Rifle Scopes mil/mil - NF 2.5-10 vs. Leupold Mark 4 3.5-10 (M5)

[BaileyMoto]

I guess I've been out of the loop, but I didn't realize Leupold had mil turrets these days. I just bought the Bushnell 4200 (just hard to pass up at the current price), but I will likely buy another scope here in the near future and move the Bushnell to another rifle. What I am looking for is:

Somewhat smaller objective (smaller than 50)
Mil turrets (matching reticle, of course)
Relatively compact design
I'd like a bit more than 10x, but I don't want to jump to a 50mm objective)

I think I'd prefer the NF, but Leupold offers the TMR reticle.

What are your thoughts when comparing these 2 scopes?

FYI, this is going on a Mk12

 

[wareagle700]

Re: mil/mil - NF 2.5-10 vs. Leupold Mark 4 3.5-10 (M5)

I'd go with the Nightforce.

 

[Drifter™]

Re: mil/mil - NF 2.5-10 vs. Leupold Mark 4 3.5-10 (M5)

Among other scopes, I currently own a NF 2.5-10x32mm, a Leupold 3.5-10x40mm M3 SFP, and a Leupold 4.5-14x50mm M5 FFP. Thus, I have some firsthand experience with the features of the scopes you're considering.

Glass quality seems essentially the same.

Because the NF's illumination is too bright at its lowest setting for my taste, and the NF lacks parallax adjustment (which I think it needs), I suggest the Leupold.

Wish the Leupold had a zero-stop, but not necessarily a deal-breaker. And I'm trending away from illuminated reticles for my applications.

Both are good for the money. (NF prices are pretty much the same everywhere, but better-than-you-might-think prices can be found for the Leupold.)

 

[flyboy]

Re: mil/mil - NF 2.5-10 vs. Leupold Mark 4 3.5-10 (M5)

The Nightforce all the way, you'll be shocked how much light they gather, even for the very small objective.

 

[Driftwood]

Re: mil/mil - NF 2.5-10 vs. Leupold Mark 4 3.5-10 (M5)

For the price of a SFP NF scope you can get a FFP Leupold in the same power range. You will not get an illuminated reticle, zero stop or "high speed" turrets. It really would depend on what was important to you personally. I went with a Leupold MK4 ER/T M5, but I wanted to drink the FFP Koolaid. It will cost you almost twice as much to go FFP in a NF scope.

 

[Drifter™]

Re: mil/mil - NF 2.5-10 vs. Leupold Mark 4 3.5-10 (M5)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: flyboy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Nightforce all the way, you'll be shocked how much light they gather, even for the very small objective. </div></div>

I've compared the NF 2.5-10x32mm scope and Leupold 3.5-10x40mm scope side-by-side on several different evenings (in low light).

The Leupold wins by a small margin when scopes are set to the same power, likely due to the larger objective / exit pupil.

If both scopes are set to an exit pupil of ~7mm (maximum that the human pupil can dilate to), light transmission is essentially the same. But the Leupold, with the larger objective lens, has a ~7mm exit pupil at ~5.7x power compared to ~4.5 power for the NF.

Best I can tell, these particular scopes have very similar glass quality and light transmission.

Other models from these manufacturers might be a different story, but regarding the scopes discussed in this thread, a potential buyer should choose the model with their particular desired features.

It's difficult to say that either is a wrong choice, or that either is superior. But someone might prefer one's features over the other.

 

[frankythefly]

Re: mil/mil - NF 2.5-10 vs. Leupold Mark 4 3.5-10 (M5)

I like the Leupold Mark 4 3.5-10 with m3 or M2 turrets. The turrets are MOA and the Reticle is MIL but it doesn't effect me. I just range turn the dial to the BDC and then adjust up or down from there. The 168 turret ended up being really close the trajectory of the 77 smk that I was shooting. I just sold one of my fav Mark 4s and it had the best glass in a scope of that size. Also the m3 and m2 stop at zero. I know a ton of guys who shim the m5 turrets acting like a zero stop. If you can wait and save some money I would look into one of the new 1-8 power scopes coming out Like the Premier V8, or S&B 1-8.

 

[BaileyMoto]

Re: mil/mil - NF 2.5-10 vs. Leupold Mark 4 3.5-10 (M5)

I can acquire the Leupold at a considerably cheaper price (a tick under $1100) and I'm really liking the TMR reticle. This is going to be a hard choice.

 

[KeithR41]

Re: mil/mil - NF 2.5-10 vs. Leupold Mark 4 3.5-10 (M5)

NF all the way. The TMR is a great reticle until you get to the open center, which SUCKS!

Did I mention the open center on the TMR SUCKS?

Others may like it but I really think it SUCKS!

41

 

[Red_SC]

Re: mil/mil - NF 2.5-10 vs. Leupold Mark 4 3.5-10 (M5)

The open center is the best part of a TMR.

IMO.

 

[edward r homeyer]

Re: mil/mil - NF 2.5-10 vs. Leupold Mark 4 3.5-10 (M5)

NF FFP 3.5-15 is a good scope. Leupolds are good also I have the 6.5-20 withe A Horus H58. And you can never go wrong with a S&B they make the PM2 in 4-16. They are all quality scopes.

 

[BaileyMoto]

Re: mil/mil - NF 2.5-10 vs. Leupold Mark 4 3.5-10 (M5)

Well, I'm just now more confused as to which one to go with.

What I think I will do is mount the Bushnell 3-12 FFP that I ordered when I get back to the states and shoot the crap out of it and decide from there. I think the FFP will end up being the deciding factor for me. Some people prefer to not go with FFP on scopes 10x and less, I may end up feeling the same way (I've never owned one). On paper, it seems FFP makes more sense with scopes that have higher magnification and/or very large variations of magnification. In practice, I may be wrong about that...guess I'll have to see for myself. When at a distance that I may default to using the mil system to range (a varmint, for instance), I feel that I would most likely just dial to the highest (10x) magnification anyways.

$1100 vs $1500
TMR vs Mil-dot
Illumination vs none
FFP vs SFP
NXS is slightly more compact (Which I prefer for this rifle)

Minor difference...but it makes it a difficult choice.

 

[Drifter™]

Re: mil/mil - NF 2.5-10 vs. Leupold Mark 4 3.5-10 (M5)

If you hunt in low light, the FFP will be beneficial even in 10x-max scopes. Typically, the power has to be backed off as it gets darker to get sufficient light transmission. Doing so on a SFP will render the reticle useless except for the center point.

If that's not your application, SFP might serve you fine.

 

[Alpine 338]

Re: mil/mil - NF 2.5-10 vs. Leupold Mark 4 3.5-10 (M5)

I have the Mk4 3.5-10 FFP M5 and went with the MilDot only because I feel the TMR reticle is useless below 10X, and the MilDot would be better off in low light conditions.

If I had to do it over again, I would have spent a little more and would have gone with the 6.5-20 with the TMR reticle only because I don't find myself ever dialing down in magnification on my current scope. It's mounted on my Rem 5R in 223, and so far only shoot paper and steel plate with it.

I had a Nightforce 3-15x50 at one time, and although IMHO they are better scopes then Leupold, they are a larger and longer scope and are ruled out when looking for a smaller, more compact scope. But with your Military discount, you can't go wrong with the Leupold.

With Nightforce now (or soon) offering the new MLR2 reticle, I may add one of those to my wish list, especially if they offer it in the 5.5-22x50 with FFP.

 

[k7714]

Re: mil/mil - NF 2.5-10 vs. Leupold Mark 4 3.5-10 (M5)

I have a NF 2.5-10 on my 18" compass lake and love it. I like the Mildots over TMR. you can't see much of the TMR especially if you are talking FFP.
FWIW, i find no difference in the 24 or 32 mm objective NF.

I"ve run pretty much all the Leupolds except the M5. I'm not a leupold basher so i'm not gonna steer you away from that. but i love my frigin NF. NO regrets at all sticking that on my 18". Its probly my favorite rifle and one of my favorite optics...behind a S&B.

Kevin

 

[7mmRM]

Re: mil/mil - NF 2.5-10 vs. Leupold Mark 4 3.5-10 (M5)

Nightforce all the way.

IMO, FFP on a 3-10 or like mag range is useless. Again, IMO, one would be better served with illuminated reticle, zero stop, etc.

I also feel the the NXS has a much better eye box than the Leupold.

And ya, open center reticles suck! lol!