Rifle Scopes Mark 6 3-18x44 M5C2

[ChrisAU]

Can't find much recent feedback on these. Looking for a light FFP MIL/MIL option for my primary hunting rifle and keep coming back to this. I've had a 3.6-18x44 Mark 5HD, and currently have a 5-25x56 on a long range rifle, but trying to keep an eye on weight on this rifle. The Mark 6 is 3 oz lighter and has a much wider low end FOV than the 3.6-18 Mark 5HD. I also don't want a rail on this rifle and there are more mounting options for 34mm vs 35mm. Leupold is still making them so I guess people are still buying them, wondering if anyone has done a side by side with the 3.6-18 5HD? Again, the weight and FOV are clear wins, but from what I can find the 5HD actually has better glass?

Open to any suggestions of sub 23 oz FFP MIL/MIL scopes for alternatives. Would actually prefer a 30mm scope.

 

[beetroot]

Can't find much recent feedback on these. Looking for a light FFP MIL/MIL option for my primary hunting rifle and keep coming back to this. I've had a 3.6-18x44 Mark 5HD, and currently have a 5-25x56 on a long range rifle, but trying to keep an eye on weight on this rifle. The Mark 6 is 3 oz lighter and has a much wider low end FOV than the 3.6-18 Mark 5HD. I also don't want a rail on this rifle and there are more mounting options for 34mm vs 35mm. Leupold is still making them so I guess people are still buying them, wondering if anyone has done a side by side with the 3.6-18 5HD? Again, the weight and FOV are clear wins, but from what I can find the 5HD actually has better glass?

Open to any suggestions of sub 23 oz FFP MIL/MIL scopes for alternatives. Would actually prefer a 30mm scope.

@Bevan had a thread a few years back about his one that the tracking was miles off.
Seems to have preformed well post repair.

He seems to have tried most lighter weight FFP scopes so can hopefully comment.

I too wish the Mark 5hd had kept the same FOV of the Mark 6.

 

[1911hombre]

Remember, low mag is 20% higher on the Mk5. About nine feet difference FOV @ 100 yards. I've had both of these scopes, and IMO the Mk5 is the clear winner. The Mk6's are long in the tooth to say the least. Also, and I know you've got a weight limit in mind, but the 4-16x42 ATACR is 34mm and I doubt you'd notice the weight difference in the field. You'd love it.

 

[ChrisAU]

Remember, low mag is 20% higher on the Mk5. About nine feet difference FOV @ 100 yards. I've had both of these scopes, and IMO the Mk5 is the clear winner. The Mk6's are long in the tooth to say the least. Also, and I know you've got a weight limit in mind, but the 4-16x42 ATACR is 34mm and I doubt you'd notice the weight difference in the field. You'd love it.

Yeah the ATACR is too chubby for this one, had one before and they are nice. That 9ft of FOV difference makes the 5HD have 75% of the FOV of the 6 at lowest available mag, pretty substantial. And again I love my Mark 5, just wondering if anyone has recent experience with a 6 because the specs have me curious is all.

 

[jdbazz]

I have a non-illuminated Mk6 3-18 and it tracks perfectly.

I like the Mk5 but 3oz is a lot when trying to reduce overall rifle weight.

 

[Bevan]

Mine didn't track straight from the factory. I sent it back and now it's flawless. I like it. The only comparable competitor in the weight range is the March F 3-24 which is possibly a better scope although the magnification over 18x is more or less useless and the FML1 reticle isn't as good as the FFP TMR

 

[chevy_man]

It seemed that a majority of the tracking issues were with the B series turrets.

The glass could be better, but it's a solid scope.