Rifle Scopes So, what about Leupold Mark 5 ?

[Pusher591]

I was asking Frank and Mike on theeveryday sniper FB about the mark 5. Mike has them at MHS. He said they were better than he was expecting. He posted some pics through his phone between the 5-25 MK5 (i presume) and the NF 7-35 with the Tremor reticle. Not indicative of glass quality but i think it's going to be pretty decent. One is the NF the other is the MK5. While clarity/resolution doesn't really show up on a camera. CA it usually pics up, which is what i was looking for. Bit different color to both. Whenever David gets some in i'm going to look through one.

Gonna go with the Mk5 being the top due to the CA and clarity. If it is though, that’s about on par glass wise with the Mk6 so not too bad I guess.

 

[5RWill]

Mark5 is on the bottom NF 7-35 on the top. I didn't notice any CA in the top, color looks more accurate or maybe warm is the word. Bottom two are the Mark 5. Looks like slight purple fringing on the end of the truck on the fourth Mil line of the tremor 3 reticle. I guess this was most noticeable for the Mark 5. Stop sign has purple fringing and the white piece of paper by the tree on right. Didn't post this one because i didn't have a third of the NF at the same pic.

 

[JFComfort]

I’m looking forward to checking one out. I want to like Leupold. I grew up using Leupold’s...

 

[redneckbmxer24]

I’m not going to pass judgement based off of those pics. Both of the pics of the Leupold with mag turned up you can tell that the picture is very out of focus and/or the diopter based on the fuzziness of the reticle.

 

[V-Ref]

For the Leupold drama queens in this thread....Why not wait until you see/use one before passing judgement? Why not just wait the market out 9-12 months...it'll either prove itself or it won't.

 

[5RWill]

It's to note the pics were not indicative of clarity, resolution, or color accuracy. Basically was just providing some shots and getting Mike's opinion on it thus far.

 

[TheMammoth]

It's important to look at them relative to each other on a shitty phone camera.

This helps me shed the fear that the glass is awful, at least.

I'm going to reserve judgement until there are some in depth reviews. I really really want the weight category of this unit so fingers crossed that they stand up to review tests!

 

[xmedicmanx]

The best indicator of future performance is past performance. History is why this product will be shit and in 5 years, you will agree with me.

I remember my first beer.

Dear Primus- bless your heart, you're trolling. You ooze hyperbole and unsupportable predictions with a dash of cliche for flair.

Meh... history will repeat it self; you'll see! You all will see! Such hubris! Meh!

Let's figure on that saying being true- leupold was a premiere American scope manufacturer. Would it to be a fair supposition to think that they are capable of looking forward and LEARNING from the current market?

Know this, I have two 3.6-18s on order... direct from leupold. Made fast friends with their marketing guy who also happened to be a sniper in the reserves. He was part of the development of the scope. Their three demands of the scope was:

Track true
Crisp glass
Crisp turrets

He said, and I'm paraphrasing here, that the glass is better than the mk6 with better coatings, hat they wanted the turrets to be tactile even with light gloves on.

He gave me great pricing, so I'm going to run these through the ringer and if they stand up to his claims, I'll be selling my German glass and save some money.

 

[Subwrx300]

Regardless of Leupold's past with respect to turret tracking and/or some quality control issues (and pricing...), I'm absolutely willing to give them the benefit of doubt when they are offering a super short style FFP scope that should be @ or under 2k in real world pricing.

Please correct me if I'm wrong (with examples please) but this would be one of the lightest, shortest high(er) magnification scopes available for precision shooting, correct? Assuming it tracks, has good turrets, and glass comparable or better than similarly priced scopes OR those with same features/dimensions, it would be a great step to push other companies to develop similar products.

But full disclosure: I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night...

 

[Monstershot]

Regardless of Leupold's past with respect to turret tracking and/or some quality control issues (and pricing...), I'm absolutely willing to give them the benefit of doubt when they are offering a super short style FFP scope that should be @ or under 2k in real world pricing.

Please correct me if I'm wrong (with examples please) but this would be one of the lightest, shortest high(er) magnification scopes available for precision shooting, correct? Assuming it tracks, has good turrets, and glass comparable or better than similarly priced scopes OR those with same features/dimensions, it would be a great step to push other companies to develop similar products.

But full disclosure: I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night...

You’re not wrong. The only lighter/shorter/as short scopes are the Mark 6 3-18 and the March 3-24 in this class. If Leupold achieved their goals as reported by xmedicmanx, this scope will be a big success for them.

Edit to add: If they achieved their goals I’ll be buying one...

 

[Primus]

a

I remember my first beer.

Dear Primus- bless your heart, you're trolling. You ooze hyperbole and unsupportable predictions with a dash of cliche for flair.

Meh... history will repeat it self; you'll see! You all will see! Such hubris! Meh!

Let's figure on that saying being true- leupold was a premiere American scope manufacturer. Would it to be a fair supposition to think that they are capable of looking forward and LEARNING from the current market?

Know this, I have two 3.6-18s on order... direct from leupold. Made fast friends with their marketing guy who also happened to be a sniper in the reserves. He was part of the development of the scope. Their three demands of the scope was:

Track true
Crisp glass
Crisp turrets

He said, and I'm paraphrasing here, that the glass is better than the mk6 with better coatings, hat they wanted the turrets to be tactile even with light gloves on.

He gave me great pricing, so I'm going to run these through the ringer and if they stand up to his claims, I'll be selling my German glass and save some money.

Your clearly not bias post has sold me.

I have full confidence knowing someone whose operational experience was using the Pinnacle of optics know as the Mark 4 3.5-10 is the driver behind this.
FYI, Army reserves doesn't have snipers or combat MOS. Nice try kid. Enjoy that first beer.

 

[Glassaholic]

What is the term or i guess reason the eyebox is so sensitive on that particular scope at max magnification? Is it just a consequence of the short design? I thought it may have just been me when i had it. Then i had three friends look through it and all of them complained. If your cheek weld wasn't 100% perfect you'd lose sight picture. I know this applies to some degree on all scopes but it made the Mark 6 almost unusable for me at 18x

ILya would probably be much more qualified to provide a more technical response than I, we also have a few optical engineers on the Hide so maybe they'll chime in as well. That being said I know exactly what you're talking about. A lot of people equate eyebox to eye relief and think that scopes that have "longer" eye relief have a better eyebox; however, the Mark 6 actually has very generous eye relief of 3.80 -3.90" whereas Schmidt & Bender's average 3.54" along with many other scopes in this class, but clearly you did not experience a generous eyebox with the Mark 6 so why is that? I believe it has more to do with the optical formula - how did the engineers design the internal lenses from the front objective to the rear ocular. Could it be a consequence of 6x magnification within a short design, that may be; however, S&B's Ultra Short 3-20 is an even greater with a 6.7x erector and yet I have not heard anyone complain about the eyebox on this scope. Another short scope that some have mentioned has a finicky eyebox is the March 3-24 series, the 42mm having more issues than the 52mm... is this simply a factor of the front objective being larger or did the optical engineers fix some of the issues of the 42mm when they designed the 52? One of the worst scopes in regard to getting behind (for me personally) was the Burris XTR II 4-20 (not an ultra short design), getting a proper sight picture wasn't necessarily difficult but getting a clear image required being absolutely precise with my eye placement and this caused eye fatigue after a short while behind this scope.

And maybe it would be good to define what I mean by "eyebox" - that being the ability to quickly and accurately get a good sight picture behind a properly mounted scope with a properly adjusted cheek piece. Why would I qualify that statement with "properly" mounted scope and adjusted cheek piece and the reason is because if your scope is not mounted properly to your natural hold you are going to be hunting around for that sight picture, this is where eye relief comes into play and the best way I have found to adjust for this is to put the scope on maximum magnification (where eye relief and eyebox are usually the worse), mount the scope loosely within the rings (but tight enough it won't fall out), close your eyes and bring the rifle up into a proper hold, now open your eyes, do you have a clear sight picture, most likely not so maintaining that hold as best you can, move the scope slightly forward or back until you get a proper sight picture. Now repeat the process and do this several times until you are consistent with closing your eyes, bringing the rifle up to your natural hold and opening your eyes and getting a good sight picture, once you do, now you can tighten your rings. I also mention the proper cheek piece position because if you have high rings and don't have an adjustable cheek piece you're going to need some kind of riser (like a stock pack) so that when you get your cheek weld your eye is in a higher position than the stock alone, if you're eye is not in the proper position then your going to struggle to get a good sight picture and end up having to move off your natural hold to be properly aligned. What we're looking for is consistency with our natural hold, if you find you are constantly adjusting your cheek weld or position or whatever to get a good sight picture than something is wrong. I'm sure this is nothing new for you Will, but I write this in case other readers happen upon this thread who may not be aware of some of the proper techniques for mounting their scope and wonder why they have such difficulty getting behind their $3k optic, and I'm also not inferring that my technique is the best, but it is the best I have been taught so far, so if anyone has further recommendations or constructive criticism please chime in.

So back to your question on why the eyebox of the Mark 6 3-18 is so finicky at 18x and to be honest, I do not know. However, one other factor that may be at play is the size of the ocular lens or eyepiece - I have noticed that, in general, scopes that have a larger diameter eyepiece tend to have a better eyebox (see image below), at least in my experience. This is not to say that the March is somehow inferior because it's pretty amazing in its own right; however, both the Schmidt & Bender and the Vortex AMG were easier to get behind. Again, the March was not bad, just not as good as some other scopes in my arsenal at the time.

 

[xmedicmanx]

I remember my first beer.

Dear Primus- bless your heart, you're trolling. You ooze hyperbole and unsupportable predictions with a dash of cliche for flair.

Meh... history will repeat it self; you'll see! You all will see! Such hubris! Meh!

Let's figure on that saying being true- leupold was a premiere American scope manufacturer. Would it to be a fair supposition to think that they are capable of looking forward and LEARNING from the current market?

Know this, I have two 3.6-18s on order... direct from leupold. Made fast friends with their marketing guy who also happened to be a sniper in the reserves. He was part of the development of the scope. Their three demands of the scope was:

Track true
Crisp glass
Crisp turrets

He said, and I'm paraphrasing here, that the glass is better than the mk6 with better coatings, hat they wanted the turrets to be tactile even with light gloves on.

He gave me great pricing, so I'm going to run these through the ringer and if they stand up to his claims, I'll be selling my German glass and save some money.

a


FYI, Army reserves doesn't have snipers or combat MOS. Nice try kid. Enjoy that first beer.

Click below and cry... report with the caption below the headline picture speaking of a "US Army Reserve sniper and infantryman". I suspect you'll question the credibility (fake news, right Mr. President?) but that's fine.

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-the-army-trains-snipers-at-fort-benning-2017-12

Let's assume that he's full of shit in his claim of being a part-time sniper... stolen valor? it's possible but Ill give him the benefit of the doubt. Let's also say that HE IS biased.. After all he works for leupold. Fine and quite frankly, likely. Still, I don't understand the motivation to bad mouth an optic that you haven't any experience or hands-on with. Nor can I accept that we are to follow clichés such as yours when making purchase decisions. I can't accurately or with certainty assure you or anyone here that the new 2019 Ram 1500s (just redesigned) are going to have transmission problems because my mom's caravan had to go in the shop when I was in middle school. I'm 37yo btw and that actually happened...

But doc, doesn't hx repeat itself?!!!

Are we to assume we'll be fighting Nazi Germany again because, after all, history repeats itself? FAIL.

I digress


///BREAK///

Heres the details that have me excited:

5X mag
FFP
Low weight
Short/Compact
integrated throw lever
zero set
2nd and 3rd rev indicators

Those are verifiable.

I don't care about it not having illumination, I just want it to track true, be clear and bright and have the tactile turrets that the rep promised me on.

///BREAK///

Primus and anyone else, feel free to flame me/my thoughts. I don't mind. I probably won't be logged in anyways. Afterall, rather than being a split screen sniper, I'll probably be at the range like I tend to be 3-5 days a week (except for very recently because of having gone through a divorce because... you guessed it... I shoot 3-5 days a week.).

 

[918v]

Seriously? That's a little bit of the pot calling the kettle black don't you think? Do you honestly think that if a company fails at making a product it can't learn from its mistakes and rectify that in a future product? I'm willing to give the Leupold Mark 5HD a chance and I realize they've had some struggles in this market, but sight unseen you're already condemning it, talk about hubris.

There is a guy on this site who bought a Mark6 3-18 from a prominent vendor on this site. The scope was defective. He contacted Leupold customer service and they sent him another. It was defective. He sent it back and they sent him a third. It was also defective. The defects included poor tracking, severely off center reticles, jumping reticles, etc. He lamented that he really wanted this scope for its light weight and short length. He did not want to bash Leupold. He only wanted a working optic. He is not the only one.

I have had more than a dozen Leupold scopes. Some had issues, some did not. But when customer service sends you a worse product than you initially sent in, it’s time to end that relationship. When they charge that kind of money and put out that kind of crap, they have nothing coming. I’m beginning to think they send all the good stuff to the military and sell scopes made out of reject parts to the public.

 

[xmedicmanx]

There is a guy on this site who bought a Mark6 3-18 from a prominent vendor on this site. The scope was defective. He contacted Leupold customer service and they sent him another. It was defective. He sent it back and they sent him a third. It was also defective. The defects included poor tracking, severely off center reticles, jumping reticles, etc. He lamented that he really wanted this scope for its light weight and short length. He did not want to bash Leupold. He only wanted a working optic. He is not the only one.

I have had more than a dozen Leupold scopes. Some had issues, some did not. But when customer service sends you a worse product than you initially sent in, it’s time to end that relationship. When they charge that kind of money and put out that kind of crap, they have nothing coming. I’m beginning to think they send all the good stuff to the military and sell scopes made out of reject parts to the public.

That's really too bad! I had a buddy who had one and he didn't like the turret design ( think it's now the same as the new Mk5), but he thought the glass and tracking was good.

I can speak for MY Leupold's, I like them. They're not as good or as up-to-date as some of my German pieces, but they track and just work. I have a Ultra 10X M1 (pre-Mk4) that is mounted in quick release rings for the purposes of load dev. It's ugly and old with defects in the glass now, but dammit it tracks and works. I have had good experiences with CS, swapping reticles, turrets and setting parallax with my service rifle optics (I use VX-Rs)

my .02

 

[JFComfort]

I have a MK5 5-25x headed my way. I’ll post my thoughts and experience with it. I’m currently using a Kahles K624i and Hensoldt ZF.

 

[CSTactical]

The MK5 look like they are going to be great scopes. JFComfort, I'm looking to your thoughts on the scope.

I have a feeling the NEW Kahles K318x is going to give it a run for its money.

Mike @ CSTACTICAL

 

[Pointman308]

a

Your clearly not bias post has sold me.

I have full confidence knowing someone whose operational experience was using the Pinnacle of optics know as the Mark 4 3.5-10 is the driver behind this.
FYI, Army reserves doesn't have snipers or combat MOS. Nice try kid. Enjoy that first beer.

Ummmm yes they do have snipers. You just lost all credibility.

 

[J Scott]

Hi, guys. I have throughly enjoyed reading this thread. To the point, I placed an order for the Mark 5 3.6-18x44 with TMR to find out for myself. I have a Mark 4 spotter with this reticle, so this could be a perfect match. I'm not nearly as optically sophisticated as many on this board, but I do value quality optics. Like me, hopefully some of you will be able to judge this particular model based on your personal experience or from those that you hold in high regard.

Have a nice day,

J Scott

 

[JFComfort]

The MK5 look like they are going to be great scopes. JFComfort, I'm looking to your thoughts on the scope.

I have a feeling the NEW Kahles K318x is going to give it a run for its money.

Mike @ CSTACTICAL

The new Kahles looks good and I’m glad to see it’s compact. My K624i is looonnnngggg. The ARD does it no favors. I’ve also taken notice of the EOTech Vudu’s.

Like I posted earlier I have high hopes for the MK5 and understand the folks on Sniper’s Hide are a tough crowd. We’ve seen NF stray and comeback strong with the ATACR F1 line and hope this is the start of Leupold doing the same.

 

[TheMammoth]

The amount of dead space between those monitors makes me want to cry

 

[Primus]

Ummmm yes they do have snipers. You just lost all credibility.

I spent almost 10years in the army and guard; the majority of that time in combat arms units that had an organic sniper section. The Army reserves does not have combat MOS and sure as fuck doesn’t have 11b b4 or 19d b4. Your butt boy is blowing smoke up your ass and your too ignorant to know any better.

 

[xmedicmanx]

They do now... maybe they didn't when you were in. That doesn't have any relevance to your narrow-mindedness to new kit you haven't laid your jergens-soaked palms on, nor your delusions of grandeur... Man, what's a good synonym for that...

oh, yes...

hu·bris

[ˈ(h)yo͞obrəs]

NOUN

1. excessive pride or self-confidence.
   synonyms: arrogance · conceit · haughtiness · hauteur · pride · self-importance · egotism · pomposity · superciliousness · superiority · big-headedness · cockiness

BTW, I hit my 16yr AD service anniversary on Monday, so feel free to attack that blindly as well.

 

[Primus]

Click below and cry... report with the caption below the headline picture speaking of a "US Army Reserve sniper and infantryman". I suspect you'll question the credibility (fake news, right Mr. President?) but that's fine.

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-the-army-trains-snipers-at-fort-benning-2017-12

Let's assume that he's full of shit in his claim of being a part-time sniper... stolen valor? it's possible but Ill give him the benefit of the doubt. Let's also say that HE IS biased.. After all he works for leupold. Fine and quite frankly, likely. Still, I don't understand the motivation to bad mouth an optic that you haven't any experience or hands-on with. Nor can I accept that we are to follow clichés such as yours when making purchase decisions. I can't accurately or with certainty assure you or anyone here that the new Ram 1500s (just redesigned) are going to have transmission problems because my mom's caravan had to go in the shop when I was in middle school. I'm 37yo btw and that actually happened...

But doc, doesn't hx repeat itself?!!!

Are we to assume we'll be fighting Nazi Germany again because, after all, history repeats itself? FAIL.

I digress


///BREAK///

Heres the details that have me excited:

5X mag
FFP
Low weight
Short/Compact
integrated throw lever
zero set
2nd and 3rd rev indicators

Those are verifiable.

I don't care about it not having illumination, I just want it to track true, be clear and bright and have the tactile turrets that the rep promised me on.

///BREAK///

Primus and anyone else, feel free to flame me/my thoughts. I don't mind. I probably won't be logged in anyways. Afterall, rather than being a split screen sniper, I'll probably be at the range like I tend to be 3-5 days a week (except for very recently because of having gone through a divorce because... you guessed it... I shoot 3-5 days a week.).

Hrm business insider..... i know when I need to get up do date military intel BI clickbait is my go to source........Haha get the fuck out of here you might as well be on the moon.

Technically there is exactly one reserve infantry BN out of hawai, but they are .0001% of the reserve forces. So unless your buddy lives in HI, he is full of shit or you are misinformed.

 

[Primus]

They do now... maybe they didn't when you were in. That doesn't have any relevance to your narrow-mindedness to new kit you haven't laid your jergens-soaked palms on, nor your delusions of grandeur... Man, what's a good synonym for that...

oh, yes...

hu·bris

[ˈ(h)yo͞obrəs]

NOUN

1. excessive pride or self-confidence.
   synonyms: arrogance · conceit · haughtiness · hauteur · pride · self-importance · egotism · pomposity · superciliousness · superiority · big-headedness · cockiness

BTW, I hit my 16yr AD service anniversary on Monday, so feel free to attack that blindly as well.

They do? Please show me units of combat arms in the Army reserves. I will wait.

 

[xmedicmanx]

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

Hamlet
William Shakespeare

 

[Glassaholic]

There is a guy on this site who bought a Mark6 3-18 from a prominent vendor on this site. The scope was defective. He contacted Leupold customer service and they sent him another. It was defective. He sent it back and they sent him a third. It was also defective. The defects included poor tracking, severely off center reticles, jumping reticles, etc. He lamented that he really wanted this scope for its light weight and short length. He did not want to bash Leupold. He only wanted a working optic. He is not the only one.

I have had more than a dozen Leupold scopes. Some had issues, some did not. But when customer service sends you a worse product than you initially sent in, it’s time to end that relationship. When they charge that kind of money and put out that kind of crap, they have nothing coming. I’m beginning to think they send all the good stuff to the military and sell scopes made out of reject parts to the public.

I understand the trepidation based on prior history, I share the same angst which is why I'm waiting to hear from a collection of reviewers. Customer Service can be hit or miss depending on who you get and with a company as large as Leupold, there is often high turnover in CS and I have seen where one year CS stinks but changes are made (usually based on complaints by customers) and they are different (for the better) the next. I realize that getting burned and burned again and burned again would cause you to never want to work with them again, but you have to realize that not everyone has had that experience. I am not expecting the ship to completely turn around based on one line of scopes, but competent sources have indicated that Leupold has realized the err of its ways and is trying to right the ship, granted it may be more from loss of market share vs. really wanting to make a product that appeals to this market, but at least they are doing something and I give them credit for that. Now if QA of the Mark 5HD and customer experience prove to be as bad or worse then I think we'll continue to see an exodus of users and word will continue to spread. I am not at the point you are and while I am cautious, I am cautiously optimistic about the Mark 5HD line...

 

[Primus]

Xmedix,
Just admit you are full of shit so we can go back to bashing Leupold for the shit company they are and this new product that will be shit like the rest of the crap they have peddled for the last 2 decades. I am and will be found to be correct, but it’s not like you will come back in 2 years and apologize.

 

[Primus]

I understand the trepidation based on prior history, I share the same angst which is why I'm waiting to hear from a collection of reviewers. Customer Service can be hit or miss depending on who you get and with a company as large as Leupold, there is often high turnover in CS and I have seen where one year CS stinks but changes are made (usually based on complaints by customers) and they are different (for the better) the next. I realize that getting burned and burned again and burned again would cause you to never want to work with them again, but you have to realize that not everyone has had that experience. I am not expecting the ship to completely turn around based on one line of scopes, but competent sources have indicated that Leupold has realized the err of its ways and is trying to right the ship, granted it may be more from loss of market share vs. really wanting to make a product that appeals to this market, but at least they are doing something and I give them credit for that. Now if QA of the Mark 5HD and customer experience prove to be as bad or worse then I think we'll continue to see an exodus of users and word will continue to spread. I am not at the point you are and while I am cautious, I am cautiously optimistic about the Mark 5HD line...

I understand where you are coming from but let’s play a hypothetical.

let’s replace Leupold with IOR. How would you and others react if this was an IOR product?

 

[xmedicmanx]

Xmedix,
Just admit you are full of shit so we can go back to bashing Leupold for the shit company they are and this new product that will be shit like the rest of the crap they have peddled for the last 2 decades. I am and will be found to be correct, but it’s not like you will come back in 2 years and apologize.

See that right there is the problem "so we can bash Leupold..." what does this prove or accomplish? How is that a relevant or true statement? You show me a hunting optic of theirs and I'll show you a relevant if perhaps slightly overpriced optic for the purpose.
Tactical, well ok let's look
Mark 4- wildly successful, now outdated check
Mark 6- not successful, tracking and QC problems, check
Mark 8- successful but overpriced,check
Mark 5- new, unconfirmed, unreviewed

 

[xmedicmanx]

I understand where you are coming from but let’s play a hypothetical.

let’s replace Leupold with IOR. How would you and others react if this was an IOR product?

Well, we'd probably wait to test it before reacting

 

[redneckbmxer24]

Xmedix,
Just admit you are full of shit so we can go back to bashing Leupold for the shit company they are and this new product that will be shit like the rest of the crap they have peddled for the last 2 decades. I am and will be found to be correct, but it’s not like you will come back in 2 years and apologize.

You're such a fucking retard. Welcome to my ignore list loser.

 

[Primus]

I guess you weren’t around when the snipers were bitching about the shitty Mark
4 deadlines or sitting atop their m24. Half the snipers in the unit brought their own s$b or nxs and the section chief let them roll with it. One of the perks of the guard is most of our snipers were also fed or local tac team members and could afford their own gear. Cops making over 100k a year aren’t going to deploy with trash optics.

 

[Primus]

Well, we'd probably wait to test it before reacting

Have you ever read an IOR thread here. Phillip, is that you?

 

[5RWill]

ILya would probably be much more qualified to provide a more technical response than I, we also have a few optical engineers on the Hide so maybe they'll chime in as well. That being said I know exactly what you're talking about. A lot of people equate eyebox to eye relief and think that scopes that have "longer" eye relief have a better eyebox; however, the Mark 6 actually has very generous eye relief of 3.80 -3.90" whereas Schmidt & Bender's average 3.54" along with many other scopes in this class, but clearly you did not experience a generous eyebox with the Mark 6 so why is that? I believe it has more to do with the optical formula - how did the engineers design the internal lenses from the front objective to the rear ocular. Could it be a consequence of 6x magnification within a short design, that may be; however, S&B's Ultra Short 3-20 is an even greater with a 6.7x erector and yet I have not heard anyone complain about the eyebox on this scope. Another short scope that some have mentioned has a finicky eyebox is the March 3-24 series, the 42mm having more issues than the 52mm... is this simply a factor of the front objective being larger or did the optical engineers fix some of the issues of the 42mm when they designed the 52? One of the worst scopes in regard to getting behind (for me personally) was the Burris XTR II 4-20 (not an ultra short design), getting a proper sight picture wasn't necessarily difficult but getting a clear image required being absolutely precise with my eye placement and this caused eye fatigue after a short while behind this scope.

And maybe it would be good to define what I mean by "eyebox" - that being the ability to quickly and accurately get a good sight picture behind a properly mounted scope with a properly adjusted cheek piece. Why would I qualify that statement with "properly" mounted scope and adjusted cheek piece and the reason is because if your scope is not mounted properly to your natural hold you are going to be hunting around for that sight picture, this is where eye relief comes into play and the best way I have found to adjust for this is to put the scope on maximum magnification (where eye relief and eyebox are usually the worse), mount the scope loosely within the rings (but tight enough it won't fall out), close your eyes and bring the rifle up into a proper hold, now open your eyes, do you have a clear sight picture, most likely not so maintaining that hold as best you can, move the scope slightly forward or back until you get a proper sight picture. Now repeat the process and do this several times until you are consistent with closing your eyes, bringing the rifle up to your natural hold and opening your eyes and getting a good sight picture, once you do, now you can tighten your rings. I also mention the proper cheek piece position because if you have high rings and don't have an adjustable cheek piece you're going to need some kind of riser (like a stock pack) so that when you get your cheek weld your eye is in a higher position than the stock alone, if you're eye is not in the proper position then your going to struggle to get a good sight picture and end up having to move off your natural hold to be properly aligned. What we're looking for is consistency with our natural hold, if you find you are constantly adjusting your cheek weld or position or whatever to get a good sight picture than something is wrong. I'm sure this is nothing new for you Will, but I write this in case other readers happen upon this thread who may not be aware of some of the proper techniques for mounting their scope and wonder why they have such difficulty getting behind their $3k optic, and I'm also not inferring that my technique is the best, but it is the best I have been taught so far, so if anyone has further recommendations or constructive criticism please chime in.

So back to your question on why the eyebox of the Mark 6 3-18 is so finicky at 18x and to be honest, I do not know. However, one other factor that may be at play is the size of the ocular lens or eyepiece - I have noticed that, in general, scopes that have a larger diameter eyepiece tend to have a better eyebox (see image below), at least in my experience. This is not to say that the March is somehow inferior because it's pretty amazing in its own right; however, both the Schmidt & Bender and the Vortex AMG were easier to get behind. Again, the March was not bad, just not as good as some other scopes in my arsenal at the time.

I appreciate the exposition as always Bill. I mount my scopes the same way. Adjustable cheek pieces are invaluable in mounting optics. I think often most underestimate properly mounting the optic according to the user. A lot think it's plug and play but it truthfully does take a little time. I need to get LRI's ULATCH installed in my EH1 so i don't have to use a stock pack anymore.

I will note the eyebox size from now on. Might shoot Ilya a PM as well.

The new Kahles looks good and I’m glad to see it’s compact. My K624i is looonnnngggg. The ARD does it no favors. I’ve also taken notice of the EOTech Vudu’s.

Like I posted earlier I have high hopes for the MK5 and understand the folks on Sniper’s Hide are a tough crowd. We’ve seen NF stray and comeback strong with the ATACR F1 line and hope this is the start of Leupold doing the same.

Couldn't agree more the more competition the better the market becomes for the consumer. Keep us posted Joe. If you still have that Hendsolt that would be a premium optic to put it up against.

 

[xmedicmanx]

Have you ever read an IOR thread here. Phillip, is that you?

No I was probably at the range that day

 

[JFComfort]

Couldn't agree more the more competition the better the market becomes for the consumer. Keep us posted Joe. If you still have that Hendsolt that would be a premium optic to put it up against.

The Hensoldt isn’t going anywhere! ?

 

[xmedicmanx]

Well boys, time for me to go hit the range, Primus, you have fun chasing your tail and making outrageous posts

Primus, ladies and gentlemen, is to Snipers Hide, what Trump is to Twitter after watching fox and friends.

 

[Glassaholic]

I need to get LRI's ULATCH installed in my EH1 so i don't have to use a stock pack anymore.

I will note the eyebox size from now on. Might shoot Ilya a PM as well.

What is this "ULATCH" I can't find it anywhere on LRI's site? I have a couple EH1's I use stock packs with, but have considered sending into Manners to get a "real" riser installed.

Let me know if you hear back from ILya, I'd be curious what he has to say...

 

[5RWill]

What is this "ULATCH" I can't find it anywhere on LRI's site? I have a couple EH1's I use stock packs with, but have considered sending into Manners to get a "real" riser installed.

Let me know if you hear back from ILya, I'd be curious what he has to say...

It's Chad's titanium adjustable cheek riser system from what i understand. 2.4oz or something so much lighter than most. I'll be sending it off when i send the TL3 receiver off to be DLC'd
https://www.longriflesinc.com/colle...ducts/gunsmithing-services-2-4-ultach-install

Will do.

 

[plong]

Serious question (hopefully answered by someone "in-the-know"): where, exactly, is the Mark 5 intended to fall in Leupy's hierarchy?? Common sense would lead one to believe 4<5<6<8. Prices I'm seeing, however, would indicate Leupold and/or retail vendors consider Mark 5 > Mark 6.

 

[7WSMShooter]

I would hope that Leupold would get it right this time with the Mark 5. Not gonna hold my breath
Though, nor be an early adopter. But to offer this scope in the 2K range without illumination with a FFP reticle is a step In the wrong direction to start with. Their CCH (combat competition hunting) reticle looks nice and I like it, but it would need to be illuminated for me. Some don't use illumination
And that's fine, but if it's FFP and your hunting
You may need it to even see your reticle
In very low light. Multiple shots I couldn't take in the past 2 years alone because I could see the deer through the scope but not the reticle.
I hope that they turn out a great scope that tracks and get the illuminated reticles as options that aren't 500$-1k more, because I like the size and weight. But if they're gonna slap on 500+ just for illumination I think it will seriously detract from what makes it an option in the first place.

 

[Primus]

$1700-$2800 because fuck you if you want illumination.

For that kind of money you can buy a 4.5-18 LRTSi for half the price or a March 3-24x52 for the same price and Both are going to be much better quality optics.

Hell even Eotech is coming out with a new ultra short with amazing glass that will be under $2K, and you don't have to shell out an hours worth of time in champagne room for some fucking electrons. My baby got to put herself though college.

 

[JFComfort]

I might be out of touch but for the features on the MK5, with TMR reticle + illumination MidwayUSA has them listed for $2,500.00. Is that a crazy price point?

The Vudu line from EOTech does have a pleasent price point.

 

[7WSMShooter]

Well that 700$ more than the non-illuminated TMR, so I'd say yeah, that's a bit outta step.

 

[xmedicmanx]

Saw that... appears to be a website typo

 

[xmedicmanx]

Serious question (hopefully answered by someone "in-the-know"): where, exactly, is the Mark 5 intended to fall in Leupy's hierarchy?? Common sense would lead one to believe 4<5<6<8. Prices I'm seeing, however, would indicate Leupold and/or retail vendors consider Mark 5 > Mark 6.

So looking at this from a purely fiscal standpoint, I'd say

4<5<6<8 like logic would suggest.

From a features perspective, I'd say 4<6<5<8

Time and reviews will tell

Edit: prices are based on optics planet showing the entry pricing of the 5 being in the 1800.00 ballpark while the 6 is upwards of 2200.00

 

[5RWill]

Serious question (hopefully answered by someone "in-the-know"): where, exactly, is the Mark 5 intended to fall in Leupy's hierarchy?? Common sense would lead one to believe 4<5<6<8. Prices I'm seeing, however, would indicate Leupold and/or retail vendors consider Mark 5 > Mark 6.

Leupold rep told my friend at SHOT that they're hands down better than the Mark 6 on design alone and glass is closer to the Mark 8.

I've seen the 5-25 TMR for $2000/2100, CCH for $2200, and H59/Tremor3 for $2300 all without illum of course. Illum puts it in the $2500-2800 range.

 

[xmedicmanx]

Leupold rep told my friend at SHOT that they're hands down better than the Mark 6 on design alone and glass is closer to the Mark 8.

I've seen the 5-25 TMR for $2000/2100, CCH for $2200, and H59/Tremor3 for $2300 all without illum of course. Illum puts it in the $2500-2800 range.

The marketing rep I talked to who was accused of not being a sniper said the same thing to me. I'm really excited to get mine in... I'll be picking up two in 5-25 if the 3.6-18s meet my demands and hopes

 

[Qazwsx]

I’m probably going to pick one up as a way to standardize reticles between work and play. Putting a nf 4-16 and 5-25 with a tremor3 on play guns is an expensive proposition. Using a mk5 is a good option from what the specs are, regardless of people’s inferences about what the scope will be.

As far as eyebox, some guys went from a nf beast to a mk6 because of that reason and gave up the extra magnification. Some, but not all