I was having a hard time getting my phone to focus on the sight picture. The Leupold resolves better for me on my 500 yard targets and the shv has parallax adjustment. I really just wanted to show the reticle on low power.
Rifle Scopes Leupold Mark 4HD
- Thread starter ChrisAU
- Start date
Your photos absolutely accomplished what you hoped they would.
Thank you for the effort.
-Stan
Thank you so much for letting me know that the information you value is different from the information I value.
-Stan
I'm just saying I would not make a purchase based upon comparison photos that someone shot through a scope. You'll be far better off taking that person's word for what the actual results were especially if it's someone who is seasoned in reviewing optics and knows what to look for. Through the scope photos have their place when it comes to reticle comparisons or field of view but when it comes to optical quality they aren't worth very much.
The photos were intended for this exact purpose you buffoon
Thank you for letting me know what you would and wouldn’t do based on photos.
Understanding, in two separate posts now, the value you assign to information and what you would and wouldn’t do adds a lot to my post, which was seeking to thank someone who went out of their way to post some photos.
Have a great Labor Day!
-Stan
The pictures were strictly to show the thickness of the reticle on min power, not glass quality. To my eye the glass is better than the Nightforce, but they are both good enough.
Completely useable and very intuitive even on engagements around 15 yards. I used mine at a competition recently (illuminated version) and was pretty amazed at how natural the holdover was that I bypassed my offset red dot and used the scope instead
Ah, geesh. My bad. I see now. I saw the photos and then saw the comment asking about the SHV being more clear and then I quote replied to the wrong guy @stanley_white.
Everyone here is right, I'm wrong. Apologies.
Just got a 6-24 in. Can these turrets be aligned? The indicator line lands dead in the middle of the hash marks on my elevation turret...?
If only it were that easy lol. I'm just going to use an aftermarket turret tape (if I can ever get a hold of one).
I ordered turret tapes from IDTS to try on 8/7/24 and am still waiting for them (even though I've contacted them twice about them not showing up)... dude said my order must've gotten lost in the mail, but now has asked me twice to confirm my address, which I've confirmed twice, and I'm still not sure if any replacements (or originals) have been sent.
Anyone know any other place that's more reliable to get turret tapes..?
Leupold Customer Service?
-Stan
Awesome, well played sir.
When I asked IDTS if they had tracking info for my lost turret tape order dude replied that if I wanted tracking I should have specified so when checking out, and that costs an extra $10, and then asked me to confirm my address (again) before he would be sending replacements lol... so in case anyone is wondering, turret tapes from IDTS are $12, but sounds like it's another $10 if you want them to actually send them to you.
The 2.5-10 illuminated is way to thick in my opinion. With that said I’ve beat the literal shit out of mine so far and it’s held zero.
Ffp. I struggled to shoot groups with it because it was covering to much of the inch circle. Just too thick for my liking. Still using it though. Wish it had a parallax knob as well.
Be happy your eyes are sharp enough to notice!
-Stan
Before and after on my bushnell LRHS2 turret. It sat squarely between two lines and drove me bonkers.
White and black, permenant, fine tipped paint pens from hobby lobby for $2 each
Attachments
Quick update on my optic for those interested. I contacted Leupold, automated contact form. The next day (8/28) I was contacted and the representative asked for a photo. I sent the same photo I posted here. I didn't hear back for a couple days, on 8/3, I emailed asking if there was an update. The representative called me and I missed the call, talked to him today (8/4) and he said that it is within their acceptable tolerances. I could send it in if I wanted but he couldn't guarantee anything would change. He was very polite, as was I, I expressed my disappointment that an optic of this expense and a quality would have this issue. He understood my frustration and was appreciative of the feedback.
I haven't decided if I'll send it to Leupold. If it's within their acceptable tolerances, I don't know why I'd waste the time. It isn't that big of deal, I'll get used to how it lines up. There are certainly options to "fix" the problem, which I appreciate the recommendations from other users. I just don't think its unreasonable to demand better from a company like Leupold and a $1500 optic.
On a positive note, the glass is very impressive. Haven't been able to test tracking, but it is on NRL22/PRS Rimfire rifle so I'm going to be dialing the heck out of it!
I haven't decided if I'll send it to Leupold. If it's within their acceptable tolerances, I don't know why I'd waste the time. It isn't that big of deal, I'll get used to how it lines up. There are certainly options to "fix" the problem, which I appreciate the recommendations from other users. I just don't think its unreasonable to demand better from a company like Leupold and a $1500 optic.
On a positive note, the glass is very impressive. Haven't been able to test tracking, but it is on NRL22/PRS Rimfire rifle so I'm going to be dialing the heck out of it!
I’m either going to roll like mine came out of the box (misaligned) or will try the turret tape (if it ever shows up). I dig the reticle, and the glass is good enough for what I like to do, so I’m going to stick with it until I can get a first-hand look at a ZCO MPCT1X (I had bought it as a place holder for that reason anyway), or something else, and replace it.
Leupold saying it’s within their tolerances and admitting that they may not do anything about it even if one sent it in is enough for me, this will be my first/last Leupold product.
I’ve never understood the fandom Leupold has enjoyed because their shit always seemed half-ass and second-rate to me as compared to their competitors… and it looks like I never will.
Leupold saying it’s within their tolerances and admitting that they may not do anything about it even if one sent it in is enough for me, this will be my first/last Leupold product.
I’ve never understood the fandom Leupold has enjoyed because their shit always seemed half-ass and second-rate to me as compared to their competitors… and it looks like I never will.
Yep, like you this is my first Leupold. I have quite a few XTRs, a couple Razors, and one Arken. Everytime I looked at Leupold, they were always lacking compared to similar optics. I get that you have to make some kind of concession for almost any optic in this price point. If it has everything you want, it's heavy, it's light but you give up illumination, rock solid turrets but glass is lacking. I'll keep this, but I probably won't be looking at Leupold for my next optic.I’m either going to roll like mine came out of the box (misaligned) or will try the turret tape (if it ever shows up). I dig the reticle, and the glass is good enough for what I like to do, so I’m going to stick with it until I can get a first-hand look at a ZCO MPCT1X (I had bought it as a place holder for that reason anyway), or something else, and replace it.
Leupold saying it’s within their tolerances and admitting that they may not do anything about it even if one sent it in is enough for me, this will be my first/last Leupold product.
I’ve never understood the fandom Leupold has enjoyed because their shit always seemed half-ass and second-rate to me as compared to their competitors… and it looks like I never will.
I also find it funny that a realistic fix in my mind would be to have the scope sent back, line up a blank turret, and mark where to start laser engraving so it lines up perfect. From a company that already offers custom turrets, that must be too difficult
Yep, like you this is my first Leupold. I have quite a few XTRs, a couple Razors, and one Arken. Everytime I looked at Leupold, they were always lacking compared to similar optics. I get that you have to make some kind of concession for almost any optic in this price point. If it has everything you want, it's heavy, it's light but you give up illumination, rock solid turrets but glass is lacking. I'll keep this, but I probably won't be looking at Leupold for my next optic.
I also find it funny that a realistic fix in my mind would be to have the scope sent back, line up a blank turret, and mark where to start laser engraving so it lines up perfect. From a company that already offers custom turrets, that must be too difficult
It's not a price thing for me at all.
I simply like their new PR3 reticle better than any of their previous reticles and the Mark4HD fixes most of the annoying things about the Mark5HD that kept me from ever wanting to try one (wonky off-center windage indicator line, wonky 11.5 revs, wonky 35mm tube).
I said it before and it bears repeating: how the hell do they expect anyone to pony up for their more expensive flagship scopes if $1500-1600 can't get you turrrets that fucking line up correctly? If a $300 Chinese Arken can pull it off why can't they?
As far as a fix for the elevation turret not lining up, IDK, how's about grabbing a handful of caps and maybe just trying 4-5 different ones until they found one that lined up correctly and then send it back? Derp.
TBH I wish the guys on their team would find some integrity and drop them as a sponser. I feel like they sell a lot of scopes and are still relevent in the sport simply because of smart marketing in liau of substance. They always send a flashy truck with their logo on the side and a couple of dudes with a bunch of swag to every big match, and hand out cash and/or free product to pros (for them to flip and convert into $$$), when none of those guys would ever buy their shit with their own money.
In a way, since they won't stand behind their shit, I guess we paid what we paid for the right to shit talk Leupold to every guy in every squad forever.
The MPCTX1 is legit.I’m either going to roll like mine came out of the box (misaligned) or will try the turret tape (if it ever shows up). I dig the reticle, and the glass is good enough for what I like to do, so I’m going to stick with it until I can get a first-hand look at a ZCO MPCT1X (I had bought it as a place holder for that reason anyway), or something else, and replace it.
Leupold saying it’s within their tolerances and admitting that they may not do anything about it even if one sent it in is enough for me, this will be my first/last Leupold product.
I’ve never understood the fandom Leupold has enjoyed because their shit always seemed half-ass and second-rate to me as compared to their competitors… and it looks like I never will.
I just want to actually see one with my own eyeballs before dropping $4K+ on one, that's all lol.
Totally get it that’s how I feel about the JTAC. If you like the PR3 you’d dig the MPCTX1. If it was just 1 mill shorter on the top it would be perfect IMO.
I'm just weary it (MPCT1X) might have the same "too many little lines/sub-tensions thing" that bugged the shit out of me with the Razor's EBR-7D...
Personally I feel like it has all the info you need nothing you don’t but that’s just my personal preference. It’s definitely not as open as the PR3.
I can't find one in-stock or I would order one right now lol.
Leupold being douchbags and them not even wanting to try to make things right makes me want to get the Mark4HD off my rifle as fast as I can. IDK why it bothers me so much, but it does. I'm thankful I have the means to buy whatever I want, but some guys don't, and it pisses me off that Leupold doesn't think $1500-1600 is enough for guys to get a scope that looks like the product pics on their site and get treated correctly.
The way I see it, they're knowingly shipping defective products and then hiding behind "it's within our tolerances", and that's fucked up.
It makes me want to email a vendor and ask them for a list of their tolerances before I place an order.
-Stan
It's not a price thing for me at all.
I simply like their new PR3 reticle better than any of their previous reticles and the Mark4HD fixes most of the annoying things about the Mark5HD that kept me from ever wanting to try one (wonky off-center windage indicator line, wonky 11.5 revs, wonky 35mm tube).
I said it before and it bears repeating: how the hell do they expect anyone to pony up for their more expensive flagship scopes if $1500-1600 can't get you turrrets that fucking line up correctly? If a $300 Chinese Arken can pull it off why can't they?
As far as a fix for the elevation turret not lining up, IDK, how's about grabbing a handful of caps and maybe just trying 4-5 different ones until they found one that lined up correctly and then send it back? Derp.
TBH I wish the guys on their team would find some integrity and drop them as a sponser. I feel like they sell a lot of scopes and are still relevent in the sport simply because of smart marketing in liau of substance. They always send a flashy truck with their logo on the side and a couple of dudes with a bunch of swag to every big match, and hand out cash and/or free product to pros (for them to flip and convert into $$$), when none of those guys would ever buy their shit with their own money.
In a way, since they won't stand behind their shit, I guess we paid what we paid for the right to shit talk Leupold to every guy in every squad forever.
I wanna see a pic of the offcenter cap
I got out this morning for about a half an hour to compare this 6-24 PR2 MK4 to my 4-32 MIL-XT NX8. I will be comparing these two over multiple days and lighting conditions so take these first thoughts with a grain of salt. I am comparing them from the angle that one of these will be going on an elk hunting trip in November on a 7 PRC. The only difference is the NX8 would be a MIL-C.
- The turret feel and operation goes to the NX8, easily. Also the ability to know exactly where I am in in the turret quickly. And I got a good MK4 it seems. There is just a positivity to the NX8 and an accuracy with which the turret hits its mark that the Leupold does not match
- NX8 FOV is better at all mag levels throughout the MK4's 6-24 range
- Parallax knob/side focus is more picky on the MK4 as it pertains to a crisp image. You really have to nail it. This can be perceived as good or bad. In a hurry, with little time to check for actual parallax, a clean image being an indicator of a good parallax setting can expedite things. (if they actually match)
- The MK4 has a brighter image at all mag levels when both optics are on the same magnification
- I preferred the image of the MK4 and its contrast/resolution
- The MK4 had a more forgiving eye box, even at max magnification, than the NX8 does at 24x (the max mag forgiveness was impressive)
- The PR2 reticle is harder to see than the Mil-XT at lower mag levels
- Personal note, I would prefer the PR2 over the MIL-XT if the PR2 had the same perceived line thickness as the MIL-XT
Last edited:
Appreciate this also. Currently have a Nx8 that I like, but was thinking of giving the Mark4/5 a try for an Sig Cross. Just seems kind of like a roll of the dice on Leupold. Glad to see someone testing them and potentially taking one on a hunt where it matters.
So since everyone is talking FOV here’s phone pics between a Mark4hd 4.5-18 and a Gen 3 Razor. Both scopes on 15x(the MK4 I got as close as I could since it’s 14x then 18x.
First pic is the Gen 3
Next MK4
Fence is 684yds
First pic is the Gen 3
Next MK4
Fence is 684yds
Last edited:
we’re talking 6 fence post vs 5.5 at 680
So there's less FOV on the image from the mk4. But it's also zoomed in more so that's to be expected. Is there a numbered zoom that both have in common and you could try?
I could have fat fingered something, but below is a chart comparing approximated FoV throughout the magnification range.
