-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes So, what about Leupold Mark 5 ?
- Thread starter longshot2000
- Start date
Each elevation click is .099 mils instead of .100 mils. It is also possible that my “test fixture” isn’t as secure as I hoped, and the error I’m seeing is the result of vibrations from the clicking gradually moving the rifle. I can actually see some pretty gross movements while I turn the turret if I look through the scope while I’m doing it. However, I ran the turrets up and down many times, and they had the same amount of error every time and always landed right back on the zero on my board when I zeroed the turret. Plus, the visible vibration from turning the turrets didn’t show any error in my XRS once everything stopped moving.
I might send the scope back in to get this and the very slight reticle cant corrected, but I’m not sure what Leupold’s tolerances are on these things. The cant is unnoticeable without dialing around 10 mils of elevation with the reticle aligned with a vertical target.
Edited to add: when I hear people talk about tracking problems, I usually understand it to mean issues with consistency of adjustment value, repeatability, and returning to zero. This scope has consistent adjustments, lands at the same place every time with a given adjustment, and returns to zero perfectly (i.e. it passes a box test). The issue here is solely with the adjustment value, which, while consistent and repeatable, is slightly off the nominal value.
Last edited:
These are my FIRST impressions only and very minimal time spent with it other then finger banging it and setting diopter.
Glass appears to be on par and I would say better then the Vortex Gen II Razor. A little bit of CA was obvious from the get go BUT, I expected this. It’s not as bad as the Mk6’s. CA was also dependent on back ground as well. Clarity to edge was excellent.
Turrets have very little if any play, but they just barely and I mean barely don’t line up exactly so if this is somehting that really bothers you then know now it’s there, at least on this one it is.
Turret clicks are nice and tactile but not as tactile as I prefer. I much prefer S&B or NF turrets more.
I purchased the Illuminated TMR through Lanbos Armory which are excellent to deal with and great CS/Prices. I got it for sub $2000 shipped so based on my short evaluation I think this scope is a value, esapcially at the non-illuminated Prices.
I wish Leupold would have actually spent the money to make it a viable $2499 scope though but for less then $2000 I think it’s hard to beat but I’ll save my final thoughts until new gun arrives and I put it through its paces.
Glass appears to be on par and I would say better then the Vortex Gen II Razor. A little bit of CA was obvious from the get go BUT, I expected this. It’s not as bad as the Mk6’s. CA was also dependent on back ground as well. Clarity to edge was excellent.
Turrets have very little if any play, but they just barely and I mean barely don’t line up exactly so if this is somehting that really bothers you then know now it’s there, at least on this one it is.
Turret clicks are nice and tactile but not as tactile as I prefer. I much prefer S&B or NF turrets more.
I purchased the Illuminated TMR through Lanbos Armory which are excellent to deal with and great CS/Prices. I got it for sub $2000 shipped so based on my short evaluation I think this scope is a value, esapcially at the non-illuminated Prices.
I wish Leupold would have actually spent the money to make it a viable $2499 scope though but for less then $2000 I think it’s hard to beat but I’ll save my final thoughts until new gun arrives and I put it through its paces.
Last edited:
Got home a little late but had some time to take them out and compare them. I can finally say it's the first scope i've bought that does indeed have better glass than my USO SN-3. I had them both on 9x starting at sunset looking at the deer behind the IPSC which is 800yds away, i'm thinking roughly 1100yds or so. 23 minutes after sunset the Leupold edged it out. Which it should in this category given the specs. I could make out the entire silhouette with the Leupold and couldn't see her with my SN-3 until she started running down the CRP line and her tail was up.
I thought i might of caught a hint of CA at first but i'll give a more definite opinion tomorrow during the day. Eyebox is tight at 25x. Though i might have a bit of work to do on positioning the scope. Edge to edge clarity and resolution are up there for sure. My knobs also don't line up but i've never had an optic that did this perfectly from the factory and as long as i can get them lined up fiddling with it, i'll be fine. Next weekend i should be shooting in laurel at an F class match and put against an ATACR 5-25
Take the pics with a grain of salt as you all know, my iphone SE with me holding it mid air certainly isn't indication of the glass quality.
I thought i might of caught a hint of CA at first but i'll give a more definite opinion tomorrow during the day. Eyebox is tight at 25x. Though i might have a bit of work to do on positioning the scope. Edge to edge clarity and resolution are up there for sure. My knobs also don't line up but i've never had an optic that did this perfectly from the factory and as long as i can get them lined up fiddling with it, i'll be fine. Next weekend i should be shooting in laurel at an F class match and put against an ATACR 5-25
Take the pics with a grain of salt as you all know, my iphone SE with me holding it mid air certainly isn't indication of the glass quality.
Alright so finally got to put it through it's paces...well to some degree. I didn't get to see if it was tracking because i chambered a round that was a bit rough to chamber with my Tempest, pulled it out and the case and powder came with it and the bullet stayed put. Didn't have a rod with me so needless to say my gun went down. I was having a hard time getting it zero'd but i'm putting that on myself, because to be frank, i was shooting terrible. Idk how some of you do it but if i'm absent from shooting for a couple of months i basically have to start over. Well it took three hours to calm down and i finally printed some decent groups with dad's 6.5 SAUM (unfortunately his Zeiss V6 isn't holding zero).
Anyhow enough of my rambling here are some updated pics. Scopes to compare it to where again my USO SN-3 and dad's Zeiss V6 3-18. Have to give Zeiss some credit for a scope that is nearly $600-1000 less than the two it's up against it really holds it's own. Though this is nothing new from Zeiss as my Conquest for the money is no slouch for it's price range.
Going back to the clicks while audible and pretty tactile just don't have enough resistance between them IMHO. Don't get me wrong it's not some detriment like the M5B2s were, they're solid knobs but could use a little work. Their windage is much stiffer. I didn't bring the hex allen key to set the zero stop and all either so it could change somewhat. My HDMR II felt better after i had set the zero stop. Though this is all personal preference and completely subjective, i do suggest getting your hands on one if you're considering it and are picky about turrets.
Parallax while smoother than i would prefer as i initially stated worked fine and was pretty generous from 500-800yds. No it doesn't line up quite perfect on the indicating yardage but that is nit picking to me. I've never really used the marking that much, rather i just turn it until the picture looks the clearest to my eye.
The first test was looking at paper at 100yds as i had to zero my rifle and shoot some groups with the 6.5 SAUM. No CA what so ever, again glass continues to impress me. I might have judged the eyebox prematurely while i wont say it's the most comfortable i've been behind it's not as bad as i originally thought. I've had to adjust my cheek weld and am still doing so to try and get it set so it's perfect.
After shooting finally got back to my range to see what it looked like on white steel with the sun beaming down on it. First and foremost maybe it's because i just haven't had a 56mm objective but the thing is ridiculously bright compared to what i'm used to. Very Gen II razor-esque. Colors pop and everything looks vibrant rather than warm like my USO. I set them all on 16x and kept going back and forth between targets to look for CA. This was from 200-800yds in 100yd increments, the Zeiss was the worst at controlling CA. Which was expected. The Leupold came in second, although it's a very close second. It's as mentioned before, almost dependent on cheek weld and where you are in reference behind the scope if you'll see CA. Some viewings i couldn't tell there was any, others i had the faintest smidge.. that is to be fair and honest completely unnoticeable less you were seriously looking for it. When i say faint i mean it's almost completely absent, it was practically unnoticed. Though the USO again has none what so ever, still makes me smile honestly. That scope is approaching 10 years old and it's just been a fabulous piece of glass to me. FWIW i really need a phone skope, what you see below is probably the best i can do holding the phone behind my rifle but good God it takes some patience.
All in all for the money, strictly speaking in terms of glass quality, it is competing above it's price range if you're just going on price alone for the non-illuminated models. Leupold really needs to work on getting the illumination down then i think many more people would consider this a very viable option for those that need illumination. I myself, don't find it necessary. Considering what you can pick up this particular model for at Mile High right now for $1955 it's truthfully the best scope i've been behind in a sub $2000 price bracket, bar none. Yes that includes the Cronus for what short time i spent behind one. I mean if we're being frank it was just a couple of years ago that the ERS was $1999 and there is absolutely no comparison between the two.
Anyhow enough of my rambling here are some updated pics. Scopes to compare it to where again my USO SN-3 and dad's Zeiss V6 3-18. Have to give Zeiss some credit for a scope that is nearly $600-1000 less than the two it's up against it really holds it's own. Though this is nothing new from Zeiss as my Conquest for the money is no slouch for it's price range.
Going back to the clicks while audible and pretty tactile just don't have enough resistance between them IMHO. Don't get me wrong it's not some detriment like the M5B2s were, they're solid knobs but could use a little work. Their windage is much stiffer. I didn't bring the hex allen key to set the zero stop and all either so it could change somewhat. My HDMR II felt better after i had set the zero stop. Though this is all personal preference and completely subjective, i do suggest getting your hands on one if you're considering it and are picky about turrets.
Parallax while smoother than i would prefer as i initially stated worked fine and was pretty generous from 500-800yds. No it doesn't line up quite perfect on the indicating yardage but that is nit picking to me. I've never really used the marking that much, rather i just turn it until the picture looks the clearest to my eye.
The first test was looking at paper at 100yds as i had to zero my rifle and shoot some groups with the 6.5 SAUM. No CA what so ever, again glass continues to impress me. I might have judged the eyebox prematurely while i wont say it's the most comfortable i've been behind it's not as bad as i originally thought. I've had to adjust my cheek weld and am still doing so to try and get it set so it's perfect.
After shooting finally got back to my range to see what it looked like on white steel with the sun beaming down on it. First and foremost maybe it's because i just haven't had a 56mm objective but the thing is ridiculously bright compared to what i'm used to. Very Gen II razor-esque. Colors pop and everything looks vibrant rather than warm like my USO. I set them all on 16x and kept going back and forth between targets to look for CA. This was from 200-800yds in 100yd increments, the Zeiss was the worst at controlling CA. Which was expected. The Leupold came in second, although it's a very close second. It's as mentioned before, almost dependent on cheek weld and where you are in reference behind the scope if you'll see CA. Some viewings i couldn't tell there was any, others i had the faintest smidge.. that is to be fair and honest completely unnoticeable less you were seriously looking for it. When i say faint i mean it's almost completely absent, it was practically unnoticed. Though the USO again has none what so ever, still makes me smile honestly. That scope is approaching 10 years old and it's just been a fabulous piece of glass to me. FWIW i really need a phone skope, what you see below is probably the best i can do holding the phone behind my rifle but good God it takes some patience.
All in all for the money, strictly speaking in terms of glass quality, it is competing above it's price range if you're just going on price alone for the non-illuminated models. Leupold really needs to work on getting the illumination down then i think many more people would consider this a very viable option for those that need illumination. I myself, don't find it necessary. Considering what you can pick up this particular model for at Mile High right now for $1955 it's truthfully the best scope i've been behind in a sub $2000 price bracket, bar none. Yes that includes the Cronus for what short time i spent behind one. I mean if we're being frank it was just a couple of years ago that the ERS was $1999 and there is absolutely no comparison between the two.
Last edited:
This is good to hear, especially as you've said how much you hate CA. All this positive feedback has me itching to grab one and give it a go.
If you can get one below $2000 i'm not sure how anyone could be disappointed given that it tracks at least speaking for the 5-25. They do need better reticle options also, most don't want an upcharge for a decent reticle If politicians weren't oozing for a semi-auto ban i'd go ahead and take Mile High up on their discount and have order a 3.6-18 for the SPR. Part of me does still wish i had gotten an AMG to see what it was like. Partially because i know how the L-tec turrets feel. But the leupold hasn't done anything wrong to warrant being disappointed just yet, less it doesn't track.
I have no reservations about my AMG purchase and will likely pick up another for a .223 trainer rifle. It is only a couple hundred dollars more than the MK5, the glass hits above its price point, turrets are second only to the K624i, the EBR7B is possibly my favorite reticle, and CA is non-existent.
I have been considering the 3.6-18, but with the rumors of a lower power AMG on the horizon I think ill just continue to run the MK6 with M5C2s and TMR reticle on the 6.5 Grendel
The reticle was part of the persuasion too. The discounted price on both was $200 difference but i really do love the H59. Gives me a crutch to lean on on no dial stages. We'll see though. I'm going to run it for a month or so and i still am wanting to scratch that itch for an AMG i'll likely put it up. I feel i could still get most of my money back as it will be in near perfect condition.
The only thing I could possibly see myself switching to would be the new Kahles 525 if it handles CA better than the 624.
Didn't know they were doing a 5-25. Personally i'd like to see one in Bill or ILya's hands again before i jump to Kahles. Seen too many instances or claims of CA to even warrant considering dropping 3k+ on one. Hell at that point they're in TT/ZCO territory and if i'm dropping that kind of cash i'd likely look to them instead, no offense to those that love them. This is of course my personal opinion. I just wasn't sold on the potential $800 difference between it and the Gen II razor when i compared the too, albeit briefly. Someone gives it the go ahead of course i'd reconsider but again at that price i'd really like to give TT or ZCO a shot. Especially ZCO.
Last edited:
K525 Link
I concur, until someone reputable has one in hands and can confirm the amount of CA they will not get my money. Hence why I went AMG instead of K624.
I googled afterwards and found it. Seems to be a silent launch of it because i saw no word from SHOT interesting. Though again at $3300 i wonder how it's going to stack up against TT, ZCO, and the new S&Bs
I didn't get much time stretch it out but it was spot on to 500yds today. Also have the turrets lined up so all is good there.
Yup the zero stop is built into the turret. Dunno that I’d consider it a true zero stop but it works as intended. A little fiddling and you can line the hash marks up.
Thank you for the thoroughness of all your information on the Leupold Mark 5 5-25x56 Will! Regarding the Kahles K525i, I knew it was coming but was surprised it was introduced so soon and yet nothing mentioned at SHOT, my guess is this scope won't show up for a while, but they didn't want to lose market share to ZCO or other manufactures and are hoping the announcement alone will be enough to keep those interested waiting.
My ability to test Kahles scopes may be a bit limited now that they are distributed by Swarovski. In the last several years I have not been able to get anyone at Swarovski North America to get back to me and I do not like to spend a lot of time chasing after people. They are always perfectly friendly at SHOT and go completely silent afterwards. I'll give it one more shot around summer before I give up. My time is sorta limited, so will continue looking at scopes I can easily borrow from the manufacturer. Usually, that means companies who are not afraid of a little criticism. Kahles used to be one of them, but we'll see if that still holds true.
I can always borrow one from one of the larger retailers like SWFA, EuroOptics or Cameraland, but that means they can no longer sell it as a new scope when I return it, so I do not like abusing their good graces too much.
ILya
Glad i could help Bill. I try to be as thorough as i can but am no expert on the matter just rather have a somewhat informed and unbiased opinion or try at least.
I'll be keeping my eye on Kahles but i hope they've fixed their CA issues. At the new prices they certainly need to be on par with TT.
Well hopefully they'll loan you one to review as i'd be eager to see your opinion.
I spent some time this afternoon exhaustively comparing the Mark 5 3.6-18x44 and my Bushnell XRS (at 18x), and I need to revise my initial assessment. The XRS has better glass. Resolution and clarity are about the same, as is brightness. When I said the XRS wasn’t all clear at once and had bad CA... turns out my diopter was a bit off and my cheek rest on the rifle was just a smidge low. Got everything readjusted, and the XRS controls CA better and is focused edge to edge.
The FOV of the Mark 5 is smaller than that of the XRS by 3-4 mils diameter at 18x, which explains why I thought the image was bigger before in the XRS... I just matched the mil subtensions across the FOV since the XRS is not marked at 18x. I compared to all the other powers with matching markings and found that the XRS had a consistently bigger FOV at a given power. I also went back and forth quickly to compare apparent image size, and used both eyes open to compare the scope images against a fixed reference, and the XRS is definitely a bigger image.
That said, I still like the Mark 5 a lot. Its eyebox is approximately twice as long as the XRS, plus it weighs probably about 3/4 pound less and is really short, so it’s really easy to bring up and take a snap shot. But the XRS looks a bit better with a bigger field of view at 18x once I’m in the middle of the eyebox and properly focused. That said, the image brightness and sharpness falls off pretty sharply with the XRS once you get past 20x, far more so than the Mark 5 does at its maximum power. So yeah, different tools for different applications, and the little Mark 5 definitely has its place. I feel like somewhere down the road I’ll have to pick up a 5-25x to see if it’s better than the XRS at what the XRS does well. I suspect it just might be.
The FOV of the Mark 5 is smaller than that of the XRS by 3-4 mils diameter at 18x, which explains why I thought the image was bigger before in the XRS... I just matched the mil subtensions across the FOV since the XRS is not marked at 18x. I compared to all the other powers with matching markings and found that the XRS had a consistently bigger FOV at a given power. I also went back and forth quickly to compare apparent image size, and used both eyes open to compare the scope images against a fixed reference, and the XRS is definitely a bigger image.
That said, I still like the Mark 5 a lot. Its eyebox is approximately twice as long as the XRS, plus it weighs probably about 3/4 pound less and is really short, so it’s really easy to bring up and take a snap shot. But the XRS looks a bit better with a bigger field of view at 18x once I’m in the middle of the eyebox and properly focused. That said, the image brightness and sharpness falls off pretty sharply with the XRS once you get past 20x, far more so than the Mark 5 does at its maximum power. So yeah, different tools for different applications, and the little Mark 5 definitely has its place. I feel like somewhere down the road I’ll have to pick up a 5-25x to see if it’s better than the XRS at what the XRS does well. I suspect it just might be.
Interesting assessment indeed. Idk if i'm to presume due to mechanics and design there is a different drop off in quality from the ultra short MK5 to the 5-25 or rather my HDMR II was a poor representation of the DMR II/HDMR II. Neither my ERS, LRHS, or HDMR II hold a candle to my USO or MK5. Edge to edge clarity and CA were borderline awful in my HDMR II. I'll get another look at a DMR II my cousin has this weekend though, should be interesting.
I’m not saying the XRS has no CA; it does have a bit centered up, and a lot if I’m not right in the middle of the eyebox. But the 3.6-18 has a little bit more in the center than the XRS does in the center. From what I remember of my Gen 1 DMR, it was optically worse than both. I can see bullet holes at 100 yards a little better with the Mark 5 at 18x than I could with the DMR at 21.
I’ve heard other people say the 5-25x is optically superior to the 3.6-18x. That wouldn’t surprise me with over 60% more objective area and less severe angles in the scope. Mechanically, I think my Mark 5 was probably just a bad sample, and it wasn’t even that bad... 1% off and still consistent and repeatable isn’t a huge deal. The 3.6-18x is a very good, short, light scope. If it were an outstanding short, light scope, I bet it would cost a lot more than most people are buying it for right now.
I see. What XRS are you comparing it to? XRS II? Or the original XRS? FWIW i thought my ERS had better glass then the mark 6 i traded for. Could've been my bias though i hated that scope.
It’s the original... I haven’t had an opportunity to look through the II. Although with the 30% Bushnell rebate going on right now, if I hadn’t just bought the Mark 5, I’d probably find an excuse to pick one up! But yeah, the original is a solid scope for sure, it’s just big and heavy, and I wanted something more suited to a 16” .308 AR. Especially since my XRS has an H37 with the horizontal stadia just 2 mils from the top in a 12-mil total FOV at 30x.
I was in the market for a short, light scope with ~15-20x max power and a Tremor 3 when I got the Mark 5. It looked to me like this and the Mark 6 were the only real options if I didn’t want to spend more money on a heavier Nightforce with less power. Judging from your opinion (and many I’ve heard) of the Mark 6, I probably have a much better scope for less money (even if I had picked up a Mark 6 used).
If that Bushnell rebate applied to the Elite Tactical lineup i think Bushnell would have a hard time restocking their items i know i'd be tempted. I've seen the XRS II in person albeit brief and it's very nice. I was just making sure that you weren't comparing the those two rather than the Gen I XRS. I will say that's a bit disappointing to hear. The ERS/XRS DMRII/HDMRII are workhorses they work plain and simple. However i had hoped the short Mark 5 would retain most of it's big brother's characteristics as far as glass quality was concerned. Is what it is though.
Yup with the Mark 5 out i don't see a reason to get the Mark 6 at least going on the impressions of the mark 5 thus far, seems they've remedied the Mark 6.
I'm heading to Laurel this weekend for a 600yd F-class match, buddy has a 5-25 ATACR plan to put it side to side against the MK5, i'd consider it more apples to apples with the mark 5 than the SN-3 comparison.
Theres a thread in the optics section that is saying Bushnell will honor the rebate on the tactical scopes because the original release of the rebate didn't exclude them. Might be worth a try if you're looking to pick one up.
Did they change the rebate eligibility? I swear last time I looked Elite Tactical wasn’t excluded. I see now that it is (but the fine print at the bottom of the rebate form still doesn’t mention the ET line). EDIT: just saw TheMammoth’s post, so I guess I’m not crazy after all, hahaha.
I’m not really disappointed that the shorter, lighter scope isn’t quite as good optically as the larger, heavier one... I wasn’t expecting any miracles. And it is very bright and clear, and it does have a ridiculously easy eyebox to get in, so that definitely counts for something. I look forward to hearing how the big Mark 5 compares to the ATACR!
I can give my impressions as I currently own both the Mark 5hd 5-25 and atacr 5-25 f1 both with the tremor reticle. I’ll tell you hands down the nightforce still wins, and I’m not a nightforce fan boy... i have no loyalty to any scope company. But it’s a closer call than I would have thought.
Fit and finish, nightforce has a slightly better scope coating.
My evaluation of turrets is spot on with everyone else. The elevation turret has more wiggle than the nightforce; but, I actually like the clicks on the Leupold you’ll have to use it to know what I’m talking about but they are ultra crisp. There is no mush.
The windage marking on the Mark 5 is odd, I’m not quite sure why they thought that was a good idea. They should have at least extended the windage indicator marking to the actual turret then it would be a good idea. But I can see why they couldn’t Bc of the threads for the windage cap.
Eye box: for sure nightforce wins, there’s not even a contest
Edge to edge Clarity: I feel are the same
Chromatic abberation: little to none for both scopes
Image clarity, contrast, color and brightness: the atacr 5-25 is brighter I feel it is notable but not by a huge margin let’s say compared to a vortex viper pst vs an atacr which the atacr blows it out of the water. This comparison is close for brightness; but, I feel most will agree. Color appears to be the same. Contrast is slightly sharper on the nightforce. Clarity I feel at the low and middle mag ranges are the same but as you max out at 23-25x the atacr maintains its clarity where there is ever so slight darkening and loss in contrast on the Mark 5hd but it’s not bad. As a comparison the atacr 7-35 did this starting at 31x power too.
Another notable difference is the FoV, at a given mag the fov was obviously larger on the atacr. Also at a given mag more (a lot more) of the tremor reticle is seen on the atacr. Not sure why this is the case I’m no optics engineer or physicist.
Overall for the price point of the Mark 5hd I would happily run it in competitions over other high end scopes (I’ve sold my minox and all my Schmidt and benders on this forum... I didn’t want to mess them up in tactical competitions). The Mark 5hd 5-25 about $1k less than the atacr tremor 3. The mark5hd 5-25 tremor 3 can be obtained for $1950...the atacr tremor 3 5-25 can not be obtained for anywhere near that price from a distributor or retailer. Would I give up my nightforce... probably not.
I forgot to add it does indeed darken just a tad towards 25x can't remember where it starts.
I think Gen II razor is an applicable category for the Mk5. I for some reason thought the 5-25 ATACR with the Mil-R was $2500 did NF raise everything to $3000?
I heard the same, also talked to one that explained the situation of the Mark 6, that it was rushed and the Mark 5HD is what the Mark 6 should've been.
I think Gen II razor is an applicable category for the Mk5. I for some reason thought the 5-25 ATACR with the Mil-R was $2500 did NF raise everything to $3000?
I heard the same, also talked to one that explained the situation of the Mark 6, that it was rushed and the Mark 5HD is what the Mark 6 should've been.
Oh I should have specified this is the F1 atacr model. Unfortunately they are quite expensive MAP for the tremor 3 is $3395
https://www.milehighshooting.com/ni...1-zerostop-1-mil-radian-digillum-ptl-tremor3/
Some distributors will sell them for $150 under MAP
I figured that much i was just going to say that the ATACR was the only $2500 optic that i haven't remotely been behind. Once for like 10min but then upon checking i didn't realize that they're $3000.
I thought they were less expensive as well. $3000 for a 7-25x F1? Yeah, I'll get a Schmidt for less.
Yeah i just googled could've sworn the Mil-R or MOAR was $2500 maybe a little more than the Mil-C but they're all $3000 and $3300 for the horus derivatives. NF makes a great scope of that i have no doubt it's much like Kahles though for me personally for that amount i'm looking to S&B, TT, and ZCO. I guess NF just went up.
I'm still probably leaning toward putting the MK5 up after this Laurel match. Not really disappointed with the optic other than my picky complaints on the turrets, i just wanted an AMG and probably should've gotten it from the get go.
Having owned several AMGs, you will not be disappointed.
When Vortex comes out with a mid-range AMG, I will replace my ATACR 4-16x F1 with it because I trust the AMG will be optically/mechanically solid and feature a good reticle without a $300 Horus upcharge.
I currently have three of the 4-16 ATACR and I would most likely replace at least one of them, the one with the MIL-R reticle, possibly all three if I could unload the ATACR at some kind of reasonable price.
@TheOE800 @TheMammoth I'm curious about this: is this because of something you don't like about the ATACR 4-16 or something you would like more about the hypothetical AMG in a similar range? Just wondering.
Superior zeroing system, equally good or better warranty, likely less expensive, product portfolio features usable no-upcharge reticles. Hopefully, if such an optic should exist in the AMG line it would also be lighter. The ATACR makes me miss my NXS as far as weight goes.
TheOE800 pretty much nailed it here. The AMG turrets are the best of all the optics I have had *in my opinion*, and the weight should be a lot less. In all reality, there's NOTHING to not like about the 4-16 ATACR and I really like mine, I am just a junky for the new hotness like a lot of optics nerds.
EDIT: Like really, the 4-16 is really a quality unit as long as the way the magnification rotation doesn't bother please don't let me discourage you from buying.
Alright we'll today was basically a make or break day for the MK5 in my eyes at least. It was my first F-class match so tracking was imperative and it was to go head to head against the 5-25x56 ATACR. I'm happy to report i'm continually impressed and might be going back on my word as far as putting it up for sale, for now anyway. I'm going to shoot at Providence at the end of March and likely run another F-class match next month as i enjoyed it today with the electronic targets. Shot 526 for my first outing with a rear bag and atlas. Really love the electronic system and it's a great way to confirm load data. Load gave me a SD of 6 last 8 shots i ran through it and it appeared that it's solid.
I think it's safe to say someone at Leupold gathered some attention to the tarnished reputation of the Mark 6's tracking and i'm satisfied to say i think that's gone. Given the tracking test we've seen here and the results today it's spot on. Ballistic AE called for 9.3 mils for my load and i dialed to 9.3 and was on target. I did have to come down 3/10ths after the mirage cleared but that's normal or so they tell me. I'm very inexperienced at shooting past 800yds and the mirage was terrible at first.
Scored 176, 177, and 173. Only got pics of the last two.
Starting with the turrets again, they're growing on me. I've got them lined up perfect and despite the lack of the resistance from click to click they're louder than most i've been around, including the NF, and tactile enough. It's like that's leupold's counter to them being a little "soft" click to click so to speak. The NF i would describe as having better turrets despite my growing affection for the Mark 5. So in F-class you apparently dial for wind, which is news to me. Here we go with the wonky windage hash..You know i've been giving them hell for that hash but i was laughing because for me it actually worked
From behind the gun slightly picking my head up it's clear how they intend for the shooter to use the windage. It works using it as intended and when you try to use it as a traditional windage knob is when you're left scratching your head. It's not the most precise windage hash, but if we're being honest no windage hash on the scope body is. The angle is always a bit weird less the hash is on the turret body in which case you'll have to shift more to see it. Windage clicks are much more firm than the elevation and if the elevation felt like that i'd have zero complaints about it.
On to the glass...again. Alright so the mirage sort of made it rather difficult comparing the two. That and i couldn't find anything of serious detail that could deliberately separate them. At first i was looking at an outhouse with a white screen door i'm guessing based on the parallax setting 600yds or so away. Here we run into the same faint CA issue i had before. One minute i'm looking at some minor CA on a white, sun lit screen door. I switched to the ATACR, which has none as aspected, then went back to the mark 5 and it's gone. Also found myself uncomfortable today behind it at points. Evidently i've got to keep moving the cheek weld up as it's just not there yet. The eyebox as i've already mentioned is somewhat tight at 25x. It's not detrimental, just rather tight. I'd describe it as similar to a ERS/XRS. The NF in this regard was phenomenal, reminded me of my USO on 17x, just extremely comfortable to be behind. As it's to note it's on a friends rifle, setup for him, and i had no problem jumping behind it.
Parallax goes to NF, hands down it was reminiscent of my SN-3 you could leave it at a mid setting and look all around without inducing much parallax.
Next was resolution. Lacking rather detailed objects of small font to try and compare the two i moved to the American flag on the pole to the left of the 1000yd targets, i'm guessing it was 800yds away. It was really hard to tell the difference between them at least in this setting. Edge to edge clarity in both is superb. The image size on the NF is larger. Note i'm not specifying FOV as i have no metric to measure this. I don't really know the terminology for it but the NF again felt very reminiscent of my SN-3 it's like the eyepiece is just huge where the Leupold feels like you're looking through a smaller tube. I guess it's just the literal size of the rear ocular lens. I didn't adjust the diopter on either. I'll also note that i loathe the NF's rotating eyepiece. For the love of God some of us are left eye dominant and use scope caps to cover our dominant eye so we can shoot both eyes open. Literally serves no purpose other than an annoyance as far as i'm concerned.
Next is color/contrast this is where i think NF takes the cake, it's beautiful. It's contrast is superior to the Mark 5 bar none. The easy way to describe it for me is a calibrated versus an uncalibrated TN panel. It's not that drastic for those of you who are thinking how horrid TN panels are out of the box without the proper ICC profiles or calibration with a colorimeter. These pictures would be how i describe it but again not that drastic. Granted i realize that the picture below is not an uncalibrated TN vs a calibrated TN. My point is to illustrate the differences i'm seeing with my eyes to you all, which turns out is inherently difficult without seriously nice cameras to properly capture the IQ of the optics. What it basically translates to though, is deeper blacks and truer color.
Lastly i looked at cows off to the right and couldn't tell much difference between the two at all. Maybe a slight edge to the NF, though Idk it was very close on the last look through. I was hoping i'd find some small letters that could really discern a resolution difference between the two.
All in all yes the NF is the superior optic probably both mechanically and optically. Though to get the NF in the config i'm running (H59) it's literally $1000 more and the same for the non-illum TMR versus the Mil-R. I'm not comparing Illum vs Illum because in that regard Leupold is overpriced IMO but the obvious point is that there is an option which allows you to acquire a mark 5 at 2/3rds the cost of an ATACR. I also consider it rather unnecessary for what most of us are doing less you're running clip on NV or are LEO. Is it a $1000 difference? I don't personally think so but that's a choice that only you can make. I also have heard Leupold has a reticle that was just approved and have to say if they have something like the Mil-C or think a TMR with a center dot and .2-mil hashes and there is no premium for it, i think they'll sell like crazy. Another nod to NF, I really liked the Mil-C reticle. I still prefer a tree, i always will, but the Mil-C is noticeably thinner than both reticles in my optics i run and i appreciated that.
As i said before i can't speak for the 3.6-18, but the 5-25 is an amazing value for the discounted prices going around right now. If they can field a base model at $1999 with a proper reticle be it something reminiscent of the Mil-C or SKMR it would IMHO only be bested by DMR II pro for the money, assuming the DMR II Pro pans out and is $1599.
I think it's safe to say someone at Leupold gathered some attention to the tarnished reputation of the Mark 6's tracking and i'm satisfied to say i think that's gone. Given the tracking test we've seen here and the results today it's spot on. Ballistic AE called for 9.3 mils for my load and i dialed to 9.3 and was on target. I did have to come down 3/10ths after the mirage cleared but that's normal or so they tell me. I'm very inexperienced at shooting past 800yds and the mirage was terrible at first.
Scored 176, 177, and 173. Only got pics of the last two.
Starting with the turrets again, they're growing on me. I've got them lined up perfect and despite the lack of the resistance from click to click they're louder than most i've been around, including the NF, and tactile enough. It's like that's leupold's counter to them being a little "soft" click to click so to speak. The NF i would describe as having better turrets despite my growing affection for the Mark 5. So in F-class you apparently dial for wind, which is news to me. Here we go with the wonky windage hash..You know i've been giving them hell for that hash but i was laughing because for me it actually worked
From behind the gun slightly picking my head up it's clear how they intend for the shooter to use the windage. It works using it as intended and when you try to use it as a traditional windage knob is when you're left scratching your head. It's not the most precise windage hash, but if we're being honest no windage hash on the scope body is. The angle is always a bit weird less the hash is on the turret body in which case you'll have to shift more to see it. Windage clicks are much more firm than the elevation and if the elevation felt like that i'd have zero complaints about it.On to the glass...again. Alright so the mirage sort of made it rather difficult comparing the two. That and i couldn't find anything of serious detail that could deliberately separate them. At first i was looking at an outhouse with a white screen door i'm guessing based on the parallax setting 600yds or so away. Here we run into the same faint CA issue i had before. One minute i'm looking at some minor CA on a white, sun lit screen door. I switched to the ATACR, which has none as aspected, then went back to the mark 5 and it's gone. Also found myself uncomfortable today behind it at points. Evidently i've got to keep moving the cheek weld up as it's just not there yet. The eyebox as i've already mentioned is somewhat tight at 25x. It's not detrimental, just rather tight. I'd describe it as similar to a ERS/XRS. The NF in this regard was phenomenal, reminded me of my USO on 17x, just extremely comfortable to be behind. As it's to note it's on a friends rifle, setup for him, and i had no problem jumping behind it.
Parallax goes to NF, hands down it was reminiscent of my SN-3 you could leave it at a mid setting and look all around without inducing much parallax.
Next was resolution. Lacking rather detailed objects of small font to try and compare the two i moved to the American flag on the pole to the left of the 1000yd targets, i'm guessing it was 800yds away. It was really hard to tell the difference between them at least in this setting. Edge to edge clarity in both is superb. The image size on the NF is larger. Note i'm not specifying FOV as i have no metric to measure this. I don't really know the terminology for it but the NF again felt very reminiscent of my SN-3 it's like the eyepiece is just huge where the Leupold feels like you're looking through a smaller tube. I guess it's just the literal size of the rear ocular lens. I didn't adjust the diopter on either. I'll also note that i loathe the NF's rotating eyepiece. For the love of God some of us are left eye dominant and use scope caps to cover our dominant eye so we can shoot both eyes open. Literally serves no purpose other than an annoyance as far as i'm concerned.
Next is color/contrast this is where i think NF takes the cake, it's beautiful. It's contrast is superior to the Mark 5 bar none. The easy way to describe it for me is a calibrated versus an uncalibrated TN panel. It's not that drastic for those of you who are thinking how horrid TN panels are out of the box without the proper ICC profiles or calibration with a colorimeter. These pictures would be how i describe it but again not that drastic. Granted i realize that the picture below is not an uncalibrated TN vs a calibrated TN. My point is to illustrate the differences i'm seeing with my eyes to you all, which turns out is inherently difficult without seriously nice cameras to properly capture the IQ of the optics. What it basically translates to though, is deeper blacks and truer color.
Lastly i looked at cows off to the right and couldn't tell much difference between the two at all. Maybe a slight edge to the NF, though Idk it was very close on the last look through. I was hoping i'd find some small letters that could really discern a resolution difference between the two.
All in all yes the NF is the superior optic probably both mechanically and optically. Though to get the NF in the config i'm running (H59) it's literally $1000 more and the same for the non-illum TMR versus the Mil-R. I'm not comparing Illum vs Illum because in that regard Leupold is overpriced IMO but the obvious point is that there is an option which allows you to acquire a mark 5 at 2/3rds the cost of an ATACR. I also consider it rather unnecessary for what most of us are doing less you're running clip on NV or are LEO. Is it a $1000 difference? I don't personally think so but that's a choice that only you can make. I also have heard Leupold has a reticle that was just approved and have to say if they have something like the Mil-C or think a TMR with a center dot and .2-mil hashes and there is no premium for it, i think they'll sell like crazy. Another nod to NF, I really liked the Mil-C reticle. I still prefer a tree, i always will, but the Mil-C is noticeably thinner than both reticles in my optics i run and i appreciated that.
As i said before i can't speak for the 3.6-18, but the 5-25 is an amazing value for the discounted prices going around right now. If they can field a base model at $1999 with a proper reticle be it something reminiscent of the Mil-C or SKMR it would IMHO only be bested by DMR II pro for the money, assuming the DMR II Pro pans out and is $1599.
Last edited:
Alright we'll today was basically a make or break day for the MK5 in my eyes at least. I'm happy to report i'm continually impressed and might be going back on my word as far as putting it up for sale, for now anyway. I'm going to shoot at Providence at the end of March and likely run another F-class match next month as i enjoyed it today with the electronic targets. Shot 526 for my first outing with a rear bag and atlas. Really love the electronic system and it's a great way to confirm load data. Load gave me a SD of 6 last 8 shots i ran through it and it appeared that it's solid.
I think it's safe to say someone at Leupold gathered some attention to the tarnished reputation of the Mark 6's tracking and i'm satisfied to say i think that's gone. Given the tracking test we've seen here and the results today it's spot on. Ballistic AE called for 9.3 mils for my load and i dialed to 9.3 and was spot on. I did have to come down 3/10ths after the mirage cleared but that's normal or so they tell me. I'm very inexperienced at shooting past 800yds and the mirage was terrible at first.
Scored 176, 177, and 173. Only got pics of the last two.
View attachment 6882624
View attachment 6882625
Starting with the knobs again, they're growing on me. I've got it lined up perfect and despite the lack of the resistance from click to click they're louder than most i've been around, including the NF, and tactile enough. It's like that's leupold's counter to them being a little "soft" click to click so to speak. The NF i would describe as having better turrets despite my growing affection for the Mark 5. So in F-class you apparently dial for wind, which is news to me. Here we go with the wonky windage hash..You know i've been giving them hell for that hash but i was laughing because for me it actually worked
On to the glass...again. Alright so the mirage sort of made it rather difficult comparing the two. That and i couldn't find anything of serious detail that could deliberately separate them. At first i was looking at an outhouse with a white screen door i'm guessing based on the parallax setting 600yds or so away. Here we run into the same faint CA issue i had before. One minute i'm looking at some minor CA on a white, sun lit screen door. I switched to the ATACR, which has none as aspected, then went back to the mark 5 and it's gone. Also found myself uncomfortable today behind it at points. Evidently i've got to keep moving the cheek weld up as it's just not there yet. This is probably the biggest draw back. The eyebox as i've already mentioned is somewhat tight at 25x. It's not detrimental, just rather tight. I'd describe it as similar to a ERS/XRS. The NF in this regard was phenomenal, reminded me of my USO on 17x, just extremely comfortable to be behind. As it's to note it's on a friends rifle, setup for him, and i had no problem jumping behind it.
Parallax goes to NF, hands down it was reminiscent of my SN-3 you could leave it at a mid setting and look all around without inducing much parallax.
Next was resolution. Lacking rather detailed objects of small font to try and compare the two i moved to the American flag on the pole i'm guessing 800yds straight out to the left and in front of the 1000yd line. It was really hard to tell the difference between them at least in this setting. Edge to edge clarity in both is superb. The image size on the NF is larger. Note i'm not specifying FOV as i have no metric to measure this. I don't really know the terminology for it but the NF again felt very reminiscent of my SN-3 it's like the eyepiece is just huge where the Leupold feels like you're looking through a smaller tube. I guess it's just the literal size of the rear ocular lens. I don't have the terminology or knowledge to reliably articulate what i'm describing but i'm sure some of you can reminisce. I didn't adjust the diopter on either. I'll also note that i loathe the NF's rotating eyepiece. For the love of God some of us are left eye dominant and use scope caps to cover our dominant eye so we can shoot both eyes open. Literally serves no purpose other than an annoyance as far as i'm concerned.
Next is color/contrast this is where i think NF takes the cake, it's beautiful. It's contrast is superior to the Mark 5 hands down. The easy way to describe it for me is a calibrated versus an uncalibrated TN panel. It's not that drastic for those of you who are thinking how horrid TN panels are out of the box without the proper ICC profiles or calibration with a colorimeter. This picture is how i would describe it but again not that drastic. Granted i realize that the picture below is not an uncalibrated TN vs a calibrated TN. My point is to illustrate the differences i'm seeing with my eyes to you all, which turns out is inherently difficult without seriously nice cameras to properly capture the IQ of the optics. What it basically translates to though, is deeper blacks and truer color.
Lastly i looked at cows off to the right and couldn't tell much difference between the two at all. Maybe a slight edge to the NF, though Idk it was very close on the last look through. I was hoping i'd find some small letters that could really discern a resolution difference between the two.
All in all yes the NF is the superior optic probably both mechanically and optically. Though to get the NF in the conifg i'm running (H59) it's literally $1000 more and the same for the non-illum TMR versus the Mil-R. I'm not comparing Illum vs Illum because in that regard Leupold is overpriced but the obvious point is that there is an option which allows you to acquire a mark 5 at 2/3rds the cost of an ATACR. I also consider it rather unnecessary for what most of us are doing less you're running clip on NV or are LEO. Is it a $1000 difference? I don't personally think so but that's a choice that only you can make. I also have heard Leupold has a reticle that was just approved and have to say if they have something like the Mil-C or think a TMR with a center dot and .2-mil hashes and there is no premium for it, i think they'll sell like crazy. Another nod to NF really liked the Mil-C reticle. I still prefer a tree, i always will but the Mil-C is noticeably thinner than both reticles in my optics i run and i appreciated that.
As i said before i can't speak for the 3.6-18, but the 5-25 is an amazing value for the discounted prices going around right now. If they can field a base model at $1999 with a proper reticle be it something reminiscent of the Mil-C or SKMR3 it would IMHO only be bested by DMR II pro for the money, assuming the DMR II Pro pans out and is $1599.
View attachment 6882622
View attachment 6882623
Great write up! I think any time you compare ED glass (ATACR) with non ED (Mark 5) you’re going to find the non ED slightly lacking in comparison, particularly in regards to CA but also in color/contrast, but it sounds like the glass and optical formula here keep the difference minimal and tolerable, especially for the price difference. I find that I don’t enjoy looking through the Mark 5 as much as I do the XRS (even though neither are ED) due to FOV and optical quality, but I do find it much easier to shoot with due to eyebox and reticle, and so far I seem to shoot better with it, which I’d say is always the bottom line with a riflescope.
I compared it to my cousin's DMR II today and it wasn't much of a comparison honestly. DMR II was just like my HDMR II; CA issues, haziness around the edges, and lower resolution than the Mark 5, albeit it still good. We also both seemed to notice a white hue of the image through his DMR II something i hadn't noticed with my HDMR II.
Saw a little more CA today than usual at times though again was still working on the cheek rest. Think i finally got it down pat. CA seems to be more rampant during overcast on this scope, which is odd to me as i'm used to being prevalent during bright days with vibrant targets. Though it's very faint and during the sunlight it's non existent most of the time. Snapped some reticle pics that i was impressed with for the phone. Waiting on phone Skope to release the new prism based scope of theirs.
Had some visitors in front of the 800yd IPSC today...unfortunately they're not in season
Saw a little more CA today than usual at times though again was still working on the cheek rest. Think i finally got it down pat. CA seems to be more rampant during overcast on this scope, which is odd to me as i'm used to being prevalent during bright days with vibrant targets. Though it's very faint and during the sunlight it's non existent most of the time. Snapped some reticle pics that i was impressed with for the phone. Waiting on phone Skope to release the new prism based scope of theirs.
Had some visitors in front of the 800yd IPSC today...unfortunately they're not in season
