I get the whining about some of Leupolds reticle decisions but the illuminated TMR is nearly perfect for this type scope. Center dot, half-mil stadia. Quick and to the point just like the type of rifle this scope is intended for. I could care less about a tree reticle like the pr2 in a 2-10x scope...... too low magnification to use fine holds. With a 2oz difference, I'd just buy a 3-18 over this 2-10 though.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Leupold MARK 5HD 2-10x30
- Thread starter CSTactical
- Start date
If you're doing clip ons the 3.6x just doesn't cut it for most, but if 2x vs 3.6x doesn't really matter then I agree, the 3.6-18 would be a "better" choice, but that comes down to what the intended purpose is.
For a 2-10, I want wind holds. I would love a couple CMR-W type options. But a mil tree would work. It’s not for fine holds; just better quick estimates of aiming points for wind. The same reason there are mil trees on the Razor 1-10 and the ATACR 1-8. I’m not doing any dialing with a 2-10 scope.
Ideally I want crosshairs with mil hash marks, but then wind dots. Like a Tremor 3, but much simpler and with thicker crosshairs for better 2x use. But I’m not sure if anybody would make such a reticle for fear of IP violation lawsuits.
Last edited:
Yeah, people see 3.6-18x and their brain subconsciously truncates it to 3-18. And then they think “oh, 3 is only 1 more than 2. It’s so close”. But there is a noticeable difference.
The 2x has nearly double the field of view as the 3.6x. Much better SA to acquire targets, whether they’re two legged or four.
Field of view at 100 yards:
2-10x @ 2: 52.9 feet
3.6-18x @ 3.6: 28.3 feet
At 200 yards, you’re seeing an extra 50 feet in your FOV.
The reticle they will release in the 2-10x is not PR2. It is a design appropriate for the mag range.
ILya
Yes. Then with clip on use fill typically occurs at 2x +/- .5x. For many of the smaller units with less demagnification, optimal image usually occurs 4x-8x day optic. This will give very nice size, usable reticle subtensions for pairing with many clip on.
Oh wow,
From this point of view, the 2-10 class makes a lot of sense. Same form factor as a LPVO but far less of a compromise optically. With modern offset RMR mounts, I am not sure i see the benifit of a LPVO.
The more I think of this Leupold and its overall size, I think of it more as a LPVO+. I know I complained about the weight, but a Trijicon Credo is 25oz, a VCOG is 29 (with mount), G2 Razor is 22 and none of those have the features that the Leupold has.
The more I look at it, the more I‘d like to pick one up.
Gonna wait to see what the not-Leupolded reticle is, but Leupold has a poor track record as a company in their antics as well as mechanical reliability and accuracy of their scopes.
I think this is really a holdover from the period when they were transitioning to from the Mk6's to the first Gen Mk5. Are Mk5's ATACR reliable, absolutely not, but there are more than enough down range and in the PRS to verify they solid optics.
Most of this stuff is the shooting communities version of ford vs chevy, apple vs samsung, or LV vs Gucci. its all basically the same shit.
The ATACR may be reliable, but setting the zero stop on the 4-16x42 is retarded finicky.
One of my 4x ATACR’s shit the bed in the first 40 rounds. None of the 6x MK5’s I have had had any problems. I know quite a few people with MK5’s that use them who have never had issues with them either. I know a couple others who have also sent ATACR’s back for parallax issues too.
So I’d have to disagree with your assessment and I’d take a MK5 all day every day over a ATACR.
More of an Ermenegildo Zegna kind of guy myself. However, Leupold is why we can’t have nice things and they’re whiny bitches as a company.
Last edited:
that’s what I’m waiting for too, if ILya thinks it’s good I have hope. The other compromises with the scope I can kinda live with but not ideal, but proper illuminated reticle will make all the difference I’d the scope is as forgiving as it should be with this design.
I didn't say "good". I said "appropriate for the scope". I have not seen the drawings, just a general description of it. If it is what I think it is, I'll be picking one up.
ILya
Wonder if they'll charge an extra $200 like they do for the CCH (despite being their own design).
$700s would be a bargain for a decent illuminated reticle in a $2000 scope.
My money is on a CMR-W type reticle that is available in either BDC or MOA.
Maybe they'll do it in Mil but they'll slap a big #1 German post in the middle to obscure the vertical stadia.
Or finally come out with 1/3 Mil hashes like the market has been beging for....
Indeed you did say just that, thanks for the correction, my hope just got knocked down a notch. Then again, when I see the name “Leupold” I pretty much think “what did they do wrong this time”.
Watch this thing come out with MOA turrets and a Mil reticle. Or MOA elevation turret and Mil windage.
You heard it here first.
You heard it here first.
Why does it cost the same as the 3.6-18? Most companies with multiple scopes in the same model/line if the magnification is less it cost less.
Why did they offer 2 of the same style reticles? Why not one simple reticle like they offer and the cch. Or maybe a new reticle similar to the dmx or ebr-9.
Why does illumination cost so much for Leupold?
Why won't NF make a 2-10 Atacr with the DMX? Or vortex make a razor gen 3 2-10 with ebr 9, capped windage, and not weigh 4000lbs.
The 2-10 range or "MPVO" is growing in popularity and it's seems like we've came full circle and are back to basically where we started with 3-9s.
Why did they offer 2 of the same style reticles? Why not one simple reticle like they offer and the cch. Or maybe a new reticle similar to the dmx or ebr-9.
Why does illumination cost so much for Leupold?
Why won't NF make a 2-10 Atacr with the DMX? Or vortex make a razor gen 3 2-10 with ebr 9, capped windage, and not weigh 4000lbs.
The 2-10 range or "MPVO" is growing in popularity and it's seems like we've came full circle and are back to basically where we started with 3-9s.
Nweeet. Probably, but the corporate line is that is not offered. If we follow how Nightforce handled that, it was a slow rollout almost a year later.
I am just saying generally speaking, over the past 10 years, i think that NF has had a better track record on the matter, but like you I have not had any issues with my Mk'5. This is just an anecdotal observation based on comments online, I have no real data either way.
Its part of the reason, that I am not willing to pay the premium for a NF bc I think the two compare very closely.
As much as i want to like the LPVO concept, I think it really comes down to what capability are you gain for hanging another 2lbs on you rifle.
For me, I want to like the LPVO concept but I just sort of feel that something like a 3.5X ACOG at 10oz just makes more sense than a 30oz setup for how I would typically use a carbine.
I just feel the MPVO concept with an offset Aimpoint ACRO outclasses any LPVO oz to oz.
All for the price of giving up a marginal 1X.
I agree. Context and rifle use case drives the optic. I consider the optic the brain of the rifle and controls what its capable of. The context in which I am considering this concept is a general purpose 308 gas gun. I also think this would find a good use on most general purpose rifles of various calibers, bolt and semi. A 556, 6ARC, 6.5G, 6.5CM, and 308 with a 13-20” barrel, medium weight build.
Again, general purpose in my mind may appear different to another. My GP concept is essentially a 0-600 yard rifle capable of taking a humanoid threat profile, bonus points if I can defeat armor or ethically take medium to large game.
Definitely,
I think there a ton of people get way to wrapped up in setting up a rifle to do everything that end up a lot closer in weight to a belt fed than anything that can be associated with a light and handy carbine.
I just cant get into the one rifle to do it all concept. I would rather have set ups for short stuff, GP, or precision applications and not have to deal with the compromise of pushing a short gun long or vice versa. Just grab what ever makes sense for that application.
I mostly agree, but LPVOs still have their place. I’ve got a PLXc in a reptilian mount and an RMR up top, all in I’m at about 25oz. Pull the RMR and I’m a little under 24oz I think.
However, the weight is less of a factor for me. Length matters! I hope to run a thermal clip on before long and keeping that unit as close to the upper receiver is important for balance. The clip on I end up with won’t support much more than 8x anyway so the upper end is fine for me. That is more than enough mag for me on a 14.5” 556.
I think the MPVO will do extremely well and I’ll likely run one on my 6.5 CM in a gas gun (I’d much prefer a 2-12 or 2.5-15 though)
Not to derail this thread but how you like the PLX, going to do the same setup but a holosun 403r on top on a 14.5 rifle. Going to get the PLX with Griffin mil.
Praecore on IG seems to have some good praise for it, along with a page called Sidewinder Concepts. Praecore usually puts out pretty solid info.
2-10 makes no sense with this point of view... Why would you limit yourself with a 2-10 if you are going to throw a RDS on it? Might as well go to 3.6-18/4-16 if you are going to add a RDS. You'd find more utility with the extra 6-8x on top than the 2 and 3x on the bottom. LPVOs aren't meant to/capable of being perfect on 1x and 8/10x at this time. They are more so to give you capability at both ends in one package. If anything the 2-10s are kinda pointless as they are currently made.
I agree but a 2-10 should be more compact for the limitations it has. This one is marginally lighter and shorter. For me I’ll run a PLXc 1-8 all day (stored on 4x) if I need compact and light
The red dot covers the missing 1x. It does not cover the value inherent in 2-3.6x. Earlier in this thread I covered the massive field of view advantage of 2x over 3.6x in the Mk5s.
Maybe you don’t have any use cases that involve wanting to add a little magnification while maximizing field of view. But I can see a number of hunting and military applications where it would be nice.
Also, the smaller objective lens is better for integration with clip-on IR, as someone else has mentioned.
Not to mention the form factor. I can envision this handling like a beefy LPVO such as a Trijicon Credo. Its not meant to replace the 3.6-18. Its an LPVO+ in my mind. Hopefully I can sell my FN SPR setup to fund a Mk5 2-10 with an ACRO on top.
As someone who hunts and a prior Marine I don't really see the value of 2-3x except maybe with clip-ons but that's a niche market and lpvos are definitely usable for this. If the target is too far to engage or ID with 1x I'm going to more than likely use 4x or more. I could maybe see it as a decent close to mid range hunting scope but it's definitely not marketed as that. By all means buy whatever makes you happy but don't expect everyone to be fooled by the marketing and hype...
I was Army so I don't have an opinion or at least not one I'm allowed to share
Thats probably a good freaking idea.I was Army so I don't have an opinion or at least not one I'm allowed to share
I guess you need to educate the entire groups of armed forces that felt that 2.5-8’s and 3.5-10’s were the perfect DMR/SPR optics, and many of which are still in service.
There’s absolutely a place for 2-3x minimum magnification. Especially on a hunting rifle.
I know best to keep my mouth shut when I'm around MarinesThats probably a good freaking idea.
Sure, that's pretty simple. Those are issued and there is a big difference between issued and chosen equipment. Plus, with those few groups that can choose equipment the majority of those people aren't equipment whores like us and are happy with what's issued as long as it works.
By all means guys if this gets your peepees hard spend your money as you see fit.
You do realize that there are solicitations where those optics where CHOSEN, right?
You mean those few groups like the ones that NF still does special runs or 2.5-10x24’s for? Those kind of groups?
