Rifle Scopes Leupold Mark 4HD
- Thread starter ChrisAU
- Start date
I agree that the turrets kind of suck…
That said, its glass punches way above its weight for a $1500 optic, it’s better than a Gen2 Razor’s and nipping at the heels of the Gen3 Razor (which is neck and neck with a $4k ZCO’s) for about a thousand bucks less. And IMO the PR3 reticle is the best out there right now.
I’m willing to bet the next gen Mark5HD will fix all the shortcomings of the Mark4HD (at least it better, because it’ll cost more too).
I ordered a turret tape from IDTS which hopefully at least makes it easier to read/dial.
Looks like the lines on the turret simply hold left edge of the line on the body.
Always left edge right?
I ordered one of these in 6-24 and another NX8 4-32 to compare side by side. I don't have enough rifles for both to go on, so one will go. I'm just tired of hearing about the thing second hand. I will share my thoughts at some point when I have a chance to compare.
I just got another one and it looks just like the pic @dzeke posted (damn Leupold
), elevation turret is off in the same manner.I'm hoping your fix is simple because I'd like to mount it, shoot it, and be happy... instead of having to send it back and waiting for it to be made right first.
The good news is the turrets have less slop/play in them as compared to my first one.
Does it add to slop or is there enough engagement that that is a non issue?
Thanks.
I will try the turret tape first, as more slop would bother me more (if it ever shows up, my first attempt at ordering turret tape weeks ago got lost in the mail).
I just read through that thread and am now dumber than I was before. I don’t think I’d factor any of that nonsense into any opinion of anything.
It’s not a flagship scope, it’s a price-point scope, so expecting the world is unreasonable IMO and it does have some warts.
That said, my impression of Leupold isn’t good, and I love the reticle and am still saying that. IDK how they expect anyone to pony up for their flagship stuff when spending ~$1500 leaves one feeling far from satisfied.
I dig the scope enough to run it for a while and bought it, sold it, and re-bought it, but when talking to every other shooter I’ve shown it to I’ve started by saying “if you can look past all the crap Leupold missed it actually looks good”… not the greatest endorsement.
TBH I hope Vortex borrows their idea and comes out with their own version of a PR3 type reticle, I know it will be built way better for the same price Leupold is charging.
The drop test where it was sliding in the rings for their flawed test and when the dumbass finally figured that out and tightened the rings it was fine? That drop test?
The 2.5-10x42 is just about the perfect hunting scope for me. I really like both of mine.
I want to like those drop tests but I've determined they're basically a shit show. I don't think they prove anything and are very dependent on the shooter AND nothing else on the rifle system being at fault after being dropped. Truthfully, I wouldn't expect any scope to hold zero after being dropped from 3' and landing smack dab on the elevation turret like what 9 times? I certainly wouldn't trust it and would feel very lucky if that rifle was still zeroed.The drop test where it was sliding in the rings for their flawed test and when the dumbass finally figured that out and tightened the rings it was fine? That drop test?
One way or another, those guys half assed tests have definitely caused some damage to Leupolds reputation.
The RS drop tests are all noise and no signal. It’s akin to the legacy “load development” methods. Guys are just reading tea leaves and pretending they know something.
Not to change subjects but it's refreshing to hear that since I thought the entire interweb followed that guy like he was an apostle or something...
Dude claims to have a Tikka T3 with over 20K round and no degradation of accuracy or anything too.
It would be difficult to conclude much from a test like that, especially considering the dimensional differences of optics in general and how that effects the outcome. The only thing you can really draw from it is if there is a scope that continues to get put through this "test" and does not fail, its probably well built.
There comes a point where the whole torture test/drop test/ice test/etc nonsense just becomes dumb. There’s a lot of fake ass self declared “operators” out there.
2-3 paragraphs into dude’s post with him bragging about having never put a patch through his rifle I could guess I wasn’t going to glean anything useful.
2-3 paragraphs into dude’s post with him bragging about having never put a patch through his rifle I could guess I wasn’t going to glean anything useful.
Last edited:
I love my 2.5x10’s!! Only thing that would take the cake for me is if it maxed out at 12x instead of 10.
Yeah the MK5 at 2.5-12.5 would be appealing or they could have gotten cute at 2.8-14, but what do I know, I'm always told my ideas won't sell to the masses!
Supposedly that “operator” over there was AF reserve HSLD. Someone went off on a rant on another forum about him.
After reading all this I’m really curious to see if my turrets line up when it gets here this week but for under 900 new this past week from leupold I couldnt pass that up to give it a try.
Which model is under 900? I'm hoping I can score a 4.5-18 for under 900 now lol
With military discount and they gave an additional 10% off the vip price i picked up a 4.5x18 with pr2 reticle. I was just happy something was available for once in the vip program cause everytime I want something it’s sold out.
The first rule of the VIP club is that you don't discuss it.
I picked up a 6-24 a few weeks go. Have only had 2 range sessions with it but am impressed. It’s a nice lil scope.
If you don’t mind me asking, what versions did you get? I’m tickled by the ffp version but would love to know if the reticle is usable on lowest mag when in the brush with or without illumination? My lease has several spots where I’m limited to 30-50 yards and would love to be able to use it at low mag for more fov in there…
Thank you!
A close friend bought the 2.5-10x42 Illuminated TMR in SFP because he didn't envision using the wind holds on less than 10x.
I think he made a good choice.
-Stan
I have the non-illuminated FFP TMR and to me it is still usable on 2.5 power. My experience with the illuminated version is that it is almost too thick.
I have the illuminated TMR FFP 2.5-10x42. It works very nicely on low power. I shoot a little below 10x in the wind a fair bit, so holding for the wind with the reticle below max power is very useful for me.
What conditions are we talking about? Low light? I'm the woods?
I'm seriously tempted to get a FFP non illuminated. I have an NXS 2.5-10 mil dot but I'd like a FFP version with 1/2 mil lines.
The illuminated reticle looks thick in the PDF specs
I haven't used it in the woods yet but I have done some shooting in low light and it hasn't been a problem. It sounds like you might prefer the illuminated model. I will get some pictures later.
Mk4hd 2.5-10 ffp TMR at 2.5 power. Overcast and the tree is about 75 yards. Other picture is a SHV 3-10 moar sfp on 3 power.
This is at last light. Camera makes it look brighter outside than it was.
I
Is the SHV that much more clear, or is it just the camera focus or lack therof?
