I’m not sure if my calculations are correct either. Just following the instructions of the Leupold dude in the podcast at about 25min:
Do you have an LPVO without side focus?
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Leupold MARK 5HD 2-10x30
- Thread starter CSTactical
- Start date
Do you have an LPVO without side focus?
Almost all of my LPVOs are without side focus. In fact, only one has it, and it’s for a specific role. But I don’t think that’s relevant to the Leupold 2-10x30 discussion. It’s not an LPVO. It is designed to let more light in than an LPVO, and as such has a narrower depth of field.
Might as well do the Athlon 2-12 and save 1500$
It’s only 1oz heavier.
It’s only 1oz heavier.
Your guess is as good as mine, but I feel better supporting companies making products in America, Japan and Europe.
China thank you for your service
The FDE part, has that been confirmed? Always wanted one since I saw the military contract ones.
Yes, from a Leupold employee that works closely with the Mark 5 line.
Can he state whether they will put the PR2 in the 3.6-18?
You would think someone could come up with something between this and the discontinued mil/mil mildot reticle Weaver tactical 2-10x36 that was $400 less than 10 years ago.
What do you mean by between the two?
The Trijicon Credo 2-10x36 is pretty much a modernized version on the Weaver.
About the same weight at the Vortex PST II 2-10 and that was not popular. I love my nice glass but this would be a stretch over this and others, like the Trijicon that do the same. At 11.2" its still a good size scope.
Because the PST was a piece of junk, people still don’t learn this with Chinese and Phillipino optics, they’re trash.
The 2-10 Trijicons are very popular with some hunters, it has a cult following on rokslide. The Trijicon is a nice optic for the money.
Rokslide is just a cult in general, seems they all follow whatever their leaders tell them.
I don't understand how Leupold could produce the Mk8 and the mk6 lpvo scopes well over a decade ago, yet struggle with getting a basic 2x10 or a new lpvo close to what the market wants these days.
I don't think HIAWG meant the mag range, the mag range is great, the execution by Leupold using a 35mm tube, offering poorly designed reticles and making a 30mm objective somewhat small scope 24oz seems counterintuitive.
Speaking in generalities, I agree that the initial reticles that they are offering maybe not be best choice for for the platforms that these will probably be used on. With that being said, I never really saw the issue 35mm rings, I have my 3-18 in a badger mount and can't see any way having a 34mm tube would offer an advantage.
Hopefully once these actually hit the market, they have a few more recticle options.
Having had a chance to look at it really carefully at SHOT, I am more optimistic about this scope then I was originally. I have a couple of interesting applications in mind for it, but I do plan to review it when the new reticle is available.
Think about it this way: historically, there was a need for various SPR scopes like Leupold's Mark4 2.5-8x36, Nightforce's 2.5-10x24, etc. The need has not really gone away and this new Mark5 is really intended for that.
On the surface, a 30mm objective looks small. However, it makes for really good depth of field, helps with lots of adjustment range (think suppressed subsonics at distance) and keeps the whole thing comparatively trim. Low light performance will certainly be impacted, but the same small-ish objective helps it work better with thermal clip-ons. Once a thermal is on there, low light performance is pretty much resolved.
ILya
I pretty much arrived at the at the same conclusion regarding the need for a modernized 3-9.
I sort of feel modern LPVO's ended up following the form factor of the Original Nightforce's 2.5-10x24 and resulted in fairly marginal performance. A FFP 2-10 class optic with off set RMR, just seems like a far more user friendly set up that an LPVO in the same weight and price range.
What kind of recticle do you think would suit this class of optic best?
First of all, I would like to preface my remarks and say that I am neither a Leupold fanboy nor am I a Leupold naysayer, I try to keep my favoritism of any manufacturer limited and I like to call out when certain manufacturers seem to be missing the mark. That being said, I admit that sometimes I may not understand the "mark" the mfr was intending and realize as well that sometimes military contracts are intended rather than pleasing the civilian market.
For every purpose it seems Leupold designed this scope for, there just seems to be a question why, and when there are too many "why's" for a scope it hinders its usability and/or acceptance into the market. Until Leupold comes out with a compelling reticle (again, they don't have a great track record here) this scope will struggle to gain market acceptance, that is my prediction. But who the heck am I, seriously, Leupold couldn't give a $%@*& about me and will continue to make a lot of money regardless of anything I have to say.
All that being said, let me posit a scenario here: If Nightforce came out with an ATACR FFP 2-10x32 with a 34mm tube with DMx reticle that weighed the same (as this Leupold) for $2k (with illumination mind you), which scope would sell better in the market? I realize I'm posting this in a Leupold thread and will likely get lambasted for even mentioning another mfr's name let alone NF, but the door is open for another mfr of good repute to come out with something even better and I bet that happens before Leupold can figure out a compelling reticle design for an MPVO. I'd love to be proven wrong, but just looking at Leupold's history I'm not holding my breath that's for sure.
Yeah, that's the issue... "when", let me know when that happens cause Leupy doesn't have the best track record (we're still waiting for the PR2 in the 3.6-18 and how long did it take for them to come up with the PR1...). The name Leupold and the term "effective reticle" have had a bad relationship for a very long time. Had Leupold released this scope with a compelling MPVO reticle design I would have a lot more grace for them, the current reticle offerings for this scope just don't make for a compelling argument for it's intended use.
I get that, but I do not understand the design decisions they made on this scope - I think they could have done better, but I get why they made those choices, it saves them a bit of money using the same turret internals and backend as the 3.6-18. To be honest, I think the Mark 5HD scopes should have been 34mm scopes, their decision to go with the odd duck 35mm tube was a poor one and offers no distinct advantage over the 34mm cousins and hinders adoption for guys looking for a change who are already invested in multiple 34mm mount/ring options.
I think this was the driving force behind their design and I have no doubt this scope excels in this area.
I shoot suppressed subsonics at distance and do not see how their 35mm tube gets me anything that I don't already have from a 34mm tube, I'd rather have a good tree reticle that gets me there quicker than dialing that far, plus there's the point of diminishing returns - how effective is a subsonic pill beyond X number of yards, I just don't see many operators dialing 30+ mils of travel for a subsonic round? But I just had a thought - NRL has their ever increasingly popular NRL22 competitions, I think PRS and/or NRL ought to come out with a subsonic competition that requires only subsonic rounds both near and far, now that would be both fun and challenging.
Really? This scope does not strike me as "trim", it's a chunk at 24oz for what it is. Many are going to want to put an offset RDS with this and all that weight adds up.
Help educate me here as I do not see how a smaller objective helps it work "better" than a larger objective with thermal clip-ons?
If this was the purpose behind the design you'd think Leupold would market that more, I think there are plenty of SPR owners out there who'd prefer maybe a 36 or 42mm objective rather than 30mm for lower light use because they have no intention of using this with a clip on.
For every purpose it seems Leupold designed this scope for, there just seems to be a question why, and when there are too many "why's" for a scope it hinders its usability and/or acceptance into the market. Until Leupold comes out with a compelling reticle (again, they don't have a great track record here) this scope will struggle to gain market acceptance, that is my prediction. But who the heck am I, seriously, Leupold couldn't give a $%@*& about me and will continue to make a lot of money regardless of anything I have to say.
All that being said, let me posit a scenario here: If Nightforce came out with an ATACR FFP 2-10x32 with a 34mm tube with DMx reticle that weighed the same (as this Leupold) for $2k (with illumination mind you), which scope would sell better in the market? I realize I'm posting this in a Leupold thread and will likely get lambasted for even mentioning another mfr's name let alone NF, but the door is open for another mfr of good repute to come out with something even better and I bet that happens before Leupold can figure out a compelling reticle design for an MPVO. I'd love to be proven wrong, but just looking at Leupold's history I'm not holding my breath that's for sure.
On reticles: I do not think they released the pattern of the next reticle they plan to add, so I shouldn't either. I think it will work well with this scope, at least for my purposes.
When is always a question, but I suspect it is going to be sufficiently soon that I am willing to wait for it for my review. I got just be gullible, but they seemed pretty confident.
There are indeed some military tenders this scope had to satisfy.
24 ounces is heavier than I'd like, but if they want to make it lighter, it is a complete redesign. Simply shoving it into a smaller tube, without changing the other stuff might save you half an ounce, but the cost goes up because you are making a bunch of unique parts. If you want to do a complete redesign, the cost really goes up. I do not like the weight, but I can live with it. 24 ounces is still fairly trim. Find me a fully featured FFP MPVO that is lighter.
The argument about the tube diameter and mounts is kinda nonsense. We now have scopes with 1", 30mm, 34mm, 35mm, 36mm and 40mm tubes. There are plenty of mounts available in all diameters. I do not think I have ever bought a $2000 scope, so that I could re-use a $300 mount.
On thermals: larger objective take in a lot of light coming in from around the thermal. If you do not block it (mounts where the thermal hangs on the objective do it, but it is better to mount the thermal independently), you will experience a decrease in contrast of how the day scope sees the image coming from a clip-on. At night, it is usually not a big deal, since there aren't too many bright light sources around, but it happens. When the sun is still up, it can be very irritating. The loss of contrast is roughly proportional to the ratio of the effective area of the day scope objective to the entire area of the objective. That is one of the reasons LPVOs do so well with clip-ons.
Would I prefer it with a 42mm objective? Probably not. Would I prefer it with a 35mm objective? Probably yes. I have been lobbying for a 32-36mm objective modern MPVO for quite a long time. This is the closest I have seen so far, so unless something else pops up, I'll take it.
Nightforce is not going to come out with 20 ounce 2-10x32 ATACR. Arguably my favourite of the ATACR line is the 4-16x42 and it weighs 30 ounces, i.e. 4 more than the 3.6-18x44 Mark5. What makes you think they can do anything in the ATACR line that weighs 20 ounces? They are about as likely to do a completely new design for this as Leupold is.
LPVOs have to be optimized on 1x. MPVOs do not. This 2-10x can be optimized on higher powers. 3mm exit pupil on 10x is not a ton, but we shoot with smaller exit pupils all the time. It should be better above 5x than most if not all LPVOs. It should be pretty respectable in low light on 5x/6x. Not a dedicated low light rig, but reasonable. It will work well with nearly every thermal clip-on currently made. Am I getting everything I wanted with it? No. I am getting most of it.
An offset red dot will add 2-3 ounces. A decent one piece mount should be around 6 ounces, but I'll see what I have. I will end up with about 32 ounces or two pounds all in. That's workable for what I am envisioning for it.
ILya
I had to look it up because I thought MRAD was not an option but I see that it is. The Weaver is heavy, the Credo is 23 oz., and this is not light either. I'd like something I can dial that's not a pig like the SWFA 3-9.
And there's not exactly a lot of options in 2-10x? And Vortex is not an option for me. I have more faith in my Chinese Athlon 2-12 for hunting.
- PA 2.5-10x44 GLx: 22.5oz.
And while SFP, the NXS is fully featured and a good deal trimmer:
- NF NXS 2.5-10x42: 20.5oz
Really, I just would have liked the Mk5HD 2-10 to be ~22 ounces. Nothing crazy. But 24oz isn’t heavy enough to make it a deal breaker. It’s just annoying as it’s unnecessary, like the 35mm tube for extra turret travel.
I’d wager it’s extremely common for people to re-use mounts on multi-thousand dollar scopes. Why not? When I sell a scope, I keep the mount. Because very likely the replacement scope, or at least a near-future scope will be able to re-use the mount. I usually only buy a new mount when I have a new weapon for it to mount on. The optics come and go, and my mounts are all 30mm and 34mm.
In fact, the only time I sold a mount with an optic was when I sold my Mk5HD because I was not replacing it with another 35mm optic and had no perceived future need for a 35mm mount.
If two optics meet a buyer’s performance and price requirements, but one is in an odd-ball diameter and requires a new mount (which may not be available in his preferred mounting solution), and the other isn’t, then it absolutely affects the purchase decision calculus.
Last edited:
Leupold Mark 5HD Selected by Army Precision Sniper Rifle Program
Leupold & Stevens, Inc., provider of the world’s most rugged, lightweight, and clear riflescopes and reflex sights, is pleased to announce that its Mark 5HD riflescope has been selected as
www.leupold.com
Good example, although it is not entirely apples to apples.
NXS is a SFP design with a 4x erector. That really helps keep things lighter.
GLx is FFP, but also a 4x erector. It also has a narrower FOV that plays into weight. I actually rather like the GLx, but it is not close to the mrk5 in terms of the optical system sophstication. That's why you can buy three GLx for one Mark5.
For comparison, GLx on 2.5x has 35.8ft @ 100 yards FOV, NXS on 2.5x has 44ft and Mark 5 on 2x has 52.9ft (it has 42ft on 2.5x). When we start talking about pairing scopes with thermals, that 2x is really helpful with smaller clip-ons.
It is a reasonable point on mounts, but if I am buying a new scope, I do not mind selling one mount and buying another one. It is sort of part of the process. Over the years, I think I accumulated a mount for damn near everything. They are sitting in a few wooden boxes, roughly the size of boxes used for filing storage. I only get a new mount if there is some particular design that is of interest to me.
ILya
I got a chance to play around with it at Shot Show and film this. It's got niche appeal for diehard 3-9x hunters who want Mk5HD glass.
Last edited:
I'm glad Leupy decided to listen to the market and release the 2-10. But its only going to come up short compared to what March is about to start shipping in their 1.5-15 dual focal plane with a legit tree and illumination/paralax control. The increased buy in would be worth considering if it isn't hard to get a sight picture.
From a marketing standpoint, charging a $400 premium for illumination and lack of a mil based tree is only to slow the embrace of the 2-10. That being said IMO it has lots of potential if Leopold addresses its shortcomings and keeps the final cost capped @ $2k
I realize Leupold is going to offer better reticle choices in the future but shooting yourself in the foot by bringing a half baked product to the table wasn't the right move considering the competition .
From a marketing standpoint, charging a $400 premium for illumination and lack of a mil based tree is only to slow the embrace of the 2-10. That being said IMO it has lots of potential if Leopold addresses its shortcomings and keeps the final cost capped @ $2k
I realize Leupold is going to offer better reticle choices in the future but shooting yourself in the foot by bringing a half baked product to the table wasn't the right move considering the competition .
Attachments
Last edited:
I spent some time with it and it has potential. The one they had there was sort of a late stage prototype, so there were still a couple of quirks to fix. One of the things I would prefer to see in a scope like that is an exposed elevation turret with zero stop. They position it as more of a hunting scope, I think.
ILya
And it's all but guaranteed to have a shit eyebox just like every other March I've been behind. March chases zoom ratio and their optics suffer overall because of it.
Understood and will stop beating the dead horse
We'll see, just going off Leupold's previous track record doesn't look promising, but it would be strange for them to not "show" a new reticle that is within months of coming to market, IIRC they showed the PR2 reticle a number of months before it was actually available, but I could be wrong on that.
May have been what drove the design.
I agree, I wish it were lighter but can live with 24oz if they have a reticle that makes sense (woops, sorry, said I would stop beating that horse)
best emoji I could find for a cricket chirping I probably play musical chairs with my scopes and mounts more often than others, I just like to try different things and see how I like it. @PappyM3 got it, for someone who's already invested in 30mm and 34mm (about 98% of the market I'd imagine) having to find the right mount in a non-standard diameter is just a pain, and lots of times I may invest in a scope to try it out and if I don't like it for some reason then I sell the scope and if I had to buy a specialized mount then I have to sell that specialized mount of which there is not a big market in. Is it a deal breaker? Not really, but it is a consideration as it could add another $300+ to the cost of the scope. I've gone through the same thing with ZCO and their odd 36mm tube, again, an inconvenience that I'm struggling to see the advantage over using a more common diameter (oh yes, I know the marketing reason for why they use the larger diameter, but in real world I have not seen the advantage).
Appreciate that and it makes sense, I wonder if some type of "hood" could be 3D printed to slip over the thermal eyepiece and over the objective of the scope to limit the effect during daytime use?
I suppose the Trijicon Credo 2-10x36 would be the closest; however, Trijicon suffers from the same reticle syndrome as Leupold and they've seemingly crippled a great scope design with poor reticle choices, but at least Trijicon has a tree reticle even if they have nothing that works at the lower mag range.
I don't either, but I said "weighed the same as the Leupold" and I think NF could build a 2-10 that is around 24 oz (not that they would, but that they could). My point was the door that Leupold leaves open because of the aforementioned shortcomings of their design. At the end of the day, I don't think Leupold cares because they built this to meet another requirement (mil/le). The good news is this may open more doors for other mfr's to pursue a similar design.
I didn't say NF could do one at 20 oz, be great if they did but ATACR isn't really synonymous with lightweight. NX8 is lighter but 8x erector would change a lot in the performance.
You should try the 4.5-28x52, it has the best eyebox I've seen from them. Other than that, I would agree. I am curious to see how this new 1.5-15 does, but pushing that much mag into a short body I am setting my expectations accordingly.
Bill,
You drinking that Cuban Coffee over there?
One of the only things I miss about Florida...
Richard
You drinking that Cuban Coffee over there?
One of the only things I miss about Florida...
Richard
Probably because it has an actual reasonable zoom ratio, which isn't normal at all for them.
I don't drink coffee, might be part of my issuesBill,
You drinking that Cuban Coffee over there?
One of the only things I miss about Florida...
Richard
Imagine that....Exactly, I know a couple guys who may have had some influence with that
ILya
Well the Nightforce, because your price is about $5-800 too low for anything with the letters ATACR on the side.
I shoot leupolds and think, generally speaking, NF makes a better optic but I am not sure their optics are 500 to 800 dollars better. All of this stuff, especially high end stuff has a diminishing level of returns.
Between the military and the PRS, there are a shit load of mk5's doing good work and for 99 percent of shooters out there, the aspects that make an optic from say NF or S&B better than a leupold is not going to make or break a shot at the end of the day.
I can appreciate the engineering that goes into high end optics, just for the type of shooting that I am doing most of time, its really overkill.
This is an MPVO thread, so until Tangent makes a MPVO, you keep your sand people out of here
