Rifle Scopes So, what about Leupold Mark 5 ?

Is a $1600+ scope really necessary you could have just gone with a $300 vortex/athlon. You don’t put Walmart tires on a Ferrari


So why didn't you pay a 1000 for your scope rings?

If more money always means better, then we can never spend enough.



But if as it is in reality.... good enough is in fact good enough.. ... then a lot of other people agree with me we really don't need to spend 400 on rings.



Unless you really want to. Which is reason enough.
 
So why didn't you pay a 1000 for your scope rings?

If more money always means better, then we can never spend enough.



But if as it is in reality.... good enough is in fact good enough.. ... then a lot of other people agree with me we really don't need to spend 400 on rings.



Unless you really want to. Which is reason enough.
So why didn’t you pay $300 for a vortex scope if it’s good enough, I have one on my 223 sps Tactical that works & shoots sub moa. There are also a lot of people who think a $300-500 scope is good enough & a $1600+ leupold isn’t necessary. Does that make them right
 
Last edited:
The spuhr mount with 15% off is $340 but it comes with extra things that I always use when mounting scopes like a bubble level & scope level wedge which cost about a $100 & make it easier to plum the reticle. The cheapest rings I would use would be the seekins/vortex match rings that cost $150 & I would use a scope level wedge & bubble level so total cost is $250 vs $340 for the spuhr. You could get away without a bubble level or a level wedge but they are tools that experienced shooters value. There are lot of people in this thread & on the forum that got spuhr mounts for their mk5 & other scopes & I doubt any of them are worried about the price because they know what they are getting.
 
Just receive the MK5 3.6-18 today. The scope feels pretty sturdy on hand. The magnification ring is super stiffs, but i think it will loose up after use. The glass is better than I expected, but like other people mentioned, it’s little “hard” to get behind the scope, it will take some time to get used to it. The turret is pretty precise, however, I only have 26.8 mil of elevation.....is this “normal”?

By the way, i ordered this as demo scope, paid demo price, but it came as brand new SEALED
 
Just receive the MK5 3.6-18 today. The scope feels pretty sturdy on hand. The magnification ring is super stiffs, but i think it will loose up after use. The glass is better than I expected, but like other people mentioned, it’s little “hard” to get behind the scope, it will take some time to get used to it. The turret is pretty precise, however, I only have 26.8 mil of elevation.....is this “normal”?

By the way, i ordered this as demo scope, paid demo price, but it came as brand new SEALED
Where did you get a demo from
 
Where did you get a demo from
7099781
 
The spuhr mount with 15% off is $340 but it comes with extra things that I always use when mounting scopes like a bubble level & scope level wedge which cost about a $100 & make it easier to plum the reticle. The cheapest rings I would use would be the seekins/vortex match rings that cost $150 & I would use a scope level wedge & bubble level so total cost is $250 vs $340 for the spuhr. You could get away without a bubble level or a level wedge but they are tools that experienced shooters value. There are lot of people in this thread & on the forum that got spuhr mounts for their mk5 & other scopes & I doubt any of them are worried about the price because they know what they are getting.

OP
 
Which model of sphur mount is recommend for a 16.5" 308 gas gun, not sure if 20MOA is even needed. Thanks
Spuhr sp-5602 or cantilever spuhr sp-5616. I would get the 20moa can’t. Don’t get the cantilever model if you don’t need it because you might want to move it to a bolt or something. Go to optics planet & use the coupon code GRAB15
 
Which model of sphur mount is recommend for a 16.5" 308 gas gun, not sure if 20MOA is even needed. Thanks
Yeah it wouldn’t matter too much using a 16in 308. It will take around 10 mils to zero at 100 yards & you will still have 20 mils to go. Go to spuhr site & look at the different models & pick 20 or 0
 
Last edited:
Not sure if the thread has picked it up yet, but I noticed that Geissele is now selling Mk5 35mm mounts. That's a big win. I own (and like) Spuhr mounts but Geissele are my favorite mounts to date.
 
this might also be helpful

i am running the Mark 5HD 3.6-18x44 mounted on the 20S with a Bobro dual lever mount.

easily the clearest glass i have ever looked through for a scope of this range.
 
Not sure if the thread has picked it up yet, but I noticed that Geissele is now selling Mk5 35mm mounts. That's a big win. I own (and like) Spuhr mounts but Geissele are my favorite mounts to date.
I looked at geiselle & love their triggers. Spuhr has some things I like that geiselle doesn’t have like a built in bubble level, built in angle for scope leveling wedge, & then all the different options for adding mini red dots or micro t red dots. The geiselle are cantilever moving the scope forward, so it’s good for an ar but not for a bolt. The price is close to the spuhr so for me I like the spuhr. What do you like better about the geiselle
 
I looked at geiselle & love their triggers. Spuhr has some things I like that geiselle doesn’t have like a built in bubble level, built in angle for scope leveling wedge, & then all the different options for adding mini red dots or micro t red dots. The geiselle are cantilever moving the scope forward, so it’s good for an ar but not for a bolt. The price is close to the spuhr so for me I like the spuhr. What do you like better about the geiselle

As you perhaps suspected, I prefer the G mounts because I am almost universally an AR shooter (both large and small frame). The cantilever nature of the G mounts works better on ARs. I am aware that Spuhr makes cantilever mounts. In fact, I have a 3616 on my LRP-07.

However, I prefer the lighter weight of the G mount and the simplicity of its mounting system on the 1913 rail. If I want to mount an RDS or micro, I'll do it at 45 degrees off the top rail to keep it more tucked in and less likely to get hung up on gear. However, for a bolt gun, I can see how one might find Spuhr more flexible.

I find the spuhr bubble level nearly useless. My eyes simply do not pick it up as well as other bubble levels when I am on the rifle given its location. I suspect that is more a function of my eyes and preferences than the Spuhr itself...so that's more subjective criticism than objective. The leveling wedge is nifty, indeed, though. But not something that generations of hunters/marksmen/shooters have not done without.

Make no mistake. I would never argue that Spuhr is anything other than top of the food chain good with a nearly unparalleled potential feature set. But for my uses, the G is better both in terms of simplicity and value. If you shop G.com at any holiday, you will be able to buy any G mount at 20-25% off. That's roughly $100 less than a Spuhr....if on sale.
 
As you perhaps suspected, I prefer the G mounts because I am almost universally an AR shooter (both large and small frame). The cantilever nature of the G mounts works better on ARs. I am aware that Spuhr makes cantilever mounts. In fact, I have a 3616 on my LRP-07.

However, I prefer the lighter weight of the G mount and the simplicity of its mounting system on the 1913 rail. If I want to mount an RDS or micro, I'll do it at 45 degrees off the top rail to keep it more tucked in and less likely to get hung up on gear. However, for a bolt gun, I can see how one might find Spuhr more flexible.

I find the spuhr bubble level nearly useless. My eyes simply do not pick it up as well as other bubble levels when I am on the rifle given its location. I suspect that is more a function of my eyes and preferences than the Spuhr itself...so that's more subjective criticism than objective. The leveling wedge is nifty, indeed, though. But not something that generations of hunters/marksmen/shooters have not done without.

Make no mistake. I would never argue that Spuhr is anything other than top of the food chain good with a nearly unparalleled potential feature set. But for my uses, the G is better both in terms of simplicity and value. If you shop G.com at any holiday, you will be able to buy any G mount at 20-25% off. That's roughly $100 less than a Spuhr....if on sale.
The spuhr is on sale a lot at optics planet for $340. The bubble I can’t see very well on the spuhr but I use it to practice & now I don’t need one I can see because practice has me level. I think I might buy some geiselle mounts for my ar’s. I use an arisaka level on other 1 piece mounts it just makes it a lot easier to plum the reticle. With the sale price it will be $245-260, I will have to watch for a sale. What about mounting rmr’s on them?
 
Last edited:
The spuhr is on sale a lot at optics planet for $340. The bubble I can’t see very well on the spuhr but I use it to practice & now I don’t need one I can see because practice has me level. I think I might buy some geiselle mounts for my ar’s. I use an arisaka level on other 1 piece mounts it just makes it a lot easier to plum the reticle. With the sale price it will be $245-260, I will have to keep my I open for a sale. What about mounting rmr’s on them?

I, too, use the arisaka level to mount my optics. Simple, cheap and effective.

I am unaware of the ability to mount an RMR "on" the G mount. I'm only aware of placing one at 33 or 45 degree off the rail with a dedicated mount (such as those made by Daniel Defense, PRI, American Defense, Trijicon, etc).
 
Given the name, if they make a LPVO, I would expect it to be a 1-5x.

However, I do not have any inside information on that. Given that I am testing another Mark 5 scope right now and like it, I would definitely want them to try a LPVO, but rather than go for the highest erector ratio, I would rather have them focus on making the smallest and lightest LPVO they can while maintaining good 1x performance.

ILya
 
  • Like
Reactions: ddavis and Mwalex
Given the name, if they make a LPVO, I would expect it to be a 1-5x.

However, I do not have any inside information on that. Given that I am testing another Mark 5 scope right now and like it, I would definitely want them to try a LPVO, but rather than go for the highest erector ratio, I would rather have them focus on making the smallest and lightest LPVO they can while maintaining good 1x performance.

ILya

I’d be perfectly happy with a 1-5 LPVO CMR-W

Now what’s this other MK5 you’re testing?

(Please god let it be something like the old Mk 4 M/RT 2.5-8 but with some improvements)
 
Does the author not realize that there's at least a dozen other scopes that have been out much longer than the Leupold that can do the same thing as good or better. Obviously Leupold is a huge name in shooting sports and maybe this will bring more awareness for our sport, I don't mind that all in fact I encourage it; however, thinking that Leupold is "bringing the heat" with the 5-25x56 is a bit bold with all the competition that has already established itself. But who knows, maybe the Mark 5HD will have better glass and turrets than Tangent Theta and shock us all...

Better turrets than the a TT?
Thats not really a fair comparison
 
Better turrets than the a TT?
Thats not really a fair comparison
Keep in mind I wrote that before these scopes had really hit the market so none of us were aware of how good or how bad the Mark 5 was, I also made my comment in response to the author of the article who mentioned Leupold was "bringing the heat" with the 5-25x56 when the market is already flooded with really good 5-25 scopes, a better expression would be "catching up" but certainly not bringing the heat. All that to say I did purchase a Mark 5 3.6-18x44 and while my copy was not as impressive optically as I hoped I was very impressed with their turrets. I am not a "touchy feely" guy when it comes to turrets, my basis is - can I click through without looking at the turret and know where I'm at, most scopes can do that for me, even the sub $1000 PST II and XTR II have decent turret feel to me, but the Mark 5 turrets are probably my favorite if I have to rank turrets (among scopes I've used which have been many), the spacing was ideal and the clicks were very distinct and I loved the zero lock, not just a stop but an actual lock, very nice design. If Leupold would come out with a Christmas Tree reticle that was on par with the competition I'd have to give serious consideration to the Mark 5, but until they bring out that reticle and reduce the price of their illumination (which puts their scopes above the price of much of their competition which all come with illumination by default) then sadly the Mark 5 will not be adorning any of my rifles.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MarinePMI
For me the illumination (or lack of) is a non-issue, due to the great light gathering that the MK-5 has demonstrated. If I was running NV, then yeah, sure it would matter...but I'm not (can't hunt here with NV, so, meh). So it's a non-issue.

I'm only running the 5-25, but my experience (as previously noted) continues to be positive. Like wjm308 notes, the turrets are pretty nice, and I too like the zero stop/lock function (wish they made an exposed windage knob version, also sporting the same turret as the elevation).

I've run quite a few other scopes (Vortex, Burris, SWFA and USO), and the Mk-5 continues (with use) to leave me with the impression that it is a good, solid contender for this price range (unless illumination is a hang up for you).
 
Keep in mind I wrote that before these scopes had really hit the market so none of us were aware of how good or how bad the Mark 5 was, I also made my comment in response to the author of the article who mentioned Leupold was "bringing the heat" with the 5-25x56 when the market is already flooded with really good 5-25 scopes, a better expression would be "catching up" but certainly not bringing the heat. All that to say I did purchase a Mark 5 3.6-18x44 and while my copy was not as impressive optically as I hoped I was very impressed with their turrets. I am not a "touchy feely" guy when it comes to turrets, my basis is - can I click through without looking at the turret and know where I'm at, most scopes can do that for me, even the sub $1000 PST II and XTR II have decent turret feel to me, but the Mark 5 turrets are probably my favorite if I have to rank turrets (among scopes I've used which have been many), the spacing was ideal and the clicks were very distinct and I loved the zero lock, not just a stop but an actual lock, very nice design. If Leupold would come out with a Christmas Tree reticle that was on par with the competition I'd have to give serious consideration to the Mark 5, but until they bring out that reticle and reduce the price of their illumination (which puts their scopes above the price of much of their competition which all come with illumination by default) then sadly the Mark 5 will not be adorning any of my rifles.
I agree, I think that both the turrets and the light gathering ability are my favorite features of the Mark 5.
 
My mk5hd had to be replaced. Leupold has been very good about fixing this situation. I think I was just unlucky, it happens. I would definitely still recommend the mk5hd & have confidence in leupold knowing if something goes wrong they will do their best to fix it. One thing I’m concerned about is they didn’t have a 25x cch & so they are shipping me a 35x for a little extra. How is the reticle at 16-20x because that is the mag range I use most. I mainly use high mag for zero & load development. I plan to use this for a 1300-2000 yard rifle where the 35x can make a difference but mirage can be a big factor where I live even in the morning it’s pretty hot. Is the reticle still a decent size at 16-20x on the 35x
 
Been wanting to try out the MK5 as a scope for my hunting rig for awhile. Here about a week ago I had a choice between a New Non-Illum Leupold MK5 HD 3.8-18 and a used NF NXS F1 3.5-15x50 Mil/Mil for about the same price range ($1500 +/-) I ended up going with the NF. Did I make the right call? Not sure. The NF is heavier and I like the capped windage of the Leupold for hunting purposes but when the decision came I had to go with the tried and true NF.

Can any of you speak on behalf of the glass clarity between the MK5 and the NF NXS?
 
My mk5hd had to be replaced. Leupold has been very good about fixing this situation. I think I was just unlucky, it happens. I would definitely still recommend the mk5hd & have confidence in leupold knowing if something goes wrong they will do their best to fix it. One thing I’m concerned about is they didn’t have a 25x cch & so they are shipping me a 35x for a little extra. How is the reticle at 16-20x because that is the mag range I use most. I mainly use high mag for zero & load development. I plan to use this for a 1300-2000 yard rifle where the 35x can make a difference but mirage can be a big factor where I live even in the morning it’s pretty hot. Is the reticle still a decent size at 16-20x on the 35x

The reticle should look exactly the same on the same magnification between 5-25x56 and 7-35x56 models.

ILya
 
  • Like
Reactions: NVScout and LAW-DOG
The reticle should look exactly the same on the same magnification between 5-25x56 and 7-35x56 models.

ILya
Im sorry I meant the line thickness at 20x for the 5-25 & 7-35. Example, the atacr line thickness for the mil-c reticle is .04 mils at max power 35x(7-35x), 25x(5-25x), 16x(4-16x) So if you turn the 5-25x & 7-35 down to 16x the line thickness is .0256 for the 5-25 & .0182 for the 7-35 vs .04@16x of the 4-16x. The open center dot is .05 mils at 35x (7-35) & 25x (5-25). 7-35 dot is .05@35x, .04@28x, .03@21x, .02@14x, & .01@7x. 5-25 dot is .05@25x, .04@20x, .03@15x, .02@10x, & .01@5x. The center dot of the 7-35 at 21x is .03 mils & the 5-25 at 20x .04 mils. I was comparing the line thickness at 15-20x on the 5-25 & 7-35. It’s a little bit smaller on the 7-35 but not bad. The 7-35 dot on 14-21x is .02-.03 mils & 15-20x is .03-.04 mils for the 5-25. This is how the nightforce tech explained it to me, how the line thickness shrinks at different powers, & how it differs between the 4-16, 5-25, & 7-35 atacr. I should have been more clear when I asked how they compare at 16-20x
 
Last edited:
Not gonna lie. I would be a little unhappy if the scope they sent me was messed up and the option to get a comparable was to spend more money... on top of an already expensive scope. If the 35x was your first choice, then that's cool. But that would kinda piss me off.

Kinda like, I bought the scope I wanted. Now, through no fault of my own, I am required to pay more for a comparable option.
 
I will say that leupold customer service was really good throughout this ordeal. The 25x was out of stock so I didn’t want to wait & I already have a couple of 25x scopes, 21x dmr2 Pro, & some others, so I paid the extra for 35x & it doesn’t bother me. If you have any problems email Michael Lynch mlynch@leupold, he got my situation squared away & I am satisfied. I’m headed out to the desert to run some flatline 256s in the 338 so I will have a 25x & 35x to see how more help it will be. When I use my neighbors APM super ed fpl53 82mm long range binoculars or spotting scope there’s not a big difference in 25x to 35x but when I use 50-70x you really start to see a big difference. Leupold should make a mk5hd 50x too & some 15/20x56 ED/HD binoculars with a reticle
 
My mk5hd had to be replaced. Leupold has been very good about fixing this situation. I think I was just unlucky, it happens. I would definitely still recommend the mk5hd & have confidence in Leupold knowing if something goes wrong they will do their best to fix it. One thing I’m concerned about is they didn’t have a 25x cch & so they are shipping me a 35x for a little extra. How is the reticle at 16-20x because that is the mag range I use most. I mainly use high mag for zero & load development. I plan to use this for a 1300-2000 yard rifle where the 35x can make a difference but mirage can be a big factor where I live even in the morning it’s pretty hot. Is the reticle still a decent size at 16-20x on the 35x

Howdy LawDog!

I'm glad you were happy with your service and with Michael's help! I wanted to let everyone know that this is our standard procedure: if you get something back from repair where something was missed, return shipping will be covered and the correction will be rushed. If Michael is not around, emailing directly may not be the best idea. We prefer to be contacted at 1-800-Leupold or [email protected] so we can be sure to get to everyone.

I thought I could clarify something with the reticle subtension/appearance as well. This can be hard to describe because there is a difference between the appearance of the reticle to your eye and it's subtension (what it covers on the target, measured in MOA or MILs). With the CCH being in the Front/First Focal Plane, the fine lines will cover 0.04MILs and the center opening will be 0.20MILs on the target at every magnification, but it will appear larger or smaller in your field of view as you change the mag (just like the target will). Koshkin is correct that if you put your 7-35x on 25x, everything including the reticle will look the same as is did on your 5-25x at the same power. At 35x, the line will appear larger to your eye than it did at 25x, but it will be covering the same amount of the target because the target will have grown the same amount in your field of view.

Hope this helps!

Quick edit: Here's the CCH subtensions. These subtensions will be accurate on all magnifications.
 
Last edited:
The reticle line width is largest at max power on the nightforce atacr scopes. If you turn the atacr 35x down to 16x the reticle line width is much smaller than the 4-16x scope at 16x, the mils are the same but not the line thickness/visibility of the reticle. On the nightforce the reticle lines are .04 mils thick at 35x for the 7-35 & at 16x for the 4-16 so they can’t take up the same space. When the 35x mag goes down to 16x the reticle shrinks with the target. If you put the 4-16x next to the 7-35x & turn both to 16x you can see the 4-16x reticle easier because the line width is thicker. Is the leupold different than the nightforce when it comes to reticle line width at max magnification. If the line width of the mk5 25x power & 35x are .04 at max magnification when you turn the 35x down to 25x the reticle line width will shrink with the target as the power goes down so the line width won’t be the same but the mils will be the same.
 
Last edited:
Definitely happy with my 5-25 but that's old news I'm sure. Very interested in the 3.6-18 for a gas gun. For those that don't want to spend a pile on 35mm mounts, Larue has 35mm rings that fit their LT104 etc. for $60. Good cheap way to get an optic up and running quickly.
 
Definitely happy with my 5-25 but that's old news I'm sure. Very interested in the 3.6-18 for a gas gun. For those that don't want to spend a pile on 35mm mounts, Larue has 35mm rings that fit their LT104 etc. for $60. Good cheap way to get an optic up and running quickly.
Those are for changing your tube size if you already own a $210 larue lt104 & want to change scopes that are different tube sizes. They won’t attach to a pic rail, it only attaches at the base of the lt104. If you want cheaper rings vortex/seekins makes good match quality for around $100
 
Are the 3.6-18 good to go these days? No QC issues as of late, buy with confidence? Or not so much? This is like the only optic out there that fits the hunting rifle role well, mostly because of weight. I'm seeing a lot of them on hunting builds lately.
 
Those are for changing your tube size if you already own a $210 larue lt104 & want to change scopes that are different tube sizes. They won’t attach to a pic rail, it only attaches at the base of the lt104. If you want cheaper rings vortex/seekins makes good match quality for around $100

Yeah, I was assuming most people would have a Larue mount of some sort laying around. Thanks for the clarification.
 
Are the 3.6-18 good to go these days? No QC issues as of late, buy with confidence? Or not so much? This is like the only optic out there that fits the hunting rifle role well, mostly because of weight. I'm seeing a lot of them on hunting builds lately.

I've got two of them. They work perfect for a LR hunting rifle. For me, the weight (26oz) is worth it for the performance. I've got one on a 9# 300 win mag that saw about 600 rounds last year. It tracks perfectly and, after a previous hunting incident, I will only hunt with a scope that has a locking turret. The only real difference is I see a small bit of CR on the 3.6-18 vs my 5-25. But that in no way hampers me in field shooting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Undrgrndprdcts
I've got two of them. They work perfect for a LR hunting rifle. For me, the weight (26oz) is worth it for the performance. I've got one on a 9# 300 win mag that saw about 600 rounds last year. It tracks perfectly and, after a previous hunting incident, I will only hunt with a scope that has a locking turret. The only real difference is I see a small bit of CR on the 3.6-18 vs my 5-25. But that in no way hampers me in field shooting.

I'd be able to shave 10oz off my rig switching over from a cronus. I do love the cronus though.