Mark 4hd or dmr3 for matches

[Kscontrols]

For matches, I know a lot of people use the mark 5hd’s, but how about the mark4hd’s? I’m looking at the mark4 hd 6-24 (pr2-mil), and the Bushnell dmr3 3.5-21 (g4p). Looking at both as lightly used scopes currently available for under retail in my area.

I’ve ruled out the xtr3. Used a gen2 razor for awhile, but its reticle was just a bit too fine for me on the lower 10-14x powers. I also used a sig tango 6 4-24 for a while and although most didn’t like it I loved its glass, just hated the mis-alignments of the #’s on the turrets, and they were spongy.

I also found an Xrs3 for a great deal but I’m concerned about the writings I’ve found saying it’s horrible in mirage and harder to focus(?). As well as the reticle not being very usable in the 10-14x range since it’s got such a high power of 36x

 

[Denny Outdoors]

I have a like new dmr3 with eql reticle(.2 hash marks) the leupold is good but too light for comps and has 1/4 mil hash marks. I’m looking to sell dmr3 if interested. No matter what you do I’d go with 2/10 hash marks. Way easier imo

 

[chevy_man]

I have a like new dmr3 with eql reticle(.2 hash marks) the leupold is good but too light for comps and has 1/4 mil hash marks. I’m looking to sell dmr3 if interested. No matter what you do I’d go with 2/10 hash marks. Way easier imo

Too light?

How horrible that you have the option to add weight where you want it rather than just live with it.

 

[Denny Outdoors]

Too light?

How horrible that you have the option to add weight where you want it rather than just live with it.

Relax bud. Don’t get your panties in a bunch. Im pretty sure you didn’t ask for opinions, this guy did. There is a reason top end scopes weigh more. They are built heavier duty.
Honestly the glass is better on the dmr than the mark 4 and not as good as the mark 5. Also the 1/4 mil reticle is a hard no for me. At the price point he is looking at the dmr is better. Cary on.

 

[Kscontrols]

I did end up with the DMR 3. I actually purchased that xrs3, but the magnification was too much for prs imo. Due to that it went to the 7 PRC for long range plinking and the dmr3 went to the match rifle. Thanks for the responses guys.

 

[CK1.0]

The new Mark4HD has the same glass as the Mark5HDs, and is in a whole higher echelon than the DMR3.

A DMR3 is at least a couple of steps behind the current pack of mid-priced glass out there these days.

That said, caveat emptor, I bought two Mark4HDs in a row that were varying degrees of defective out-of-the-box, and the third one I got (as a replacement from Leupold for the second one) was even messed up out of the box too (reticle canted and out of level in the tube). If they've figured out how to make them correctly, it's good glass for the money, but, based on what you said in your OP, you might want to avoid them, as it seems like one of the common issues with them is the numbers and indications not lining up between the caps and erector housing.

 

[chevy_man]

Relax bud. Don’t get your panties in a bunch. Im pretty sure you didn’t ask for opinions, this guy did. There is a reason top end scopes weigh more. They are built heavier duty.
Honestly the glass is better on the dmr than the mark 4 and not as good as the mark 5. Also the 1/4 mil reticle is a hard no for me. At the price point he is looking at the dmr is better. Cary on.

Except the 4&5 have the same glass...

And you don't need to weigh more. Turns out less mass means less force. Lazy engineering and cost cutting sure does weigh more.


Bushnell is priced about $800 too high for their glass quality. Might as well buy a Gen ii razor for about the same and get much better glass, or save money on the mark 4.

 

[CK1.0]

The Gen2 Razor is still the scope for the Everyman IMHO, especially for getting into PRS matches.

Sure, the glass isn't the best out there and is a step behind the Alpha stuff now, but it'll still beat a whole bunch of them, and they are tanks... you could pull one of those suckers off your rifle and use it to bash a zombie's head in if you had to (and if you managed to hurt it, Vortex would just fix it or replace it, have it back to you in a week or so with some stickers and maybe a hat if you're lucky ).

 

[lange92]

Really like my mark 4 did a lot of research being basically like a mark 5 just built cheaper but glass is close. 4x erector instead of 5 , lighter as many mentioned because it’s built less expensively but since you can weight tune your rifle I don’t feel that matters much. I don’t have huge budget for optics so I shop the sub 1500$ class a a lot and try to hit hard for the money. Wanted to hold on and not loose much to the 2k plus scopes and feel it does that.

I got a heck of a deal on a europtic demo for 1200$ so 300 off and the box was sealed. Wasn’t aware there has been issues that’s a bummer but mine seems solid so far. Don’t know much about that Bushnell model I was gonna get the match pro but stepped up.

 

[Denny Outdoors]

Except the 4&5 have the same glass...

And you don't need to weigh more. Turns out less mass means less force. Lazy engineering and cost cutting sure does weigh more.


Bushnell is priced about $800 too high for their glass quality. Might as well buy a Gen ii razor for about the same and get much better glass, or save money on the mark 4.

When I used the 4 and 5 back to back there is a noticeable difference in glass. The 5 is way better. I shot leupolds, nightforce, zco, Kahles. I now only shoot kahles in prs. I have a few leupold scopes for hunting. When I was getting a production rifle I looked at all the options and chose the dmr3. People see Bushnell and think they are cheap. But I see an awful lot of dmr3 at pro matches.

Looking through a scope in a store does not do it justice. You really need to spend some time behind them. There are many factors that are really important. Clarity/ brightness especially now a lot of matches go with unpainted grey targets. Another important part is parallax. Most of the time we are shooting many targets at different ranges. Also eyebox and clicks are big factors in decision making. All of those things play a huge part in it. For PRs weight does play a big role too. The heavier the rifle the less recoil and jump. We want to stay on target. That’s why guys are shooting 25# dashers.

 

[chevy_man]

When I went used the 4 and 5 there is a noticeable difference in glass. The 5 is way better. I shot leupolds, nightforce, zco, Kahles. I now only shoot kahles in prs. I have a few leupold scopes for hunting. When I was getting a production rifle I looked at all the options and chose the dmr3. People see Bushnell and think they are cheap. But I see an awful lot of dmr3 at pro matches.

Looking through a scope in a store does not do it justice. You really need to spend some time behind them. There are many factors that are really important. Clarity/ brightness especially now a lot of matches go with unpainted grey targets. Another important part is parallax. Most of the time we are shooting many targets at different ranges. Also eyebox and clicks are big factors in decision making. All of those things play a huge part in it. For PRs weight does play a big role too. The heavier the rifle the less recoil and jump. We want to stay on target. That’s why guys are shooting 25# dashers.

I've used them. I'm the furthest thing from vortex fan and I'd still pick a razor.

I put my weight in the chassis and the barrel. Makes me sense to have the weight low rather than up top to me. (And it turns out nobody charges extra for a #8/MTU/m24 barrel profile over a palma or sendero where you can add a good chunk of weight).

 

[Agracer]

I shot a DMR3 with the GP4 reticle for 2-1/2 seasons. I looked through a friends MK5HD at a match and though it looked a lot better than the DMR3 and the glass on the Mk4HD is the same as the Mk5HD. I picked up a Mk4HD 6x24 and used it for a match about a month back. It is noticeably better glass wise than the DMR3, saw my impacts and misses, much cleaner out to 1000 yards (IMO). The reticle is close enough but I did miss two holdovers on a stage getting mixed up (totally me b/c I'd practiced with it only once the week before).

The turrets are fine and clicks are crisp. The markings however are just a WTF are you thinking Leupold. The numbers are right on the bottom of the turret so there is a very small tick mark at each major, and the x.9 and x.1 marks are also hard to see b/c they are so small. You're not sure if you're on the x.9. x.0, x.1..... I put on the scope tape, problem solved.

For the money the Mk4HD is better.