scopes I believe this is the advantage of the 4.5-18 which then pushes folks who want a more "traditional" mag range to the MK5 for the 5-25.
Personally, I'm about to make the 4.5-18x SFP my new hunting scope - once yall stop buying them all and leave one in stock for me to buy
If you're looking for a "general purpose" rifle and scope, the 4.5-18 has a marked advantage over the 6-26. I ran some snap shot drills last week with the 4.5-18 and was successful, but that's the absolute maximum magnification I would want on the low end. That said, I know I'm not normal in my expectations for a rifle/scope. I want something that can handle anything from 10 yards out to 1000 and so far, this scope seems to be doing everything I need. If I was a more traditional long range shooter, the 6-24 certainly would make more sense.
I've been screwing around with a couple of Mark4HD scopes and I have to admit I like both 2.5-10x42 and 4.5-18x52. The latter is going on a pronghorn hunt with me in a few days.
The 4.5-18x52 I have came with PR1 Mil reticle. The reticle is quite repsectable. For precision guys it might be a bit thick, but for crossover use, I think it works well. I wish they used a few more numbers there, but I was able to adjust to it without much trouble.
27 ounces is not a bad weight. Once I am back from the hunt, I'll put it side by side with the HD-LHT 4.5-22x50 and see how they stack up.
ILya
I was considering the PR3 if I decided to give a shot vs the NF. Still up in the air. Once I got my 4-32 NX8 in, I let go of the LHT. I felt like the difference in glass was worth the weight trade off combined with the fact that I really grew to hate the 5 MIL turrets on the LHT.
IDK about the 6-24, but the 8-32 FOV looks/feels nearly the same as a ubiquitous Razor G3's at around the same magnification. When going back and forth between those two, I didn't notice any difference.
I could have sworn there was a TMR or ill. TMR SFP in 4.5-18..... But I can't seem to find it now, maybe that's why its "never available" for me to buy.... shoot.
posssibly got this confused with the 4.5 in the 1-4.5
Last edited:
That's really interesting. I decided to not test the higher power Mark 4HD scopes because the FOV is narrow and you can only dial it down so much. On the 8-32x it is at least 15% narrower than Razor Gen3 on the same magnification. Might be closer to 20%, but I will do some arithmetic to confirm.
Edited to add: I did some arithmetic and Razor Gen3 has ~17% wider FOV than the Mark 4HD. Burris XTR Pro nearly identical FOV as RG3 when on the same magnification.
ILya
That's strange to hear since it didn't feel any different when shooting targets at my club that I've shot at thousands of times and am super familiar with... FWIW I tend to run the Razor G3 at 20x 99% of the time so that's where I parked the 8-32x56 Mk4HD (20x), and again, FOV never popped up on my radar until I read guys discussing it here. IDK?
I mean unless you have them side by side, there's a bunch of stuff that goes unnoticed. I'm sure this is one of them.
Without reading this entire thread, has this been verified? Same glass? Same coatings?
People are saying same glass. Almost same coatings.
The mark 5 has a coating or coatings that help with anti scratch/anti shatter. These coating did not transfer over to the mark4 since it did not have to meet Military requirements specs. The mark 5 did because it has Military or LE use.
Aside from that, supposedly the glass is the same and looks the same.
Yeah, maybe... but more than anything the impression I got was that the numbers are misleading and almost don't even matter IRL.
Anyone who thinks the Mark 4HD's FOV performance is closer to "looking through a straw" than neck and neck with the usual suspects is kidding themselves and blowing hot air. In practice, under use, a few feet here or there of FOV isn't really that big of a deal on something that most guys are going to use for banging steel several hundred yards away.
Hunting might be a different story I guess, but IDK... YMMV.
Last edited:
FOV is FOV. This is not a subjective attribute.
So buy a Kahles K328i then.
Otherwise, the difference is closer to insignificant than earth-shattering when up against nearly everything else out there.
FOV is one of the most immediately discernible merits of a scope and is one of the most important attributes to make a scope likable or unlikeable. Narrow or wide FOV’s are the most immediate source of “WOW” or “this sucks” that a scope can have.
I don’t know. I prefer a larger FOV too, but I think eye box/ease of acquiring sight picture, depth of field, resolution, and contrast are all more important in a rifle scope. FOV is on down the line I feel.
It's not that I don't think FOV is important, more is always better, I just think guys are blowing the specs/numbers out of proportion as far as how it actually relates to what one experiences downrange.
When I'm trying to hit a 4 tenths wide plate at ~700 yards at 18-20x, I've never once gone "dang, if only I could see a foot more on either side of the target (near the edges of the glass that I'm not really focused on) this would be sooo much easier"...
When I'm trying to hit a 4 tenths wide plate at ~700 yards at 18-20x, I've never once gone "dang, if only I could see a foot more on either side of the target (near the edges of the glass that I'm not really focused on) this would be sooo much easier"...
Last edited:
All of my scopes have this FOV enlargement feature that works if you twist a portion of the scope body.
It’s pretty cool and I am glad I paid extra for it.
-Stan
It’s pretty cool and I am glad I paid extra for it.
-Stan
Funny that this thread has taken to the FOV angle so heavily lately because that is exactly what I wanted to address. I have the 4.5-18 and have been shooting it on my local farm for a couple of weeks and I did notice that the FOV is a bit smaller than on the Vortex Strike Eagle 3-18 that I am getting rid of.
It wasn't until this weekend that I discovered that this doesn't matter at all FOR ME. Yes, the FOV is smaller but another attribute makes this irrelevant. The eye box on the Mark 4 is extremely forgiving. Let me explain...
I had it out to a class in Southwestern VA with targets between 460 to 1200 yards. Because I had taken the class before, they let me go off to the side and hammer away. I quickly discovered that self spotting is infinitely easier with this scope than the Strike Eagle. It was almost comical. On the few instances when I did have a spotter, I already knew where my impact was before the spotter could tell me because I never lost sight of the impact area. It is because even with the recoil of a lighter rifle (Sig Cross which weighs 10.5 pounds all in), the image in the glass never vanished to black. The uncluttered view with the PR1 reticle helped a bit at well but the credit goes to the eye box.
Now... would a bigger FOV be better? Of course, but given a choice between a larger FOV with a less forgiving eye box and I'll take the smaller FOV with the far superior eye box every time.
It wasn't until this weekend that I discovered that this doesn't matter at all FOR ME. Yes, the FOV is smaller but another attribute makes this irrelevant. The eye box on the Mark 4 is extremely forgiving. Let me explain...
I had it out to a class in Southwestern VA with targets between 460 to 1200 yards. Because I had taken the class before, they let me go off to the side and hammer away. I quickly discovered that self spotting is infinitely easier with this scope than the Strike Eagle. It was almost comical. On the few instances when I did have a spotter, I already knew where my impact was before the spotter could tell me because I never lost sight of the impact area. It is because even with the recoil of a lighter rifle (Sig Cross which weighs 10.5 pounds all in), the image in the glass never vanished to black. The uncluttered view with the PR1 reticle helped a bit at well but the credit goes to the eye box.
Now... would a bigger FOV be better? Of course, but given a choice between a larger FOV with a less forgiving eye box and I'll take the smaller FOV with the far superior eye box every time.
So someone who actually has the thing and is shooting it along side other scopes says the FOV difference isn’t noticeable in actual use and a bunch of armchair commandos who have probably never even touched one are still losing their shit over spec sheets… you’ve gotta love clowns on the internet 
FOV differences might not be noticeable to them. If all you do is statically engage paper and steel all day, yeah it's not a big deal. If you shoot on the clock, hunt or God forbid have to use it to defend yourself, FOV carries more weight.So someone who actually has the thing and is shooting it along side other scopes says the FOV difference isn’t noticeable in actual use and a bunch of armchair commandos who have probably never even touched one are still losing their shit over spec sheets… you’ve gotta love clowns on the internet
If you want to talk about eyebox, tunnelling, CA or other attributes of the scope that are up for interpretation, lets do it. But arguing over a purely mathematical number is a bit silly. Math isn't racist no matter how hard they try to make it so.
No one is knocking the scope that I can see, seems like from a value perspective it ought to be a huge winner for Leupold and I hope we see more manufacturers backing off the crazy erectors and giving us more usable products.
I am not sure who you are referring to, but I have two Mark 4hd scopes here and the 4.5-18x is going hunting with me next weekend.So someone who actually has the thing and is shooting it along side other scopes says the FOV difference isn’t noticeable in actual use and a bunch of armchair commandos who have probably never even touched one are still losing their shit over spec sheets… you’ve gotta love clowns on the internet
By the way, Leupold has a typo in how they list FOV on 18x for the 4.5-18x. I measured it to be a little wider than what they have on the website.
ILya
The Mk5 is going to be a slightly better scope in a few ways, but I don't think the cost benefit is there. The reticle selection is a little different; if the reticle you like is in the Mk4, I think the $ savings is worth it over the Mk5.
Wow, that's some unhinged keyboard commando nonsense for sure, thanks for reminding me why I stay the hell out of the Bear Pit lol.
FYI, when not engaging steel and paper all day... I shoot PRS matches "on the clock" (as well as USPSA, IDPA, UMG, 3-Gun, etc) as often as possible and have carried a gun as an LEO for most of my life. Though... I don't hunt, since I personally don't find any satisfaction in killing animals that aren't a danger to me (unless you count the many
I bet you haven't even learned how to shoot with both eyes open, that's probably why you're so hung up on FOV numbers that don't even really matter IRL.
Last edited:
It’s really for a nrl hunter light rifle I have just put together. It’s Manners ph stock with a proof barrel so cheek height is a concern since it doesn’t have adjustable comb. I don’t really hunt much anymore, I have the pr2 reticle in the 5-25 on my other PRS rifle so I was wanting to stick with that reticle.
Last edited:
I'd go with the 4.5-18x52 Mark 4hd. It is a little easier to get behind than the shorter Mark5. FOV is similar on the same mag.
ILya
I had both and sold the mk5 and kept the mk4. Image was better out past 800yds
Last edited:
Similar threads
