Rifle Scopes Leupold mk5hd 2-10 vs USO FDN 10X(1.8-10) for SPR

G

gasxsnake

Private
Minuteman
Dec 15, 2018
11
1
#1
Hi guys,
I'm looking for a MPVO for 5.56 SPR, I will use reddot for 1x, so don't really care about the performance under 3x. I narrowed down my choice to Leupold mk5hd 2-10 vs USO FDN 10X, however there is barely a review of those two on the net.
Looking for insights from anyone handled either of them, Thanks!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nomyth
#6
It was debatable whether USO’s were reliable optics back in the day and they have not gotten better over the years and the TMR Leupold stuck in the 2-10 is a fucking abortion. They should have released that optic with a reticle designed for it. I love MK5’s and the 3.6-18’s and 5-25’s I’ve owned have been awesome, but the 2-10 sucks until a decent reticle comes along.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bazooka, TheMammoth, simonp and 2 others
#9
Nomyth said:
How about: no.

I already have the Gen III, and from my experience with it, it's obviously not what the OP is looking for in this thread topic.
Click to expand...

Yeah that thing blows above 6x, if you’re not perfectly centered there’s a ton of image distortion. The Vudu is a far better 1-10 but a 1-10 isn’t an ideal solution ever if you’re going to spend most of the time on the top end.

You have to give him a break though, dumbdumb McGee is just now favoriting Vortex again after his “experience” working at a gun store where he sent back “a ton” of them where cheap asses came in and bought the low end models so it’s safe to say he has zero actual experience with that optic he’s recommending.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: sharris09, Poorboyr, Cr1775 and 2 others
#10
Nomyth said:
How about: no.

I already have the Gen III, and from my experience with it, it's obviously not what the OP is looking for in this thread topic.
Click to expand...
I don't recall recommending this to you... I recall recommending this to the OP.

Also, this was the OP's thread, not your's, so I don't remember asking your opinion on shit.
 
#11
You have to ignore RedneckButtFucker, he's made over 11,000 posts, and not a single goddamn one of them has ever been productive or informative, they're just loudmouth shit talking with zero evidence he even owns any guns or has any experience with anything. I'm not saying you have to listen to me, but be really careful who you're listening to on here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stanley_white
#13
redneckbmxer24 said:
I love it when I strike a nerve.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I guess continuously randomly harassing someone that's not even paying you any attention is "striking a nerve"... The fact I live rent free in your head 24/7 to the point that you feel the need to make special efforts to insult or try to discredit me in every thread is fucking hilarious. You are the most immature egotistical piece of shit on this entire forum...And add absolutely nothing of any relevance to anything. I feel sorry for everyone who knows you in real life and has to be around your obnoxious ass.
 
#15
FuhQ said:
I don't recall recommending this to you... I recall recommending this to the OP.

Also, this was the OP's thread, not your's, so I don't remember asking your opinion on shit.
Click to expand...
Well that's great, but now you have to justify why you gave the OP a recommendation for an LPVO when neither of the two scopes OP was researching are LPVOs.
 
#16
Nomyth said:
Well that's great, but now you have to defend why you gave the OP a recommendation for an LPVO when neither of the two scopes OP was researching are LPVOs.
Click to expand...
Beyond simple... Because he said he was going to use a 1x, and something up to 10x... Well, this does both...

So, now do you feel smart, or are you going to accept the obvious fallacy in your sarcasm attempt?
 
#18
Nomyth said:
Next question. Does it do both well?

Does it do both well enough to justify $2500?
Click to expand...
That is an entirely personal opinion that only you can determine. 👍🏼

That was simply a suggestion knowing that Leupold is overpriced and overrated, and USO has seemingly gone to shit from mass amounts of threads and posts about them over the last few years. I always liked USO back in the day (pre-Foundation), but apparently they got bought out, and aren't quite the same company now. Not 100% sure on a buyout, but I remember reading something happened, and almost overnight went to crap. Sort of like Dakota Arms after Freedom Group acquired them back in the day. Phenomenal guns...Got bought out, went straight to shit.
 
#19
FuhQ said:
You have to ignore RedneckButtFucker, he's made over 11,000 posts, and not a single goddamn one of them has ever been productive or informative, they're just loudmouth shit talking with zero evidence he even owns any guns or has any experience with anything. I'm not saying you have to listen to me, but be really careful who you're listening to on here.
Click to expand...
Why are you so angry, he called you out truthfully. It wasn't until recently that you would go back to buying Vortex.you have 0 experience with a scope you just recommended.
 
#20
Cr1775 said:
Why are you so angry, he called you out truthfully. It wasn't until recently that you would go back to buying Vortex.you have 0 experience with a scope you just recommended.
Click to expand...
He never calls anyone out truthfully... He assumes shit, and runs his cockholster. He doesn't know me in person, so it's all speculation. 🤣 Also, i've recommended that scope to people before over the last several years, and even in the last few months, it's not anything new. I've shot through a few of them. Just because I don't own one doesn't mean I have zero experience with them. I love how everyone assumes when someone recommends something they've never seen someone post about before (which I have) they assume you have zero experience with it. Yall know about 5% of the guns/scopes I own/have owned. You know what I want you to know, and the rest is not anyone's business or owed an explanation about why I haven't mentioned it before. 👍🏼
 
#22
redneckbmxer24 said:
It was debatable whether USO’s were reliable optics back in the day and they have not gotten better over the years and the TMR Leupold stuck in the 2-10 is a fucking abortion. They should have released that optic with a reticle designed for it. I love MK5’s and the 3.6-18’s and 5-25’s I’ve owned have been awesome, but the 2-10 sucks until a decent reticle comes along.
Click to expand...
Yeah the reticle is one thing makes me debate between these two.
 
#25
FuhQ said:
He never calls anyone out truthfully... He assumes shit, and runs his cockholster. He doesn't know me in person, so it's all speculation. 🤣 Also, i've recommended that scope to people before over the last several years, and even in the last few months, it's not anything new. I've shot through a few of them. Just because I don't own one doesn't mean I have zero experience with them. I love how everyone assumes when someone recommends something they've never seen someone post about before (which I have) they assume you have zero experience with it. Yall know about 5% of the guns/scopes I own/have owned. You know what I want you to know, and the rest is not anyone's business or owed an explanation about why I haven't mentioned it before. 👍🏼
Click to expand...

First of all, I’d bet good money that you have posted at least 100 times about your “experience” as a gun store counter retard sending back Vortex’s and Leupold.

Second, I’m glad that I don’t know you personally. It’s more than enough having to read the dumb shit you post and it’s mildly entertaining trolling you.

Third, I find it interesting how defensive you are in your little melt downs.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: FuhQ
#26
I have the FDN 10X with a GAP reticle. I wish they offered it with their MHR.

MK5s have a small field of view. My FDN tunnels under 3.5X, but even with the tunneling, the FOV is going to be bigger than a MK5, you just have more scope body around the small FOV. And when you're at 10x, I'm not kidding when I say it's going to probably be twice as big of a sight picture than a MK5.

I like my USO FDNs equally to my ATACR 7-35.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gasxsnake
#27
gasxsnake said:
I thought about that, but then think 10x is totally enough for 556 SPR, if the weight is same I would put 3-18 though.
Click to expand...

The 3.6-18 is only 2oz more than the 2-10. It’s a small penalty for almost twice the magnification, an optic that the reticles work better in, and half again larger exit pupil on any given magnification range.

For 2.5oz more than the MK5 3.6-18 and similar price point there’s also the NX8 2.5-20 that gets you illumination standard and better reticles but you give up the awesome MK5 locking turret, have a slightly smaller sight picture and see more scope body, and also give up DOF. For 1.5oz more than that you can get an ATACR 4-16x42 that has the same reticles as the NX8, has a similar elevation turret to the MK5 and has better DOF than both the MK5 and NX8 for a little more $$, but less than the cost of an illuminated MK5. You can also find them lightly used around $2K

10x will get the job done but more magnification isn’t going to hurt anything. I find 10x in good glass to be the absolute minimum for spotting .22 holes in paper at 100 yards when shooting groups or zeroing and usually it’s still difficult. Just having 12x makes a huge difference in being able to see them, 15-18x is excellent. Then there’s IDing targets and spotting impacts on steel at distance which 10x just doesn’t do compared to more magnification.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gasxsnake and YotaEer
#28
Leupold lists the field of view as 52.9 ft at 100y on 2x and 10.5 ft at 100y on 10x.

US Optics has a laughably paltry set of specifications for the FDN 10x on their site. But Optics planet lists the field of view of this scope as 36 ft at 100y on 1.8x, and 11.3 ft at 100y on 10x.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gasxsnake
#29
FOV measurements aren't the same thing as what you end up seeing in the scope. C_Does gives side by side views of scopes and notes this.

XRS3 and Razor III have the same "specs" at 36X, but what you see is far different:



Comparing a MK5 2-10 to an ancient USO MR10:



Note the size of the sight picture, especially at 10X. Since OP is planning to run an offset red dot anyways, FOV on the bottom isn't as high of a priority. Scopes that tunnel prioritize FOV at the top end of the magnification at the expense of the FOV at the bottom range. Scopes that don't tunnel tend to do the opposite. In a setup with an offset red dot, I would prioritize the top end FOV.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: stanley_white
#30
rothgyr said:
FOV measurements aren't the same thing as what you end up seeing in the scope. C_Does gives side by side views of scopes and notes this.

XRS3 and Razor III have the same "specs" at 36X, but what you see is far different:



Comparing a MK5 2-10 to an ancient USO MR10:



Note the size of the sight picture, especially at 10X. Since OP is planning to run an offset red dot anyways, FOV on the bottom isn't as high of a priority. Scopes that tunnel prioritize FOV at the top end of the magnification at the expense of the FOV at the bottom range. Scopes that don't tunnel tend to do the opposite. In a setup with an offset red dot, I would prioritize the top end FOV.
Click to expand...

Thank you for great info! I also watched the c_does video, wish he had the new model for the review.
 
#32
Ever notice that a full moon looks “yuge” on the horizon, but 3 hrs later it is its normal little ol’ self sitting high in the sky? Sure, everyone has. But, if you actually measure the diameter of the moon on the horizon, it is exactly the same as when it is high in the sky. The difference is an optical illusion caused by your brain seeing closer objects of “known size” and tricking you into thinking the moon is bigger than it is.

Measurements, however, are just that; objective determinations of some physical property. “What you see,” is as often as not, an optical illusion. Scope design, for example, can make a tight field of view look expansive, and visa versa. But, the numbers don’t lie.

In the immortal words of Obiwan Kanobi…
IMG_5685.jpeg
 
#33
And have you ever noticed that you can pick out more detail on paper with 15x Binos than you can with a 17x scope of better optical quality? One fills your vision and gives you information in a way that your eyes and brain can resolve better, but you know, numbers don't lie, I guess...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

BoldCorrections
SOLD US Optics FDN 10x (1.8-10)
Replies
5
Views
728
army8696
A
W
SwampFox Warhawk 2-10x44: Poor man’s MK5HD?
Replies
23
Views
4K
BCP
BCP
W
March FX 1-10 vs Leupold Mk5 2-10
Replies
12
Views
1K
PappyM3
P
cornhuskid
SOLD SOLD US Optics NEW PRODUCTION FDN 10x (1.8-10), 1/10 MIL EREK knob - $1400 (MIL FFP)
Replies
0
Views
462
cornhuskid
cornhuskid
Rpatton73
Optics **PRICE DROP** - OPTICS, MOUNTS AND RINGS FOR SALE
Replies
18
Views
952
Rpatton73
Rpatton73
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts