Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I agree, the Mark 5 turrets are quickly becoming my favorite, I have not had a TT but out of all the scopes I've had (and I've had a fair share) I think I like the Mark 5 the best, very precise clicks, I hope to be wrapping up my review of the 3.6-18x44 this week.Hmmm, the turrets are one of the features on the Mk5 that I've come to really like. Zeroing is snap with these turrets. No trying to hold the turret steady, while not bumping the post and then trying to screw in three set screws with an allen wrench. just dial up to your zero, undo two set screws and turn the turrret back to zero until the zero stop clicks and locks the post in place. Tighten the two screws and you're done. Hands down this scope has the easiest zeroing method of scopes within it's price range.
I agree, the Mark 5 turrets are quickly becoming my favorite, I have not had a TT but out of all the scopes I've had (and I've had a fair share) I think I like the Mark 5 the best, very precise clicks, I hope to be wrapping up my review of the 3.6-18x44 this week.
I could not justify paying another $590 just for illumination with the plain TMR reticle (if Leupold came out with a decent Christmas tree style and offered illumination it might be more compelling) and I wanted to try out the Tremor3 and see if it would work for me. To be honest, it's not as cluttered as I thought it would be in actual use, but it is cluttered more than others so if that is something that bothers you and you plan on dialing elevation then probably not the best choice for you, but if you want to get more into using the reticle in place of dialing, then I can see the merits of the Tremor3. I have not played around with the wind dots as of yet, but those who've taken the time to learn that system seem to swear by it.Awesome.. Did you get illuminated reticle? What reticle did you choose?
I could not justify paying another $590 just for illumination with the plain TMR reticle (if Leupold came out with a decent Christmas tree style and offered illumination it might be more compelling) and I wanted to try out the Tremor3 and see if it would work for me. To be honest, it's not as cluttered as I thought it would be in actual use, but it is cluttered more than others so if that is something that bothers you and you plan on dialing elevation then probably not the best choice for you, but if you want to get more into using the reticle in place of dialing, then I can see the merits of the Tremor3. I have not played around with the wind dots as of yet, but those who've taken the time to learn that system seem to swear by it.
... My scope did not track or return to zero. Changes from zero to ten mils in one mil increments had a 2%-11% error and each time I dialed from 10 mil to 0 mil my zero would change ...
Nothing specifically against the MK5, but if it were my choice, with the stated criteria, I'd choose the Nightforce in a heattbeat... In fact, I did ?!I'm about to make a move and it is coming down to trying a Mk5 5-25x T3 ... primarily for a .300WM(24) for LD targets. The alternative is a NF ATACR F1 probably a repeat of the 7-35x T3 I already have. One aspect that makes the price closer than it might seem is that I would have to get a whole new Spuhr mount for the Mk5 (35mm tube) whereas I already have a spare 34mm mount for the NF. That and I might be able to get a decent discount for the NF. So, price will be closer than it might seem for my transaction.
But Konarex seems to think maybe he got a "lemon" and after some "customer service" ... the tracking issue will be solved.
Don't, I've had the 5-20 Ultra Short and it is an awesome scope, I now have the 3-20 Ultra Short and think I like the 5-20 better, don't get me wrong, the 3-20 is amazing but there was something special about the 5-20 and with its huge FOV it acts more like a scope that has greater than 4x magnification. The glass is better in the Schmidt vs. the Leupold Mark 5, but then again for a scope that costs more than 2x as much one would hope to see that. If you don't need illumination and are okay with the reticle choices I think the Leupold 3.6-18x44 represents the best value to date in an ultra short design and its turrets are really growing on me. It exhibits more CA than I hoped it would but about on par for this price range, the only exception would be the Vortex AMG, at $2400 it exhibits amazing resolution and minimal CA (almost unnoticeable); if Vortex were to make an AMG 4.5-18 or 5-20 that was a shorty and the price was around $2k I would be all over that! But wishing a scope existed doesn't get me anywhere so the Mark 5 3.6-18x44 is easily the best scope in its class - the shortest, lightest, cheapest scope in the 18-20x top end magnification range. Also, for turret purists, the Mark 5HD has my favorite feeling turrets to date, keep in mind I am not bothered by most turrets and find I can easily dial my elevation given enough time behind the unit, but the clicks on the Mark 5 have a very distinct click with a sharp sound to it and I like the spacing and resistance between clicks.
... Nothing specifically against the MK5, but if it were my choice, with the stated criteria, I'd choose the Nightforce in a heattbeat ...
The CCH seems just as busy as a Tremor3 to me but the Tremor3 seems better thought out, I may be wrong but that was my initial impression and why I went with the Tremor.Was eyeballing that CCH FFP.. Not typically a fan of busy reticles, but don’t care for TMR either.
Hey BP, that is hard as I sold my LRTS last year; however, in a few weeks I should be getting my GAP LRHS which is the same scope but different reticle. I keep thinking of selling the Mark 5 3.6-18x44 to get a Kahles K318i, but I also keep trying to convince myself to just keep the Mark 5. Like you, I prefer reticles that have illumination and I opted for the Tremor3 with the Mark 5 which does not come with an illumination option for the 3.6-18 but even if it did it would be very hard to justify almost $600 more for illumination, Leupold really needs to get with the program.Hey Bill, whilst I know they are not directly comparable scopes would you mind commenting on the Mk5 vs the Bushnell Lrts (I know you've had both).
I'm eyeing one of the Bushy 4.5-18x44's, I have no need for a compact scope with this build (mainly hunting/steel), but if there are significant reasons to opt for the mk5 I'll certainly consider it. Illumination is a feature I value in a hunting scope, and the LRTS offers that will only a slight price bump
Cheers,
BP
Do you need a QR mount? If not, then I highly recommend the Badger 22MOA Riser Rail that can be used with standard rings. I bought ARC M10 rings for my Mark 5...My 3.6-18 tremor showed up today. Now I just have to wait on my mount and rifle parts. Wish there were more mount options available.
Do you need a QR mount? If not, then I highly recommend the Badger 22MOA Riser Rail that can be used with standard rings. I bought ARC M10 rings for my Mark 5...
Same here. Are there any other 1 piece mounts in 35mm out there other than ADM?
Hey BP, that is hard as I sold my LRTS last year; however, in a few weeks I should be getting my GAP LRHS which is the same scope but different reticle. I keep thinking of selling the Mark 5 3.6-18x44 to get a Kahles K318i, but I also keep trying to convince myself to just keep the Mark 5. Like you, I prefer reticles that have illumination and I opted for the Tremor3 with the Mark 5 which does not come with an illumination option for the 3.6-18 but even if it did it would be very hard to justify almost $600 more for illumination, Leupold really needs to get with the program.
In lieu of what you shared, I would definitely recommend the LRHS/LRTS as it has a better reticle (than the TMR) has illumination for a minor price bump (have you checked out the GAP deal for the LRHS, they are supposed to be doing another pre-order run in a few weeks) , the Leupold is 2" shorter and has better turrets (but the Bushnell turrets aren't bad). The Leupold has more CA than I'd like to see for a $2kish scope but CA doesn't bother a lot of shooters so take that with a grain of salt; the Bushnell also exhibits CA but controls it better than many scopes in that price range. If you can get in on the next GAP deal at $750 there just is no other scope that comes close at that price point while the LRTSi at around $1250 or so street price starts getting closer to other scopes that you might consider.
I'd really need both side by side to give a more thorough response, I can say that Leupold has done something to make the Mark 5 an excellent low light performer, next to my S&B US 3-20 it was very difficult to discern between the two in low light settings; however, in bright light the Leupy seems like it may be slightly washed out, most shooters would probably not notice but it is something I picked up when comparing to other scopes and I wonder if its a result of whatever they did for low light. I'm wrapping up my mini review of the Mark 5 and will post that soon.
What’s the verdict on the CCH reticle? I’ve used H59 and Tremors plenty and while I don’t dislike them, they are not my favorite either. CCH seems like it could be a good balance of them?
I can also get the CCH a fair bit cheaper than either of the Horus options. Just trying to figure out if it’s been a well received reticle or if it’s just better to stay with the tried and true.
How would the MK5 5-20 stack up against the Cronus?
Hey BP, that is hard as I sold my LRTS last year; however, in a few weeks I should be getting my GAP LRHS which is the same scope but different reticle. I keep thinking of selling the Mark 5 3.6-18x44 to get a Kahles K318i, but I also keep trying to convince myself to just keep the Mark 5. Like you, I prefer reticles that have illumination and I opted for the Tremor3 with the Mark 5 which does not come with an illumination option for the 3.6-18 but even if it did it would be very hard to justify almost $600 more for illumination, Leupold really needs to get with the program.
In lieu of what you shared, I would definitely recommend the LRHS/LRTS as it has a better reticle (than the TMR) has illumination for a minor price bump (have you checked out the GAP deal for the LRHS, they are supposed to be doing another pre-order run in a few weeks) , the Leupold is 2" shorter and has better turrets (but the Bushnell turrets aren't bad). The Leupold has more CA than I'd like to see for a $2kish scope but CA doesn't bother a lot of shooters so take that with a grain of salt; the Bushnell also exhibits CA but controls it better than many scopes in that price range. If you can get in on the next GAP deal at $750 there just is no other scope that comes close at that price point while the LRTSi at around $1250 or so street price starts getting closer to other scopes that you might consider.
I'd really need both side by side to give a more thorough response, I can say that Leupold has done something to make the Mark 5 an excellent low light performer, next to my S&B US 3-20 it was very difficult to discern between the two in low light settings; however, in bright light the Leupy seems like it may be slightly washed out, most shooters would probably not notice but it is something I picked up when comparing to other scopes and I wonder if its a result of whatever they did for low light. I'm wrapping up my mini review of the Mark 5 and will post that soon.
Thanks. Any specifics as to why?
Diopter is full stop in. No more room to adjust. I’ll mess/shoot with it again.Sounds like your diopter is still off.
Can you share your thoughts on the MK5 vs the AMG? Lowlight, eyebox, clarity, CA , etc. I've been trying to hold out for the Steiner M7xi but it looks like its going to be a bit latter than I thought before they drop so its between the Mk5 and AMG for a place holder.
Had my first chance behind a MK5 today and was kinda disappointed honestly.
There are some nice features like the zero stop and capped windage but I was expecting more for the cost.
Turrets have some play in them and don’t line up perfectly. Eye box wasn’t horrible but it wasn’t great either. And there was pretty significant chromatic aberration in both overcast and sunny conditions. For as much good as guys talk about them it was just very... meh.
Which model?
3.6-18 with H59.
Like I said it was not horrible, but based on current street prices... there are better values in my humble opinion.
For one thing, I have the 3.6-18x44 Mark 5 which is not a fair comparison to the AMG, the Mark 5 3.6-18 is an ultra short design and will exhibit different optical characteristics from say the 5-25 which would be a more fair comparison IMO. That being said, here are my early thoughtsCan you share your thoughts on the MK5 vs the AMG? Lowlight, eyebox, clarity, CA , etc. I've been trying to hold out for the Steiner M7xi but it looks like its going to be a bit latter than I thought before they drop so its between the Mk5 and AMG for a place holder.
3.6-18 with H59.
Like I said it was not horrible, but based on current street prices... there are better values in my humble opinion.
Yeah i'm getting the impression the 3.6-18 isn't quite up to snuff as the 5-25. That's why i was curious as i've not heard many negative impressions of the 5-25. Including my own, which i was quite impressed. Though it's unfair to expect the 3.6-18 compete with the 5-25 given the design. I do agree it's priced a little much considering where as the 5-25 is quite affordable without illumination. I'd say $1500 is the spot where i'd look to buy a small mark 5.
For the "size" of the Mark 5 3.6-18 I don't think there are better values as there are no other scopes this short and with this magnification range for the price, and if weight is a factor, then no other scope comes close except for the mysterious EOTech Vudu 5-25 which can't seem to make its way into the market.
Fedex says my LRHS is supposed to arrive on Wednesday, this is when I hope to wrap up my analysis of the Mark 5 as I want to put it directly up against the LRHS which I think is going to be its closest competitor with regard to magnification range and weight as well as optical performance, from my time with the LRTS I had last year I look forward to seeing how these two stack up to one another.
@wjm308
Thanks for the response. I haven't decided between the 3.6-18 or 5-25x. Ive already had a vast majority of the higher end optics (just sold a Zp5 and 3-20x PmII within the past two weeks) so I'm not expecting the Mk5 to compare equally to them, just looking for a baseline for something to hold me off until the new Steiners are out. I've had two AMG's so I know what to expect but haven't seen the Mk5 locally and highly doubt Id have the chance to unless I purchase it myself.
For me the Mk5 has all the features I'm looking for, not really jazzed about the CA as I find it an annoyance, but the Mil pricing does make it an attractive option and costs less than another Amg. The only other optic thats peaked my interest is the 5-25x Vudu for its larger FOV, MD3 reticle, and the cost savings compared to the others. If it releases soon, I may just put in an order for that.