Rifle Scopes Mark 5HD vs. Nightforce ATACR 7-35

[Lukeshoot85]

I’ve been doing a lot of research around the high end optics in the 7-35 magnification range.

I’m trying to understand why I would pay an additional 1200 dollars for the Nightforce ATACR 7-35x56 Mil XT, when you can buy the Leupold Mark 5HD 7-35x56 CCH reticle.

Can anyone help me better understand the difference that covers the $1200 gap?

Thank you for any feedback you guys can provide!

 

[Boostinmarc4]

NF tracks flawlessly, has nicer glass, most like the turrets better. It's also built to handle getting used hard without having issues. There is nothing wrong with the mark 5 but its mid tier vs top tier.

 

[Poorboyr]

All scopes break. Yes.... even Nightforce. Get the reticle you like and call it the day. The glass is very close between the two. I think the eye relief is better in the leupold.

 

[Dthomas3523]

Keep in mind the parallax distance if that’s important to you. 10m vs 75 or so.

Also, the cch hash marks are at .25mil, not .2mil.

 

[onthex]

I have done a side by side comparison with the Mark 5, the Mark 8 and the ATACR in 5-25x56, and I found the ATACR to be clearly superior to both. It had a better eyebox and field of view than either Leupold. I also like the turrets much better on the ATACR. In terms of glass the Mark 8 was very close to the ATACR, and both were clearly superior to the Mark 5. To me the Mark 5 and the ATACR are apples and oranges with the ATACR performing on a higher level across the board, thus the higher price regardless of the reticle.

 

[Lukeshoot85]

I decided to order both... the gentlemen I spoke with at Scope List said, no problem to buy both and as long as I don’t mount the one I plan to return, I can do my own side by side comparison... I really appreciate all the comments though! I’ll be sure to look into all the aspects everyone brought up (as much as I can without mounting the scopes).

Maybe I’ll just play stupid and tell the fiancé that scope list wouldn’t let me return either... then I get both!!?

 

[VegasHKShooter]

I have done this exact comparison. I have the Nightforce 7-35, and my buddy has the MK5 7-35. Interestingly enough, he noticed some of the differences first. The NF does have brighter glass. It seems to have more “true” image up on 35X. The Leupold was absolutely not bad, and is NO SLOUCH, but the NF has more “pop.” The eye box on the NF is much more forgiving. The Leupold is tight. One would expect that on a FFP 35X scope, but NF does a little better.
My observation was this: If I spent the $$ on a Leupold, I wouldn’t be upset when comparing it to the NF. The NF is a better scope. That said....the Leupold can certainly hold its own AT THE PRICE POINT. I’m not sorry I spent the $$ on the NF though. I’ll close by saying you likely wouldn’t miss a 1000yd shot just because your scope held you back if shooting the Leupy. To look through for hours at a time, the NF shows where the $$ goes.

 

[EchoDeltaSierra]

Can anyone help me better understand the difference that covers the $1200 gap?

I (finally) switched from my beloved Steiner T5Xi 5-25 to a Nightforce ATAC-R 5-25 about a week ago. I wondered the same thing for years. It's kinda difficult to describe but I'll make an attempt.

Side by side, on a good day, at a static range, I'd say the difference is very similar. When moving into heavy mirage, or running on a range with multiple targets at multiple distances (like 300-900 yards) the Nightforce is much less mirage and I generally set the parallax and didn't have to mess with it at all. I believe that is all due to lens coating quality and optical alignment. Having now shot a couple of matches with my Nightforce, I'm almost embarrassed I delayed said purchase for as long as I did.

 

[Safety_3rd]

The ATACR's are illuminated which is a big up-charge on the Mark 5. I like the leupold turrets better and the fact that the whole eyepiece doesn't rotate when you change magnification. I have two Mark 5's and 3 nightforce. I like my nightforces more but for the money I recommend the new 7x35 Mark 5. Is the nightforce $1000 better? Who knows ha.
There were some videos running around about the Mark 5 turrets not lining up with the mil marks but all of the new ones I have are perfect. I also like that the elevation turret stops at zero with a large button that locks it. Additionally I like that you have to unlock it to move it from zero and that you can move it about .7 below zero if needed. Keep in mind the nightforce is 34mm tube and the Leupold is 35mm, generally there are more options for mounts at 34mm so you could probably use a mount you already have.

 

[Duffman1975]

I have done this exact comparison. I have the Nightforce 7-35, and my buddy has the MK5 7-35. Interestingly enough, he noticed some of the differences first. The NF does have brighter glass. It seems to have more “true” image up on 35X. The Leupold was absolutely not bad, and is NO SLOUCH, but the NF has more “pop.” The eye box on the NF is much more forgiving. The Leupold is tight. One would expect that on a FFP 35X scope, but NF does a little better.
My observation was this: If I spent the $$ on a Leupold, I wouldn’t be upset when comparing it to the NF. The NF is a better scope. That said....the Leupold can certainly hold its own AT THE PRICE POINT. I’m not sorry I spent the $$ on the NF though. I’ll close by saying you likely wouldn’t miss a 1000yd shot just because your scope held you back if shooting the Leupy. To look through for hours at a time, the NF shows where the $$ goes.

In regards to the glass, i noticed the same thing in daylight. However, when the conditions are poor, or first/last light, is when the leupold glass really shows it's quality. I made the decision to go with the Mark 5 over the NF becuase of this exact issue. I think it's more important to have better glass in bad conditions than better glass in optimal conditions. As you said, you wouldnt miss a 1k yard shot with either glass during the day, but i would rather have the Mark5 than the NF trying to make that same shot any other time of the day or weather conditions.

 

[VegasHKShooter]

That doesn’t really make sense Duffman, but as has been said millions of times before; “everyone’s eyes are different.”
That’s why many experts won’t review “the glass”, they review features etc. No way to say what your eyes see vs what I see. The one issue with using the MK5 at night as your lowlight scope is, it’s not generally illuminated. Leupold illum is at least $500 more. If I was at $500 more than the MK5, that puts the NF into the “save one more month and buy the NF” category.
Just my opinion. As I said; if I had the Leupy I would not be disappointed.

 

[Lukeshoot85]

Yeah, I think I’m finally getting the point that it just comes down to personal preference at this point.... I’ll just get both and keep the one that looks best to my eyes and which reticle I like the most!

Thanks again

 

[Duffman1975]

That doesn’t really make sense Duffman, but as has been said millions of times before; “everyone’s eyes are different.”
That’s why many experts won’t review “the glass”, they review features etc. No way to say what your eyes see vs what I see. The one issue with using the MK5 at night as your lowlight scope is, it’s not generally illuminated. Leupold illum is at least $500 more. If I was at $500 more than the MK5, that puts the NF into the “save one more month and buy the NF” category.
Just my opinion. As I said; if I had the Leupy I would not be disappointed.

I should have specified, i was comparing them side by side without illumination on.

 

[Badfinger]

I buy the least expensive scope that will get the job done regardless of brand and logo. I can clearly see any target I look at and don't care if it's in HD or not. It's still more consistent than I am and outshoots me.....

 

[jbell]

I have yet to see either of the scopes in question (the 7-35 versions), however I do own (or did own, read on) and do many side by side comparisons of: PMII 5-25X56, ATACR F1 5-25, ATACR F1 4-16X42, MK5 3-18, MK5 5-25. I had them all at the same time and mounted in rings or on rifles. Over the course of about a month I compared them all side by side in all the weather & atmospheric conditions that occurred. Like stated in some post above they all do well in good conditions, hell they are all killer scopes! But what I started to see a clear (no pun intended) difference was in low light or bad weather the MK5's (more specifically the 5-25) provided an image that was "shootable longer". Meaning I could identify and engage targets in lower light conditions with the MK5 5-25 than I could with any other scope I mentioned. In decent to good conditions it was a toss up and I am sure if you wanted to get picky you could identify specific things that one scope did better than the other, but if the only goal is to make a hit on a target the only time I saw a difference was in very low or poor lighting conditions and the MK5 5-25 pulled ahead, noticeably.

I have preformed several tracking test on all of the scopes I own and all are so close I cant detect any issues. I have shot all out to about 1100 yards and all ranges back to 50 yards. All were shot on small caliber rifles, 308 or under. There really is not any other major difference. I do agree that most Leupold's reticles kinda suck, and the illumination option is expensive, but they are at least in the 6-7 months I have owned them are damn solid scopes. BUT SO IS NF! I would like the chance to try out one of these 7-35 offerings...

 

[sevenplagues]

The Mark 5 is a great value, but side by side I preferred the Nightforce ATACR. Glass is superior on the ATACR in many people's opinion.
Also, look into the Tremor 3 reticle, its FANTASTIC and a big help with wind.

 

[Jonnyb0381]

I have done a side by side comparison with the Mark 5, the Mark 8 and the ATACR in 5-25x56, and I found the ATACR to be clearly superior to both. It had a better eyebox and field of view than either Leupold. I also like the turrets much better on the ATACR. In terms of glass the Mark 8 was very close to the ATACR, and both were clearly superior to the Mark 5. To me the Mark 5 and the ATACR are apples and oranges with the ATACR performing on a higher level across the board, thus the higher price regardless of the reticle.

The glass is the exact same in the Mark 5 as the Mark 8

 

[Jonnyb0381]

I decided to order both... the gentlemen I spoke with at Scope List said, no problem to buy both and as long as I don’t mount the one I plan to return, I can do my own side by side comparison... I really appreciate all the comments though! I’ll be sure to look into all the aspects everyone brought up (as much as I can without mounting the scopes).

Maybe I’ll just play stupid and tell the fiancé that scope list wouldn’t let me return either... then I get both!!?

Sounds good let us know what you go with but keep one thing in mind. You wont truely know until you start getting behind your rifle and start shooting with it. That said, its a very good plan!

 

[5RWill]

But what I started to see a clear (no pun intended) difference was in low light or bad weather the MK5's (more specifically the 5-25) provided an image that was "shootable longer".

Same here against my own Kahles and my USO. The MK5s low light performance is impeccable for the money. AMG is supposedly up there or better also so i'm interested to see what it's like.

Also did a side by side comparison of the ATACR and MK5 both 5-25x56 variants. It was not a $1000 difference in resolution to me, frankly nowhere near. ATACR is the better optic sure, but i'd not go so far to say the MK5 doesn't compare. Notably the ATACR a wider FOV, better turrets (IMO), more forgiving parallax, better eyebox, better CA control, and better contrast. Having said that the resolution of both are extremely similar to the point i'd say it's a draw. Haven't gotten to compare the low light performance of the ATACR but the MK5 is as i said pretty impeccable in that department considering the cost.

To me at least having been behind 3 5-25x56 ATACRs (still small sample size) i think they're quality of glass is inflated a bit (JMO) It's good but i've never gotten behind one and thought of it being that much different than any other optic in it's range. To me it's always been comparable to the K624i, Gen II razor, XRS II, etc. Never quite found them to look like a Schmidt (granted my experience with the PMII is limited) or a ZP5 or a k525i for that matter. They all have their selling points NF's is built upon reliability and now that they've got decent reticles it's hard not to recommend them, given the features.

To note though we're talking about the 7-35 of which i have no experience with and apparently does best the 5-25 ATACR. In that regard given that it's a known commodity and there don't seem to be that many 7-35 MK5s out there i'd probably lean ATACR for this one.

 

[Macca]

Bear me out here,
I had a premier which had amazing low light performance,in the rain for instance,when others couldn’t even see their targets,it kept up a damn good image.
I sold the scope with the rifle it was attached to but it’s low light performance has stuck with me & I now gravitate toward scopes that perform in low light conditions.
Am I tilting at windmills or are there other aspects I should consider given the fact in good conditions most tier 1 scopes perform equally well?

 

[acudaowner]

or you could get a 5x50x56 34mm delta for 1600 ish for less in cost . It's just another choice , it's sfp mill mill or moa moa aand it's illumiated .

 

[jbell]

Also did a side by side comparison of the ATACR and MK5 both 5-25x56 variants. It was not a $1000 difference in resolution to me, frankly nowhere near. ATACR is the better optic sure, but i'd not go so far to say the MK5 doesn't compare. Notably the ATACR a wider FOV, better turrets (IMO), more forgiving parallax, better eyebox, better CA control, and better contrast. Having said that the resolution of both are extremely similar to the point i'd say it's a draw. Haven't gotten to compare the low light performance of the ATACR but the MK5 is as i said pretty impeccable in that department considering the cost.

I should have been a little more clear in my post, but 5RWill sums it up pretty nicely. The NF & PMII has a better a better FOV, I prefer the turrets of the NF over both the PMII and MK5. The NF and PMII had less or no CA in the bright sun, and some aspects of the image was better with the other two (but it is very close). But honestly none of that stuff matters at all in being able to actually hit a target. If the scopes track properly, correct for parallax, the reticles are accurate (no matter how you personally feel about them) and you can see your target clear enough to find center then to me the real deciding factor goes to weight, price, form factor, what I like better, etc. But if there is something that one scope allows you to either hit a target or identify that the other scopes do not then you have a deciding factor. A lot of people like to argue about crap that doesn't make a difference in putting rounds on target, but at the end of the day it is YOUR hard earned $ spend it in a way that you feel justified NOT how the internet says you should...

 

[5RWill]

Bear me out here,
I had a premier which had amazing low light performance,in the rain for instance,when others couldn’t even see their targets,it kept up a damn good image.
I sold the scope with the rifle it was attached to but it’s low light performance has stuck with me & I now gravitate toward scopes that perform in low light conditions.
Am I tilting at windmills or are there other aspects I should consider given the fact in good conditions most tier 1 scopes perform equally well?

In good conditions yeah I’d say so. I will say despite being a kahles fan I’ve been a little underwhelmed in regards to low light performance for both my k525i and k318i. They’re not without fault and had i had it to do over again I’d probably spend the money to go ZCO just to try it out. Maybe not for the k318i cause i got a good deal on it and as an ultra short it’s up there with the best. Id say defining factors are really how well they handle mirage, low light performance, and DOF/FOV. Glass past 2000 is more than adequate.

 

[brianf]

i agree on the kahles being "worst in low light"

i have:
SB 5-45 x 56
kahles 10-50 moak
march 10-60 highmaster

all less than 1 year old, and the newest models of their respective models

and the kahles suffers in low light compared to the other 2

when the mag gets above 35 on all 3, the kahles is the dimmest

 

[Lukeshoot85]

i agree on the kahles being "worst in low light"

i have:
SB 5-45 x 56
kahles 10-50 moak
march 10-60 highmaster

all less than 1 year old, and the newest models of their respective models

and the kahles suffers in low light compared to the other 2

when the mag gets above 35 on all 3, the kahles is the dimmest

What are your thoughts on the PMII 5-45? I’d love to get my hands on one, to at least see what schmidt glass actually looks like. I’ve never seen one in the wild!

 

[brianf]

Really nice super bright especially in the upper mid range
Does dim some at 45 but still clear, but that’s to be expected somewhat
At 5 the rest is small but once you find the target you dial up the mag and it “never stops”
Eye box pretty good
It’s big/long if it matters
45x is like cheating, especially if shooting groups
Big bucks but worth it in my book.

 

[Lukeshoot85]

Really nice super bright especially in the upper mid range
Does dim some at 45 but still clear, but that’s to be expected somewhat
At 5 the rest is small but once you find the target you dial up the mag and it “never stops”
Eye box pretty good
It’s big/long if it matters
45x is like cheating, especially if shooting groups
Big bucks but worth it in my book.

When you go to 45x do you find that the center reticle is thicker than you would prefer? Or does it stay pretty fine? And if it is fine at 45x is it pretty hard to see on the lower magnification?

 

[ColdBlood]

I have the ATACR 7-35x56 for my Barrett MRAD and a couple of Leupold Mk 6 3-18x44's for some 308 builds (one bolt, one gas), along with some various NXS and VX-R scopes. In my experience, Nightforce glass is almost always a smidge better, generally speaking. That said, Leupold glass is always close enough for my liking, and they usually weigh considerably less. If I'm spending $2-3K+ on a scope, it's most likely going to be either Leupold or Nightforce...and it depends on whether weight or glass is my biggest priority, which varies dependent upon the rifle.

As a loose rule of thumb, if I'm building a lightweight rifle - one I want to be able to shoot off-hand, I want a lightweight scope - and Leupold is where I usually look. The Mk 6 3-18x44 with rings or a lightweight AR mount is well under 30 oz. That gives me the ability to configure a rifle that I can shoot off-hand or at 1,000 yards.

If I'm going strictly for glass on a rifle that I'll never shoot off-hand (like my Barrett), and weight's not so much a concern, it's probably going to be Nightforce. They're super tough, typically reasonably priced (well, the SHV or NXS at least), and the glass is hard not to love.

I just recently compared a Leupold VX-5HD (same glass as Mk 5HD) 3-15x side-by-side with a Vortex Viper PST Gen II 3-15x at my local dealer. Much to my surprise, I ended up with the Vortex because the glass was noticeably brighter and the field of view is insane on the Vortex (41 feet at 100 yards on 3x - insane). The 5HD glass isn't at all bad, but they definitely have some stiff competition...especially if you don't mind a slightly heavier scope.

Anyways...if you're looking in the 30x magnification range, I'd stick with Nightforce (NXS or ATACR), Vortex Razor (gets up to 27x anyways) or maybe even the Trijicon 4.5-30x. I haven't looked through a 5-25x Mark 5HD, but I can't imagine it being any better than the glass in the 3-15x, and I can tell you that the 3 other brands I mentioned will have the nicer glass.

 

[5RWill]

Anyways...if you're looking in the 30x magnification range, I'd stick with Nightforce (NXS or ATACR), Vortex Razor (gets up to 27x anyways) or maybe even the Trijicon 4.5-30x. I haven't looked through a 5-25x Mark 5HD, but I can't imagine it being any better than the glass in the 3-15x, and I can tell you that the 3 other brands I mentioned will have the nicer glass.

So the VX5HD =/=MK5. Though even then i'd almost venture to suggest you had a bad sample. That's news to me that the MK5 uses the same glass as the VX5HD, having said that could be different coating and obviously different execution. The MK5 is a huge improvement upon the MK6. That scope (MK6) might be one of the worst (IMHO) Leupold has fielded. I hated that optic with a passion. The MK5 was them getting that package right despite the erector change. Granted i have very limited use with the VX5HD but am very familiar with the MK5. We own three Gen II PSTs (1-6, 3-15, 5-25) they're not comparable to the MK5. Maybe people prefer the contrast of the PST (what i think most people seem to judge glass on), but the resolution, edge to edge clarity, and low light performance all go to the Mark 5. The Mark 5 is to an ATACR as a Gen II razor, Athlon Cronus, or DMR II Pro/XRS II is I.E. very similar/comparable. My sample was and most in the MK5 thread seem to agree. I'd urge you to try one i'd think you'd be pleasantly surprised (coming from a former MK6 owner). I'd honestly argue for the money the Gen II razor, MK5, and DMR II pro are the best deals on the market. If Leupold could just field a semi decent tree reticle my rifles would be littered with MK5s.

 

[Jonnyb0381]

So the VX5HD =/=MK5. The MK5 is a huge improvement upon the MK6. That scope (MK6) might be one of the worst (IMHO) Leupold has fielded. I hated that optic with a passion. The MK5 was them getting that package right despite the erector change. Granted i have very limited use with the VX5HD but am very familiar with the MK5. We own three Gen II PSTs (1-6, 3-15, 5-25) they're not comparable to the MK5. Maybe people prefer the contrast of the PST (what i think most people seem to judge glass on), but the resolution, edge to edge clarity, and low light performance all go to the Mark 5. The Mark 5 is to an ATACR as a Gen II razor, Athlon Cronus, or DMR II Pro/XRS II is I.E. very similar/comparable. My sample was and most in the MK5 thread seem to agree. I'd urge you to try one i'd think you'd be pleasantly surprised (coming from a former MK6 owner). I'd honestly argue for the money the Gen II razor, MK5, and DMR II pro are the best deals on the market. If Leupold could just field a semi decent tree reticle my rifles would be littered with MK5s.

I want to get my hands on a Zero Compromise and a Minox ZP5. Any experience with these optics?

 

[5RWill]

I want to get my hands on a Zero Compromise and a Minox ZP5. Any experience with these optics?

I've only had short time behind the ZP5 and it does as far as glass quality is concerned live up to the hype. Not to knock my K525i but what the K525i exhibits at intermittent magnification range as far as glass quality is concerned, the ZP5 does so and caries it to 25x with a larger FOV and much better DOF. It's gorgeous. Wasn't wild about the turrets or size but that's neither here nor there. Though i always hear about reliability issues with the ZP5 and to be fair that particular sample i looked through my friend was worried about whether or not it's tracking properly. For the price they can be had at, i'd be willing to try one.

I have no experience with ZCO and when they announced wanted to jump on board but really thought the k525i would've panned out a little better than it did. Don't get me wrong it's a great optic. It just comes with compromises (no pun intended) despite making improvements most wanted to see from the k624i (increased resolution, better DOF, much better CA control). Lots are absolutely raving about ZCO and it sounds like Jeff & Nick hit a homerun with this optic. It's not TT pricing but nipping at the heels of TT quality while giving the shooters pretty much everything they want (minus some differences among us). If i had it to do over again i'd have jumped on the 527 with the MCPT2, even despite my dislike for locking turrets.

 

[Jonnyb0381]

I've only had short time behind the ZP5 and it does as far as glass quality is concerned live up to the hype. Not to knock my K525i but what the K525i exhibits at intermittent magnification range as far as glass quality is concerned, the ZP5 does so and caries it to 25x with a larger FOV and much better DOF. It's gorgeous. Wasn't wild about the turrets or size but that's neither here nor there. Though i always hear about reliability issues with the ZP5 and to be fair that particular sample i looked through my friend was worried about whether or not it's tracking properly. For the price they can be had at, i'd be willing to try one.

I have no experience with ZCO and when they announced wanted to jump on board but really thought the k525i would've panned out a little better than it did. Don't get me wrong it's a great optic. It just comes with compromises (no pun intended) despite making improvements most wanted to see from the k624i (increased resolution, better DOF, much better CA control). Lots are absolutely raving about ZCO and it sounds like Jeff & Nick hit a homerun with this optic. It's not TT pricing but nipping at the heels of TT quality while giving the shooters pretty much everything they want (minus some differences among us). If i had it to do over again i'd have jumped on the 527 with the MCPT2, even despite my dislike for locking turrets.

Thank you for the feedback!

 

[brianf]

When you go to 45x do you find that the center reticle is thicker than you would prefer? Or does it stay pretty fine? And if it is fine at 45x is it pretty hard to see on the lower magnification?

Trrmor3 ret has a center dot with some dead space, when at max power it still ok.
The ret is small at the bottom but once up to 10 it’s fine. Plus with the sb illumination knob with a off position between brightness settings I just rotate one “click” and it’s right there.

 

[ColdBlood]

So the VX5HD =/=MK5. Though even then i'd almost venture to suggest you had a bad sample. That's news to me that the MK5 uses the same glass as the VX5HD, having said that could be different coating and obviously different execution. The MK5 is a huge improvement upon the MK6. That scope (MK6) might be one of the worst (IMHO) Leupold has fielded. I hated that optic with a passion. The MK5 was them getting that package right despite the erector change. Granted i have very limited use with the VX5HD but am very familiar with the MK5. We own three Gen II PSTs (1-6, 3-15, 5-25) they're not comparable to the MK5. Maybe people prefer the contrast of the PST (what i think most people seem to judge glass on), but the resolution, edge to edge clarity, and low light performance all go to the Mark 5. The Mark 5 is to an ATACR as a Gen II razor, Athlon Cronus, or DMR II Pro/XRS II is I.E. very similar/comparable. My sample was and most in the MK5 thread seem to agree. I'd urge you to try one i'd think you'd be pleasantly surprised (coming from a former MK6 owner). I'd honestly argue for the money the Gen II razor, MK5, and DMR II pro are the best deals on the market. If Leupold could just field a semi decent tree reticle my rifles would be littered with MK5s.

As far as I know, the Mk5HD glass is the same as VX-5HD, but you’re correct the execution is entirely different (including coatings).

I also think you’re correct on contrast being a big deciding factor for many when determine which glass they like...but if someone did a lot of hunting, you can see how contrast would be important. For me, contrast is important, but light transmission has to be there too.

I will have to give the Mk5 a look sometime. I actually have an NXS 5.5-22 that could use replacing...maybe that’ll be my que to try the 5-25x Mk 5.

I don’t mind my Mk6’s at all...in fact, for what the 3-18x is (ultra-compact/lightweight scope), it may be one of my favorites. It’s not a Razor HD, but then again it weighs in at 23 oz instead of 46 oz. That said, I’m thinking a Razor still may end up on my AICS/700.

As for the VX-5HD...I tried a couple. I wanted to like it better, but was really left underwhelmed with contrast and field of view compared to the PST Gen II. I’m sure if you look at them on paper the VX is the better all-around scope...hell, I would bet money it’s a better scope overall, but for the calling rifle that I was scope shopping for, I wanted that vortex’s contrast...anything to help me see a coyote before he sees me. There’s still plenty I don’t like about the PST Gen II line, but for the role this one was going to fill, I just couldn’t bring myself to buy that VX-5HD. And I walked in there expecting that’s what I’d be leaving with.

 

[Jonnyb0381]

As far as I know, the Mk5HD glass is the same as VX-5HD, but you’re correct the execution is entirely different (including coatings).

I also think you’re correct on contrast being a big deciding factor for many when determine which glass they like...but if someone did a lot of hunting, you can see how contrast would be important. For me, contrast is important, but light transmission has to be there too.

I will have to give the Mk5 a look sometime. I actually have an NXS 5.5-22 that could use replacing...maybe that’ll be my que to try the 5-25x Mk 5.

I don’t mind my Mk6’s at all...in fact, for what the 3-18x is (ultra-compact/lightweight scope), it may be one of my favorites. It’s not a Razor HD, but then again it weighs in at 23 oz instead of 46 oz. That said, I’m thinking a Razor still may end up on my AICS/700.

As for the VX-5HD...I tried a couple. I wanted to like it better, but was really left underwhelmed with contrast and field of view compared to the PST Gen II. I’m sure if you look at them on paper the VX is the better all-around scope...hell, I would bet money it’s a better scope overall, but for the calling rifle that I was scope shopping for, I wanted that vortex’s contrast...anything to help me see a coyote before he sees me. There’s still plenty I don’t like about the PST Gen II line, but for the role this one was going to fill, I just couldn’t bring myself to buy that VX-5HD. And I walked in there expecting that’s what I’d be leaving with.

I believe the MK5 and the Vx6 have the same glass not the Vx5. I do know for certain that the MK5 and the MK 8 have the same glass.
The Leupold rep told me that.

 

[ColdBlood]

I believe the MK5 and the Vx6 have the same glass not the Vx5. I do know for certain that the MK5 and the MK 8 have the same glass.
The Leupold rep told me that.

You know, I bet you’re right...now that I think of it, I’m pretty sure I still had my old VX-6 back when I talked to someone there, so that’s probably what I was thinking of. That VX-6 was a great optic for the $1200 or so I paid...just really hated the reticle I chose.

I’ve not looked through a Mk 8, but I sure would like to...never seen one for sale at a brick and mortar.

 

[5RWill]

I believe the MK5 and the Vx6 have the same glass not the Vx5. I do know for certain that the MK5 and the MK 8 have the same glass.
The Leupold rep told me that.

This is what i thought i had heard as well, though i couldn't remember a source and checked my message with a rep but we didn't discuss the MK5 glass more or less just the MK6 short comings.

You know, I bet you’re right...now that I think of it, I’m pretty sure I still had my old VX-6 back when I talked to someone there, so that’s probably what I was thinking of. That VX-6 was a great optic for the $1200 or so I paid...just really hated the reticle I chose.

I’ve not looked through a Mk 8, but I sure would like to...never seen one for sale at a brick and mortar.

I think you'll be pleasantly surprised with the MK5. It's to note i'm speaking mainly of the 5-25, i'm sure given the design of it's little brother the 3.5-18 is going to have compromises but from shortly being behind one at DST here and talking to other members it really is the MK6 rectified, albeit with a slight weight increase.

As i said though i can assure you it's better than the PSTs. Don't get me wrong either the PSTs are a lot for the money, i mean frankly years ago we wouldn't have dreamed of a scope that nice with those features at that price point. But the MK5 is the last generations $2500 optic essentially for a good bit cheaper. My real gripe is the damn reticle selection. If Leupold put a dot or left the TMR open and had a tree on it or 2/10th horizontal holds oh man would i have a couple of em. I've got a spot on my SPR that needs filling but Dental School is hampering pretty much everything right now. Though if Leupold can't design a good reticle by the time i get there, the 2.5-20x50 NX8 is probably going to fill that role.

 

[ColdBlood]

This is what i thought i had heard as well, though i couldn't remember a source and checked my message with a rep but we didn't discuss the MK5 glass more or less just the MK6 short comings.



I think you'll be pleasantly surprised with the MK5. It's to note i'm speaking mainly of the 5-25, i'm sure given the design of it's little brother the 3.5-18 is going to have compromises but from shortly being behind one at DST here and talking to other members it really is the MK6 rectified, albeit with a slight weight increase.

As i said though i can assure you it's better than the PSTs. Don't get me wrong either the PSTs are a lot for the money, i mean frankly years ago we wouldn't have dreamed of a scope that nice with those features at that price point. But the MK5 is the last generations $2500 optic essentially for a good bit cheaper. My real gripe is the damn reticle selection. If Leupold put a dot or left the TMR open and had a tree on it or 2/10th horizontal holds oh man would i have a couple of em. I've got a spot on my SPR that needs filling but Dental School is hampering pretty much everything right now. Though if Leupold can't design a good reticle by the time i get there, the 2.5-20x50 NX8 is probably going to fill that role.

A firedot version of a good long range reticle would be fantastic...especially on a FFP scope at lower magnification, which is where a fine reticle can hurt you. Then just switch it off if you find it distracting when using holds at longer range.

I have a couple VX-R patrols on AR carbines and (IMHO) their firedot system is the best thing since sliced bread for faster paced short-medium range shooting. Turns on when you pick it up, keeps your preferred setting and turns itself off when you’re done. They nailed it on the intensity settings too...you can always get it set to where it’s obviously red and emitting a noticeable amount of light without any bleeding or glowing. My oldest one is 3 years old and I just changed the battery for the first time.

Keep talking like that about that Mark 5HD 5-25 and you might get my NXS 5.5-22 fired.

 

[roamin]

22mils of up elevation with my ATACR 7-35 on the AXSA with it's 20moa rail and I'm getting 35.6mils of total travel this guy in in the video below is getting 37mils. NF lists 100moa of elevation in it's specs but it's more like 125moa. Under promise over deliver I guess.

For those of you MK5 owners what does the MK5 have?

 

[Jonnyb0381]

22mils of up elevation with my ATACR 7-35 on the AXSA with it's 20moa rail and I'm getting 35.6mils of total travel this guy in in the video below is getting 37mils. NF lists 100moa of elevation in it's specs but it's more like 125moa. Under promise over deliver I guess.

For those of you MK5 owners what does the MK5 have?

Not the typical tall target test but hey, whatever's clever. It doesnt take any convincing NF is a solid scope from front to back.

 

[roamin]

Not the typical tall target test but hey, whatever's clever. It doesnt take any convincing NF is a solid scope from front to back.

There was a thread months ago about the total elevation being closer to 125moa in which a member here posted a video of himself going though the entire adjustment range and I think he was gettting around 36mils but I can't find the video or the thread.

 

[chevy_man]

22mils of up elevation with my ATACR 7-35 on the AXSA with it's 20moa rail and I'm getting 35.6mils of total travel this guy in in the video below is getting 37mils. NF lists 100moa of elevation in it's specs but it's more like 125moa. Under promise over deliver I guess.

For those of you MK5 owners what does the MK5 have?

My Mark 5 5-25 is mounted on a 0 moa base and I have 27 mills from my zero (only need 13 to hit 1100, so it's plenty for me). I never did spin the turret all the way down, and don't really feel like losing my zero right now. I'll have to check when I get my match rifle built and it gets moved.

 

[roamin]

My Mark 5 5-25 is mounted on a 0 moa base and I have 27 mills from my zero (only need 13 to hit 1100, so it's plenty for me). I never did spin the turret all the way down, and don't really feel like losing my zero right now. I'll have to check when I get my match rifle built and it gets moved.

Leupold lists it at 100moa so that's around 29.1 mils total elevation which should be 1/2 that on a 0 moa base which would be 14.6 mils that you can dial from zero. You're saying that you've got 27 mils that you can dial up from zero? Now the ATACR having 125moa of total elevation is a known affair you can go back to the 7-35 ATACR threads where it's discussed and documented.

 

[Faronth]

Leupold lists it at 100moa so that's around 29.1 mils total elevation which should be 1/2 that on a 0 moa base which would be 14.6 mils that you can dial from zero. You're saying that you've got 27 mils that you can dial up from zero? Now the ATACR having 125moa of total elevation is a known affair you can go back to the 7-35 ATACR threads where it's discussed and documented.

If you are referring to the adjustment range of the Mark 5 5x25x56 above, Leupold actually lists it as 120 MOA/34.9 MIL elevation and 60MOA/17.5 MIL windage.

https://www.leupold.com/scopes/rifle-scopes/mark-5hd-5-25x56

Scroll down a bit and click the Specifications tab for the numbers.

This seems to be in line with mine.

 

[roamin]

If you are referring to the adjustment range of the Mark 5 5x25x56 above, Leupold actually lists it as 120 MOA/34.9 MIL elevation and 60MOA/17.5 MIL windage.

https://www.leupold.com/scopes/rifle-scopes/mark-5hd-5-25x56

Scroll down a bit and click the Specifications tab for the numbers.

This seems to be in line with mine.

Ah no I'm not referring to the MK5 5-25 this thread would be on the ATACR 7-35 vs the MK5 7-35. Leupold lists the elevation adjustment range of the MK5 7-35 at 100moa.

Thank you for catching that I didn't realize he gave me the elevation range for his 5-25. When you gain the extra magnification you loose elevation so I don't know why he thought those specs for the 25x be would comparable to the 35x.

 

[Faronth]

When you gain the extra magnification you loose elevation so I don't know why he thought those specs for the 25x be would comparable to the 35x.

Good Point.

 

[chevy_man]

Ah no I'm not referring to the MK5 5-25 this thread would be on the ATACR 7-35 vs the MK5 7-35. Leupold lists the elevation adjustment range of the MK5 7-35 at 100moa.

Thank you for catching that I didn't realize he gave me the elevation range for his 5-25. When you gain the extra magnification you loose elevation so I don't know why he thought those specs for the 25x be would comparable to the 35x.

I didn't catch the change in specs. For some reason I thought the website listed them the same for elevation travel.

My mistake. Carry on!

 

[Mattv931]

Just got my mk5hd 7-35x56 sfp in a few days ago. Zeroed it in at 100 today. Wow this thing is amazing! I'd really like to do a side by side comparison with the atacr 7-35x56.

 

[wade2big]

@Mattv931
At which power is the reticle correct?

 

[Mattv931]

@Mattv931
At which power is the reticle correct?

At 18x it is correct. I personally like sfp becuase I dont shoot competition and dont need to measure with the reticle. This scope is awsome though, I would highly recommend it. Time will tell with how durable it is. I'm going to put these turrets to the test but so far this is one bad mf'er!