More information including pricing will be added as it comes in
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Leupold MARK 5HD 2-10x30
- Thread starter CSTactical
- Start date
More information including pricing will be added as it comes in
Been pondering this since the first teaser. Not breaking my arm to get the wallet out, but also not giving it a complete pass by. I am interested in hunting hour performance (1/2 hour before sunrise and 1/2 hour after sunset). The extra 3x over the Leupold Vari X II 2-7x30 is tempting Along with the better glass with the MK 5.
I’m definitely looking forward to the reviews.
I’m definitely looking forward to the reviews.
That reticle selection is such a Leupold thing to do.
Reticle selection is going to hurt sales I bet. I was all ready to go on one till I seen the TMR was the only mil choice
There may be more options in the future, they are looking at feedback from customers and the industry
Yup. If it were the PR2, or a CMR-W BDC, or a mil version of the impact-23 reticle and I’d probably put in an order for one. An optic like that, I’m looking to use holds, not dial. And I’ve gotten too accustomed to wind holds.
I’d rather it be a couple ounces lighter and be 34mm instead of 35, but I can live with those two things. I get that 35mm is their thing for the Mk5HD. The reticles though, I cannot.
Last edited:
FIFYThere may be more options in the future, they are ignoring feedback from customers and the industry
Tell them to send a spy to the Vortex booth.
I have 2 x MK5's and like them but good grief they are slow learners.
The $500 up charge for illumination is a deal breaker for me. At 2x I'm sure the reticle is completely useless in lowlight without illumination.
Give me a pr2 and I have some gas guns that could use it.
Like they haven’t been getting that for 10+ years now? If they’d actually put some of their decision makers here on the Hide they’d actually learn something. But this scope is the result of thinking you already know. 35mm tube is a big no go for me, the reticles a bigger no go and they still overcharge for illumination, and if I’m going to sacrifice with a small objective then I certainly don’t want a 24oz scope??? Just some really strange decisions made with this one. All that being said, this is Leupold and the scope will sell simply for the name even if nothing else really makes sense.There may be more options in the future, they are looking at feedback from customers and the industry
Enjoyed trying it out at range day today. Optic is going to be a solid recce/spr option. Also, other Mark 5's will be available in FDE.
I like the 2-10 magnification range, and am surprised that it's not more popular. I would like to try this scope, back-to-back, vs. a 1-10. I am curious about: close-range, long-range, eye box, weight. Does the 2-10 require an offset red dot, but the 1-10 does not?
The lack of reticle options is a huge letdown. Hopefully more will be available in the near future. I look forward to getting one.
Garand Thumb has pictures of him using one, hope to see his review soon.
CR2 shooting solutions has a video on his Instagram doing some shooting with it.
Garand Thumb has pictures of him using one, hope to see his review soon.
CR2 shooting solutions has a video on his Instagram doing some shooting with it.
The reviews so far have said the eyebox is huge through the whole range of magnification which is great to hear. Just wish they would offer a useful reticle and make illumination standard without the $500 up charge.
Help me out here, serious question. I have the Vortex Gen III 1-10 and have never wished for side focus/parallax. It’s lighter than this leupy too.
What are the use cases for side focus on such a scope? ILya mentioned airgunning, dry fire at home, but man, talk about niche. Maybe I missed something.
I feel actually a bit free without side focus on such a low power thing. Like wind blowing up myskirt kilt. Ahhhhhh…
What are the use cases for side focus on such a scope? ILya mentioned airgunning, dry fire at home, but man, talk about niche. Maybe I missed something.
I feel actually a bit free without side focus on such a low power thing. Like wind blowing up my
Ah forget it. Found this thread.
www.snipershide.com
You don’t need it. You want it. It’s ok. Lol
Rifle Scopes - Why do you think an adjustable parallax feature is needed on LPVOs? ? ?
Starting this thread to avoid derailing another thread further.... I would like to hear why you think this is needed. Why is it important to you to have an adjustable parallax feature on a LPVO considering what their basic space in the tool box is cut out to be? I have a couple of 1-8x ATACRs...
www.snipershide.com
You don’t need it. You want it. It’s ok. Lol
Captured this right from Leupold's site.
https://www.leupold.com/shop/riflescopes/series/mark-5hd-rifle-scopes
Shoot, it looks intriguing to me. Would I like all the above mentioned features….YES. Regardless, being a NF and Leupold guy I’ll be getting one.
Weird thought but really wish they had done like a 2.5-12x36 or something if they were going to almost equal the weight and price of the 3.6-18. Makes it really hard to justify for it's designed role. With viable 10x LVPOs on the market and it being so close to the 3.6-18 in weight and price it just really doesn't make sense.
Finally someone made the mid-range scope all of us have been waiting for.
- Elevation Turret so tall you can't piggyback a red dot
- Tube size so funky you cant mount it like you want
- Poor reticle design that requires counting tiny lines under stress
- Weighs nearly as much as a 2-20
- Costs as much as your 2-20
On the positive side you have enough elevation to get your recce rifle out to a mile.
Agreed. On a positive note, early testers are saying it has a huge eyebox - that could prove to be beneficial, but the other traits like you mentioned are really going to hinder its usability. I'm also going to go out on a limb (having not seen one) and assume that it has very forgiving DOF which would also work in its favor. Leupold seems to be about 5 years behind on reticles, so in 2028 we should see some good reticles come to this scope.
I don't get it either?
I'm kind of a gun forum junkie, and for the past God knows how many years all I see is people bitching about loupold's reticles sucking. It's such a commonly known thing on every gun forum I have ever been on, and yet Leupold is still not listening. SMH.
I'm kind of a gun forum junkie, and for the past God knows how many years all I see is people bitching about loupold's reticles sucking. It's such a commonly known thing on every gun forum I have ever been on, and yet Leupold is still not listening. SMH.
In fairness, I think the PR2 Mil reticle is a decent design, but it took them a long time to come out with this in their current Mark 5 lineup so the question remains how long will it take them to come out with a usable reticle for the 2-10...I don't get it either?
I'm kind of a gun forum junkie, and for the past God knows how many years all I see is people bitching about loupold's reticles sucking. It's such a commonly known thing on every gun forum I have ever been on, and yet Leupold is still not listening. SMH.
I suspect there’s some crusty ultra-opinionated Head Reticle Master high up in the Leupold food chain that is screwing things up.
I tried the CCH for a year and my eyes just danced and danced. Ow. PR2 has less gaps ‘n dashes, but still too many.
This reticle-exec someone fetishizes gaps+dashes, lots and lots of ’em. Donut Sprinkles.
The Impact-23 seems like it could be pretty good if it were mil instead of MOA. While I would personally like an updated CMR-W for a 2-10, I think a mil version of the Impact-23 would have been a huge success with the 2-10. It’s like Leupold basically hit an inside the park home run with the 2-10… and then decided to just casually walk the bases, getting out.
Adding a little auto-ranging piece in one of the upper corners would be icing on the cake. But I know Leupold wouldn’t do that.
That looks a lot better than the impact-60 that's in the lrp on my vudoo. Man there's a lot going on in there. But, on the flipside, with the 30moa in the mounts along with the 75ish moa I have available to dial combined with the 60moa in the reticle I can hold over in the reticle out to 600 yards!
The impact reticles are dumb, I had an Impact 29 for a while and trying to hold in the tree is a nightmare.
All the dots being the same size with no numbers out at the edges means you are forever trying to work out which dot you are trying to use.
Kind of cool but the 3.6 to 18 is so light anyways. Plus their retical choices for what they picked are disappointing. A tremor or similar makes it so much faster, which is exactly what gas guns are and striving for.
Yeah, but the Tremor 3 absolutely sucks at low magnification ( <5x or so). Too fine crosshairs. And the field of view and depth of field at 2x on a 30mm objective is going to be noticeably better than 3.6x on a 44mm objective lens.
A simplified tremor with mil drops and wind holds, and thicker crosshairs visible at low magnification, but without all the rest of the tremor features/clutter, would be fantastic for this optic.
Yes, I dont disagree, but if I am going to shoot at 5x I probably don't need that reticle for what it does. On 2x I would just use a top mounted dot.
Tree reticles aren’t dumb if you’re not retarded, and illumination is king in low light with any FFP.
TMR sucks and that’s where Leupold went wrong with this optic. Should have done a LPVO type tree illuminated and it would be fucking perfect.
TMR sucks and that’s where Leupold went wrong with this optic. Should have done a LPVO type tree illuminated and it would be fucking perfect.
That kind of money I'd be looking at the NF 2.5-20 with T3.
Adjustable parallax isn’t just about parallax error. It is also about focus. And the higher the magnification, the narrower the depth of field. Of course objective lens size and other factors come into play. A 24mm objective LPVO is going to have a wider depth of field than a 30mm objective like this. Though, I’m sure the difference is small. But also, the short 10x erector Marches have narrow fields of view, even with the 24mm objective.
Also, I’m not entirely sure your calculations are totally correct. Someone please correct me, but I believe that magnification plays a roll in max parallax error too. I know most online calculators don’t include it, but I have seen some calculations that do. They just weren’t put into handy calculators.
As for weight, when there are 17oz 1-10 optics with adjustable parallax, it’s not unreasonable to wish a 2-10 with an adjustable parallax is 20-22oz instead of 24oz. We all know Razors and ATACRs are built a little heavy. Leupold is supposed to be lighter.
