Rifle Scopes Leupold Mark 4HD
- Thread starter ChrisAU
- Start date
I’ve watched people time out on a stage on a square range because they couldn’t find a target in their scope. Not the scopes fault though when their brain just doesn’t engage to turn the magnification down some to get on target.
Go to any local PRS match on any given weekend. You’ll see it happen at least once.
I was kind of suprised to get any questions about it. I thought it was as common as the wind blowing in Kansas. It's like one of the first things I learned about field shooting.
To be clear, the “it” I am referring to is lack of field of view causing bad things to happen.
Folks complain all day long about field of view and tunneling, but never speak to the actual impact either has on their shooting, thus why I am curious for specific examples.
It is also interesting that the Leupold MK5 5-25x56mm is like “looking through a soda straw” at certain magnifications yet lots of PRS shooters are running it.
There are theoretical problems and actual problems and I am more interested in the latter.
-Stan
Folks complain all day long about field of view and tunneling, but never speak to the actual impact either has on their shooting, thus why I am curious for specific examples.
It is also interesting that the Leupold MK5 5-25x56mm is like “looking through a soda straw” at certain magnifications yet lots of PRS shooters are running it.
There are theoretical problems and actual problems and I am more interested in the latter.
-Stan
It’s only a problem if you’re retarded and can’t turn a mag ring down. I’ve had a half dozen MK5 5-25’s and never found FOV to be tight at all. It’s shit that people who don’t shoot bring up online arm chairing over specs. Go use the thing. You don’t need a FOV so large that you can see your asshole to be very proficient at finding and hitting targets. Many of the scopes with huge FOV’s like XTR3’s and Kahles are just such pieces of shit in every other regard that it’s the only “good” folks can discuss about them.
If you and I are going to agree then that leaves us nothing to fight about.
-Stan
?
I am going to have to check out one of these new XTR3s. I mostly only have good things to say about CO built XTR3.
It becomes a problem when people choose the wrong mag range for their scope. It becomes a problem when people go from the range to a stand and dont remeber to to turn their mag down. Until things start to happen. FOV view is very important. The diffrence between this 5-25 has a 20ft fov and this 5-25 has a 23ft FOV is not that important.
I am going to have to check out one of these new XTR3s. I mostly only have good things to say about CO built XTR3.
There’s about to be another one on the classifieds as soon as another Ares 3-18 shows up.
Large FoV doesn't allow you to see assholes. You need more magnification for that.
I didn't realize a troll circle-jerk was announced for this thread, but for the record, I bought 2 $1600 scopes that were fucked up out of the box with turrets that didn't line up properly and at least one of them (the one I still own and sent back for repair/replacement) doesn't track properly.
It's nonsense that every scope has noticeable tracking errors, some may be closer to perfect than others, but it's a complete fallacy that every scope is off.
That said, @redneckbmxer24 and @supercorndogs often confuse fallacy for phallus and are known to be experts in the latter area.
It's nonsense that every scope has noticeable tracking errors, some may be closer to perfect than others, but it's a complete fallacy that every scope is off.
That said, @redneckbmxer24 and @supercorndogs often confuse fallacy for phallus and are known to be experts in the latter area.
No it's true. Most scopes don't track 100%. As per the usual you don't know what you're talking about.
Not to say yours isn't outside a normal margin of error and defective/broken. Not knowing what leupold deems acceptable we don't know.
Turrets that dont quite line up. Yep seen that quite a bit. Newly released scopes with bugs to work out. Ya seen that quite a bit. New stuff broken ya it happens. My scopes not quite right lets start a Class action lawsuit.
They didnt send me a label. Entitled owner shitting pants cause his new scope is broken. Ya you're still not breaking new ground. Sorry though.
I will add you to the prayer thread. 
It's going to take them an uncertain amount of time to figure out if there is problem, what the problem is, and how to fix it. I am not certain there is actual problem. Lots of TX5i owners hung in limbo while they came up with fix. It happens on new releases.
Anyway hope they get you squared away even if you are a crybaby.
Even for the best optics out there 1 - 2% off is within spec of most high-end manufacturers.
Why are you even in this thread? Did you buy a Mark4HD? Do you have any skin in the game?No it's true. Most scopes don't track 100%. As per the usual you don't know what you're talking about.
Not to say yours isn't outside a normal margin of error and defective/broken. Not knowing what leupold deems acceptable we don't know.
Turrets that dont quite line up. Yep seen that quite a bit. Newly released scopes with bugs to work out. Ya seen that quite a bit. New stuff broken ya it happens. My scopes not quite right lets start a Class action lawsuit.
It's going to take them an uncertain amount of time to figure out if there is problem, what the problem is, and how to fix it. I am not certain there is actual problem. Lots of TX5i owners hung in limbo while they came up with fix. It happens on new releases.
Anyway hope they get you squared away even if you are a crybaby.
You talk a lot of shit, but the only thing you’re doing is derailing the thread and adding nothing.
Out of curiosity, how do you think Rokslide is cult like? Their obsession with Maven?
Every thread in the optic section where someone asks scopes, the reply will be buy a SWFA because drop test.
It's not only boring but also horrible advise in many circumstances.
Guys will ask for scope recommendations for NRL 22 and some fudd with say all you need is a SWFA fixed 10x. Those 5mil turrets, no zero stop, and the 2005 reticle are just what you need.....
There is some great information on Rokslide, but the optics section in particular is very biased towards backcountry hunting and that doesn't always translate to other types of shooting.
Thanks for the good info. They do seem particularly obsessed with the drop test reports. I have been interested in those results myself, but at the end of the day they are sample sizes in an inherently non-repeatable way of testing (how could all scopes roll around in a pickup truck or fall /impact the same way). There was a window of time where I almost fell into it and thought, “wow every other scope outside of NF, Trijicon, & SWFA are apparently worthless.”
Then I regained my senses and realized there have been tons of problems people have had with Credos and SWFA (like any other scope would have). It sort of demystified their optic edicts. Then I went and bought a PST II 2-10x32 because it fit my specific desires.
Can someone explain to me the logic of the "drop test". I mean, how many of us DROP our rifles on the ground 3-4 times in 5-minutes? I've been to many PRS matches and I have yet to see someone drop their rifle. And if I did, I would hope the match director would ask them to leave for flagging the entire range.
Maybe it applies to hiking/hunting environments? Even then, I fail to see why the manu. should be on the hook for you abusing your equipment. I would not expect my SUV/Truck manu. to guarantee it will work after I drive off a 2-foot curb on accident.
Maybe it applies to hiking/hunting environments? Even then, I fail to see why the manu. should be on the hook for you abusing your equipment. I would not expect my SUV/Truck manu. to guarantee it will work after I drive off a 2-foot curb on accident.
It matters if the rifle is being used as an offensive/defensive weapon system or if you spent thousands of dollars on a hunt and days hiking in for it to be ruined by a drop. I guess the only exception to that is if you are competitor that actually makes a living by winning championships.
The drop test is meant to be a stand in/quick test to simulate real life usage.
The guy who came up with the test said he was having problems with scopes loosing zero in the field and even just traveling in a vehicle on forestry roads.
Since "developing" the test he says he has never had a scope pass the test and fail (to hold zero that is) under hard use, subsequently scopes that fail the test often end up failing in the feild.
So while the test is pretty unrealistic of normal use, it's a quick and dirty proxy for real world usage that can be done in 10 minutes, rather than 6 months.
That's the claim any way.
I'm definitely not a subscriber to "a scope is worthless unless it passes the drop test" but I do find it somewhat interesting.
The claim that some scopes loose their zero just traveling on bumpy forestry roads seems kinda ridiculous to me, but I have no hard evidence to refute it.
That statement (his, not yours) begs the question of the validity of the test, what optics he’s testing, mounting systems, etc.. I also find it interesting but fail to see the absolute adherence to it as a means of proving or disproving the reliability of an optic under field use. I’m interested in the mk4’s reliability under “normal” use, leupold doesn’t have a great reputation in that regard, over several models, for years really. How many times can I dial data, dial back to 0, and the erector actually does it (looking at you vx5)? Time will tell I guess.
The only optic I’ve had shift zero in the field, bungeed in forks on a quad over tundra, was a Zeiss V4. Turned out optic was fine, the shitty Talley ultra lite rings were the culprit. Some of this stuff is SOP for us diagnosing a weak point, would a drop test have? Maybe, maybe not.
In defense of the test, all the variables have in theory been removed, rifle bonded to chassis, scope rail bonded, and use known rings.
Supposedly there are few scopes (mostly SWFA and NF) that have been drop tested many many times, so you could view that as confirmation of the rest of the "system".
It does seem like it's been well though out, which is why it keeps coming up in discussions.
I don't think it deserves the cult like status it has achieved but it is mildly interesting and raises a few questions.
There was this thread a few months back that could suggest there is something to the idea.
Rifle Scopes - Seven Scopes with Issues or Something Else
Seems I have a scope issue times seven scopes. It also seems like this is a legit issue. So, with that said I have a question for you dudes. Has anyone else seen an impact shift when dropping the rifle on a bag and taking a shot? What started all this was trying to get my build and break times...
www.snipershide.com
No, they have not and the MK4 2.5-10 “test” is a perfect example of two failure components being ring slippage and bias. The scope slipped in the rings (admittedly) which was a failure point in the test procedure and once the rings were over tightened to hold the scope in place to withstand abuse beyond its design point it no longer showed any POI shift in the drops yet it still doesn’t get a pass because of their bias against Leupold.
Then there’s other variables such as the “bonded” chassis. JB welding the gun together doesn’t make it fail proof, eventually that bond is going to become compromised from the impacts and there’s really no telling when so that’s a huge variable.
Also you have to consider the gorilla with a raging hard on from throwing his rifle down on the ground inducing shooter error.
That test is flawed as fuck.
But if the rifle is frequently checked with known scopes to verify the "system" is still OK then you account for those errors.
I believe the JB weld used is similar to what guys rebond their AI chassis with so it absolutely could be reliable.
I really don't care what people make of the test, in my opinion it's an interesting anecdote and I read some of the tests over on Rokslide.
However it in no way influences my decision in what optics I buy/use.
I'm on no way defending the tests, was just giving some fair context to them.
There is certainly a lot of bias and cult following over on that forum, especially around the drop tests.
It's not a magnification issue. It's a target acquisition issue. Turning down the mag does not solve it, it's just a crutch for poor skills. Learn to point your gun at the target and it doesn't matter what mag you are on, it will be within FOV. It's why bad shooters shoot on low magnification in comps.
Sure am glad we don't get any of that here...
The "Drop Test" evolved as the poor man's version of MilStd 801-D (now G) shock and vibe tests. Tests which require a very large (read expensive) piece of equipment that involves a large, weighted, swinging hammer, to impart shock and vibe and determine if the equipment will survive a certain amount of shock and vibration (determined by the different heights the hammer is released from). The equipment is bolted to the table, and the hammer swings down and strikes the side of the table.
Even still, similar equipment, run through the same tests, can often have varying test results.
Still, I've often wondered why scope makers don't have some similar, industry standard, test device. Hell, the MilStd test equipment specs are free to anyone who wants to build one...
Read the last four pages (ugh) today about expectations of a scope, I'm reminded of a quote...
"A man is as unhappy as he has convinced himself he is"
~Seneca
If the shoe fits....
"A man is as unhappy as he has convinced himself he is"
~Seneca
If the shoe fits....
Well I tried one and the turret is also way off. It’s almost exactly in the middle between 0 and .1 or -.1 depending which way you go either side of zero.
It’s off all the way to 5.0 mils then lines up and then gets wonky again.
Anyone that contacted Leupold how did you get in touch? I’ve tried to call a couple times today and was over 35+ in line before me.
I like everything else about it but that’s a deal killer. Want to make an attempt to get in touch with Leupold before I just send it back and get something else.
It’s off all the way to 5.0 mils then lines up and then gets wonky again.
Anyone that contacted Leupold how did you get in touch? I’ve tried to call a couple times today and was over 35+ in line before me.
I like everything else about it but that’s a deal killer. Want to make an attempt to get in touch with Leupold before I just send it back and get something else.
Call Leupold and choose the option to have them call you back so you don't have to wait on hold forever. When a rep calls you back, tell them your scope is a new-for-this-year Mark4HD and that you need a pre-paid shipping label to send it in and they should email you one (at least that's how it went down for me).
That said, my scope has been back at Leupold for over a week, and when I called to try and get a general ETA on when it would be headed back to me, or whether they'd be replacing it, the rep promised he'd call me back before the end of the business day and let me know (after he got with some other rep that was supposedly performing a tall-target test on my scope). He never called me back and still hasn't (that day ended without a call, and 2 more business days have passed since, and still no call).
It also occurred to me later that he didn't mention anything about having already fixed the turret and caps that didn't line up (since there's no tall-target test needed to check that). So, sounds like they hadn't really done anything yet as far as conducting any repair and were maybe just checking to see if I'm full of shit or something about it not tracking properly... IDK?
So, so far, way to go Leupold, way to live up to your bad CS reputation. I honestly would rather just have my money back.
Buy a Steiner P4Xi 1-4 or a Vortex Razor 1-6 or 1-10. If you buy a Leupold chances are you might be stuck with a broken dud and no support. A truck might show up at a PRS match and give you a sticker tho lol.
Last edited:
Is this a pattern with Leupold or standard Early Adopter Syndrome where bugs are present?
-Stan
-Stan
I appreciate the reply here. I think I’m going to pull the plug and return it and get something else. Keep us posted how yours goes when it comes back.
So I had a couple of interactions with Leupold Customer Service today... and WOW, it's even worse than I had heard.
Be very wary of what you sign up for when buying one of their products. If/when what you bought comes out of the box with a defect, you're screwed and will have to wait in line for them to get around to fixing it.
Over one call and another separate text chain, I was belittled, gaslighted, and fed BS lines that I'd read in other threads discussing their poor CS practices like "It's hunting season, so we're busier than normal..." (when it's always hunting season somewhere), etc.
As I had previously thought, they haven't done shit yet even though they've had the scope for 2 weeks (which they call "about 10 days" since they didn't check it in for a few days after it arrived there), and they're scheduled to "test fire" it in 3 days, not to confirm that they'd repaired it, but to first check to see whether or not I'm full of shit about it being messed up before trying to repair it because "the vastminority majority of our warranty claim turns out not to be the scope..." (he said "minority" but pretty sure he meant majority), "...not saying that's what yours is, I'm just saying it's just statistically the case."
I reminded the guy that no one needed to mount the scope or "test shoot" anything in order to see that the indicators didn't line up and that the revs were screwed up and off... all they'd have to do is look at the cap/turrets and twist them. IDK, maybe check/fix that first before running any further tests? If that stuff is off, something must be messed up and maybe look at the tracking next (or after the repair)? Doh.
BTW/FWIW, in case anyone is wondering, when asked why a company like Vortex has been able to repair and turn around scopes I'd damaged in less than a week or so, according to the Leupold representative, "Vortex doesn't have the ability to repair scopes here in the states. Vortex does a 1 for 1 replacement due to this which is quick." (Which is 100% BS.)
Be very wary of what you sign up for when buying one of their products. If/when what you bought comes out of the box with a defect, you're screwed and will have to wait in line for them to get around to fixing it.
Over one call and another separate text chain, I was belittled, gaslighted, and fed BS lines that I'd read in other threads discussing their poor CS practices like "It's hunting season, so we're busier than normal..." (when it's always hunting season somewhere), etc.
As I had previously thought, they haven't done shit yet even though they've had the scope for 2 weeks (which they call "about 10 days" since they didn't check it in for a few days after it arrived there), and they're scheduled to "test fire" it in 3 days, not to confirm that they'd repaired it, but to first check to see whether or not I'm full of shit about it being messed up before trying to repair it because "the vast
I reminded the guy that no one needed to mount the scope or "test shoot" anything in order to see that the indicators didn't line up and that the revs were screwed up and off... all they'd have to do is look at the cap/turrets and twist them. IDK, maybe check/fix that first before running any further tests? If that stuff is off, something must be messed up and maybe look at the tracking next (or after the repair)? Doh.
BTW/FWIW, in case anyone is wondering, when asked why a company like Vortex has been able to repair and turn around scopes I'd damaged in less than a week or so, according to the Leupold representative, "Vortex doesn't have the ability to repair scopes here in the states. Vortex does a 1 for 1 replacement due to this which is quick." (Which is 100% BS.)
I visit Vortex with reasonable regularity and was there for a few days in September. I can give you a 100%, iron clad guarantee that they have the ability to fix scopes right there in Wisconsin. It is a good size team with quite a few engineers and technicians.
While my experience with Leupold customer service is quite good, it is not recent. That having been said, their rep should not be talking about the practices of their competition. That's not polite.
I know people at many scope companies. Not all, but definitely the majority. Vast majority of them are very particular about not badmouthing their competition.
ILya
It is sad to see the poor customer service you received from Leupold. Apathy is the beginning of the death of a company.
It's crazy that Leupold expects us, the consumers, to pay for their lack of quality control.
At one point the rep I talked to on the phone said I should be grateful that he sent me a prepaid shipping label (since that's normally not their standard practice), on a new scope that came out of the box messed up and should have never been shipped out in the first place. Then they treated me like I was a pushy jerk for wanting my "new" scope back faster than their usual 4-6 week turnaround period saying "You're lucky they're scheduling your scope for a test firing so soon, you're kind of jumping the line...".
Well, I don't feel very lucky, I feel duped and/or taken for a ride. I took a new scope out of the box and burned a couple hundred rounds finding out it was messed up, sent it back, and instead of getting an expedited replacement, I have to wait for a repair at their leisure, stuck without a scope for 2 weeks and counting...
I'll be putting a Razor G3 on my gun tomorrow.
I only got the Leupold to try the PR3 reticle and see if my eyes/brain liked it better than the usual X-mas tree reticle, and as it turns out I do like the PR3 reticle... but everything else about my Leupold buying experience has been total shit!
IMO when I buy one of these fancy toys I hope I'm buying some peace of mind too, and while some companies have your back, clearly Leupold does not.
They say they back their products "100%"... as long as you agree to be an unpaid beta-tester, do unpaid quality control, and are patient with your warranty claims until after hunting season (because they get busy then) and understand that their first move is to operate as though the problem is you, not their stuff, and that they have to rule that out first. ...100% bullshit.
I’m not defending poor assembly or whatever causes the turret to be off, but aside from that, what else is wrong with the scope?
Glass is as expected?
Tracks straight and accurately?
Function and feel of everything else is ok?
The elevation cap/turret is off (0.0 on the cap doesn't line up with the indicator on the erector housing).
Glass is fine/good.
The tracking and actual revolution of the turrets is messed up (by 6mils or so the turret rev is off, I actually nerded out and counted off as many as 80 clicks a few times and that landed on either 8.2 or 8.3mils, 60 clicks landed on 6.1-6.3 (and POI with chrono'd MV and trued BC was off at 1000 yards when checked with live fire).
Clicks and turret feel on the windage turret were ok (not great, but acceptable), elevation turret clicks were weak with lots of play/slop (started out shitty and seemed to be getting worse with more use).
Yep, pretty much.
It could be even simpler though. I'm no optical design engineer, but I wouldn't be surprised if half of the problems I experienced came down to a design flaw in how the caps are secured: the caps are set/secured by 2 (and only 2) of the smallest hex grub screws I've ever seen/experienced on a scope turret. Any real torque would surely strip them out and they don't have a whole lot of engagement.
They're 1/16" hex, which for comparison, is smaller than the little 3/16" hex screw used to secure the rear Sevigny Competition sights on Glocks (so pretty damn small). I had to order a couple of 1/16" hex wrenches and throw them in my pack's toolkit for the Mark4HD as none of my other rifle shit utilizes anything that small (they're like toothpick-sized).
Last edited:
Got a 6x24 PR2. The cap and marks all line up fine at 0.0. At +3 they are off just a little bit, but the 3-mark on the cap is in the width of the mark on the scope body, but just slightly out of center. At 5.0, it lines up perfectly again.
The clicks all match with the cap/marker though. Not like CK1.0 posted where 60 is 6.2. 60 clicks on mine = 6.0 on the cap.
The optical clarity at the range when put back to back with my DMR3 is noticeably better on the MK4HD. Everything looks much cleaner and details are more crisp.
The clicks all match with the cap/marker though. Not like CK1.0 posted where 60 is 6.2. 60 clicks on mine = 6.0 on the cap.
The optical clarity at the range when put back to back with my DMR3 is noticeably better on the MK4HD. Everything looks much cleaner and details are more crisp.
Last edited:
So, Is your DMR3 noticeably better than the MARK 4 HD or is the MARK 4 HD noticeably better than the DMR3?
Leupold got back to me, they confirmed mine had a defect, and they're replacing my scope. How long that will take is up in the air (they said a repair of the scope I sent in would be faster, but I'd rather have a fresh example free of bad vibes so I opted for the replacement option).
At this point I have mixed feelings about their CS... in the end, it appears they are going to make things right, so I have a hard time giving them too much more shit about things, and the Mark4HDs are really good glass for relatively low money.
At this point I have mixed feelings about their CS... in the end, it appears they are going to make things right, so I have a hard time giving them too much more shit about things, and the Mark4HDs are really good glass for relatively low money.
