I have been really wanting to get a mark 4 with the TMR reticle would consider any of the reticles I guess but there seem to be so many variations to them some grey, some hd, and some don't say anything other than mark 4 does anyone have experience with them and the history, is all the glass the same? Thanks
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Mark 4
- Thread starter Willywonka
- Start date
I’m not that impressed with the Mark IV personally. Optically I think it leaves a lot to be desired in multiple areas. Rugged, you bet. The most clarity, resolution and contrast for the money - negative.
I’d rather get a Bushnell Elite LMSS or Vortex Razor HD if I was in that price category. I’ve been spoiled by Hensoldt personally.
I’d rather get a Bushnell Elite LMSS or Vortex Razor HD if I was in that price category. I’ve been spoiled by Hensoldt personally.
If you are referencing their 12-40x60, that is very good glass.
We use our binoculars and spotters a LOT during 1 Mil Right classes and also welcome the attending officers to get on them whenever they might need. I used 2 of the high end Razor HDs for a couple of years. Very good glass. Cons for me was that the reticle eyepiece was at a fixed X and too much magnification for a lot of what we wanted to do, the eyebox was less forgiving and there was zero options for mounting peripherals needed for the class. The Razors were also large and heavy.
The Leupy has nice eye relief at all Xs, has a very usable low end X, has FFP reticle, has a ton of aftermarket options for modifications if you need use specific tools added. They are also physically smaller and lighter at least partially due to their folded prism design.
We have set up the Razors and Leupys side by side while viewing license plates and other "detail" items at distance and in varying light. As best we can tell, the Leupy will resolve anything the Razors could.
I chose the TMR reticles in both of mine and do not regret it. What I have found is that in most conditions, you cannot manipulate the spotter as precisely as a rifle mounted scope and it is also way more susceptible to shaking from body tremors and/or any wind. For me, the TMR gives plenty of accuracy for effective shot corrections to the shooters. I really believe (for me) that the Tremors and Horus type stuff has details and breakdowns that I would not be able to utilize in most of my conditions.
The Henny's, Zeiss and high end Swaros are definitely a step up in resolution ability but at a premium $ for the upgraded ride.
I remain aggravated at Leupy over their rifle scope program but I have to give kudos to their spotters still being very good.
Do your research on the Leupold website to find exactly what you want, then search prices everywhere using their factory SKU. Many websites do a poor job of creating/updating their product descriptions but almost all will reference the factory part number of whatever you are viewing.
./
We use our binoculars and spotters a LOT during 1 Mil Right classes and also welcome the attending officers to get on them whenever they might need. I used 2 of the high end Razor HDs for a couple of years. Very good glass. Cons for me was that the reticle eyepiece was at a fixed X and too much magnification for a lot of what we wanted to do, the eyebox was less forgiving and there was zero options for mounting peripherals needed for the class. The Razors were also large and heavy.
The Leupy has nice eye relief at all Xs, has a very usable low end X, has FFP reticle, has a ton of aftermarket options for modifications if you need use specific tools added. They are also physically smaller and lighter at least partially due to their folded prism design.
We have set up the Razors and Leupys side by side while viewing license plates and other "detail" items at distance and in varying light. As best we can tell, the Leupy will resolve anything the Razors could.
I chose the TMR reticles in both of mine and do not regret it. What I have found is that in most conditions, you cannot manipulate the spotter as precisely as a rifle mounted scope and it is also way more susceptible to shaking from body tremors and/or any wind. For me, the TMR gives plenty of accuracy for effective shot corrections to the shooters. I really believe (for me) that the Tremors and Horus type stuff has details and breakdowns that I would not be able to utilize in most of my conditions.
The Henny's, Zeiss and high end Swaros are definitely a step up in resolution ability but at a premium $ for the upgraded ride.
I remain aggravated at Leupy over their rifle scope program but I have to give kudos to their spotters still being very good.
Do your research on the Leupold website to find exactly what you want, then search prices everywhere using their factory SKU. Many websites do a poor job of creating/updating their product descriptions but almost all will reference the factory part number of whatever you are viewing.
./
Thanks I'm in the process of sliming down my optics I do a lot of hunting and prs that's what is pushing me to the lupy I think with the TMR reticle it would be a great crossover spotter
- Nov 3, 2010
- 9,704
- 20,408
I have to agree with the above statements. I’m not impressed with my MK4 glass quality. When I first got it 10 years ago, I thought it was good. Comparing to other glass I own now, NF, Bushnell Elite Tactical and DMRii, Vortex. The TMR reticle is easy and quick once you have it dialed in. Way less busy than the H59 reticle for sure.
For you guys that are not impressed with the mk4 glass what would you recommend for a spotter with reticle for hunting and prs!
I will also add, in the retail business for 17 years, we did some demos and covered up as best we could optics so viewers could not entertain the brand name they were looking through. We did a quick questionnaire before and after. No where near scientific or means a thing but we did have some interesting rankings / comments. Obviously quite a few biases to name brand.
Swaro was the clear #1 best of all time choice pre view but was not the #1 best glass ranked after looking through them, in fact, Leupold was ranked by a few points higher. In my opinion, Leupold for many reasons deserved or not get the junk bias but in fact, not all that bad if bias is removed. Pre view Leupold bottom half of the pack.
Vortex was near the bottom after viewing but was clear fav pre viewing #2 best glass.
Zeiss was the so far out front best.
I wish had all the notes and rankings but I don't, retired.
This is worth exactly what you paid for it.
Swaro was the clear #1 best of all time choice pre view but was not the #1 best glass ranked after looking through them, in fact, Leupold was ranked by a few points higher. In my opinion, Leupold for many reasons deserved or not get the junk bias but in fact, not all that bad if bias is removed. Pre view Leupold bottom half of the pack.
Vortex was near the bottom after viewing but was clear fav pre viewing #2 best glass.
Zeiss was the so far out front best.
I wish had all the notes and rankings but I don't, retired.
This is worth exactly what you paid for it.
I like the Mark IV with TMR reticle as it hits the sweet spot in terms of size, quality, zoom range and clarity for field use.
If you start with the assumption that a field scope needs a reticle to be able to measure targets/misses/etc...you already have a pretty small set of scopes to choose from. Next you need to consider the zoom range - and 12-40x60mm seems to be the "useful" range - the 12x is wide enough to actually find targets when transitioning from a pair of 8x or 10x binoculars. Something like a 20-60x would be useless as it would be like trying to spot targets through a soda straw.
Moving to the high end, at 40x, the scope has enough power to measure and spot hits over 1000 yards away, lets you mil targets and misses with the TMR reticle, and has enough power to determine mirage so you can make the right wind call to make a hit.
It does all of this in a pretty compact, field tough package. Marry it with a strong carbon tripod and Manfrotto geared head and you can aim it precisely in the field. There is a reason why the military snipers use this scope.
Is it perfect? It could use a bit more eye relief perhaps, and something like a 20-60x65mm Swarovski probably has a bit more clarity, but the Swaro at 20x is not that useful in the field and most of their models have no reticle. Having looked through quite a bit of Bushnell and Vortex glass, I would certainly put the Leupold well above those.
I took the 7 day precision rifle course at Gunsite and we used Mark IV 12-40x60mm with TMR exclusively out to 1000 yards. Each of us spent about half of the course behind the spotting scope, and all of the targets were hand milled by the spotter. The Mark IV performed beautifully. Also the instructors there include some of the top shooters in the country - and I'm guessing if they could find a better scope for field use they would already be using it.
If you start with the assumption that a field scope needs a reticle to be able to measure targets/misses/etc...you already have a pretty small set of scopes to choose from. Next you need to consider the zoom range - and 12-40x60mm seems to be the "useful" range - the 12x is wide enough to actually find targets when transitioning from a pair of 8x or 10x binoculars. Something like a 20-60x would be useless as it would be like trying to spot targets through a soda straw.
Moving to the high end, at 40x, the scope has enough power to measure and spot hits over 1000 yards away, lets you mil targets and misses with the TMR reticle, and has enough power to determine mirage so you can make the right wind call to make a hit.
It does all of this in a pretty compact, field tough package. Marry it with a strong carbon tripod and Manfrotto geared head and you can aim it precisely in the field. There is a reason why the military snipers use this scope.
Is it perfect? It could use a bit more eye relief perhaps, and something like a 20-60x65mm Swarovski probably has a bit more clarity, but the Swaro at 20x is not that useful in the field and most of their models have no reticle. Having looked through quite a bit of Bushnell and Vortex glass, I would certainly put the Leupold well above those.
I took the 7 day precision rifle course at Gunsite and we used Mark IV 12-40x60mm with TMR exclusively out to 1000 yards. Each of us spent about half of the course behind the spotting scope, and all of the targets were hand milled by the spotter. The Mark IV performed beautifully. Also the instructors there include some of the top shooters in the country - and I'm guessing if they could find a better scope for field use they would already be using it.
Mk4 is fine for what you can get them for in the sub 1k range. They're durable and won't make you cry if they manage to fall over or fall off the back of your ruck.
Glass is nice, obviously not as great as a Spotter60, but the tradeoff is that it just works and you dont need to worry about it. I've considered a few times going back to a Mk4 or getting a Mk4 to take out when its not just going to be a range trip where I don't want to run the risk of fucking up the 60.
Glass is nice, obviously not as great as a Spotter60, but the tradeoff is that it just works and you dont need to worry about it. I've considered a few times going back to a Mk4 or getting a Mk4 to take out when its not just going to be a range trip where I don't want to run the risk of fucking up the 60.
Give this a look, never used it for hunting or PRS but went to 2 boomershoots and no issue seeing splashes and calling shots to 800 plus in snain and blowing wind and good sunlight. Had a few shooters come over ask what I was using and take a look and they were all impressed. If I was looking for match spotter this would be it. But I am impressed with Mark 4 but I don't have disposable income.
www.bushnell.com
Buy Legend Tactical - T-Series Spotting Scope 15-45x60 and More | Bushnell
Shopping for the Legend Tactical - T-Series Spotting Scope 15-45x60 - Learn more about the latest View All Spotting Scopes and other hunting or shooting gear at Bushnell.
www.bushnell.com
Similar threads
