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.
Alright guys, I tired to stay up on this thread in the beginning, but I haven't read all 30 pages - so sorry if this was covered.
Last year I bought the 3.6-18 Mk5. Overall I like the scope, but it is extremely hard for me to get the scope to have the target in focus AND the reticle in focus. This isn't my first time around the block - I understand how to properly set the diopter on a scope, and how to resolve parallax. This particular scope is by far the most finicky scope I've owned in this regard.
So my question, is this just a byproduct of the "short" scope design, or do I have a bad sample that I should send back into Leupold?
I’m 4 deep and they all have excellent optics with no issues having the reticle and target in focus at the same time from 50 yards out to 1200 yards.
How do these compare to the night force atacr?I’m 4 deep and they all have excellent optics with no issues having the reticle and target in focus at the same time from 50 yards out to 1200 yards.
I’ve kinda been looking at the gun werks moa version for hunting. I like the looks of that reticle.Personally after buying my first MK5 and doing extensive side by side with my 2 ATACRs and PMII I only have MK5’s in my safe. Well and a older NF Benchrest scope.
Honestly the MK5 has just as good to slightly better resolution, better low light performance, all of mine have tracked perfectly, and are lighter weight. The only 2 negatives against the MK5 is the turrets are not as positive as either the NF or Bender (but they are not that bad), & Leupold’s reticle selection sucks. The CCH is very well thought out & easy to use if you like or need a tree style (which I don’t, I dial elevation and hold wind), I honestly do like the Illuminated TMR for shooting steel but it’s a little coarse for super fine aiming at small targets. But maybe I am just being picky.
The non illuminated TMR had a thinner cross line, maybe that'll help...I honestly do like the Illuminated TMR for shooting steel but it’s a little coarse for super fine aiming at small targets. But maybe I am just being picky.
The non illuminated TMR had a thinner cross line, maybe that'll help
I don’t like the open center either!It is an open center, I tried the TMR years ago in the MK4 with the open center and just can’t get used to it. I know I am a picky bitch...
Alright guys, I tired to stay up on this thread in the beginning, but I haven't read all 30 pages - so sorry if this was covered.
Last year I bought the 3.6-18 Mk5. Overall I like the scope, but it is extremely hard for me to get the scope to have the target in focus AND the reticle in focus. This isn't my first time around the block - I understand how to properly set the diopter on a scope, and how to resolve parallax. This particular scope is by far the most finicky scope I've owned in this regard.
So my question, is this just a byproduct of the "short" scope design, or do I have a bad sample that I should send back into Leupold?
They're coming out with another reticle for the mark 5, they couldn't mention it. But i'm praying it's not some MOA grid and is a tree based Mil reticle. @ the 5:31 mark is when he mentions in it. I'm in class so using captions.
Any mention of a new LPVO?
I think mark 5 hd is the best scope leupold ever put together
or LPVO based on the Mark 5 ...
Doubt you'll see that unless Leupold goes full retard. When you have a ton of 1-6's, 1-8's, and 1-10's on the market then making a 1-5 would be a really good way to waste a lot of $$ on R&D because that's all you'd do. If you want a LPVO then you should look at the MK6 and MK8. They're both great optics.
So underwhelming ... where's the VX5HD/VX6HD 2-10/2-12 with side focus and mil/mil CDS-ZL or LPVO based on the Mark 5 ...
There is zero reason it needs to be a 1-5. That is probably what’s stumped their retarded engineers. They could easily turn it out as a 1-6 or 1-8. I own a MK6 1-6 already. It’s a $3,000 optic. So how about a 1-6 MK5 fitting to the current MK5 pricing.
There is zero reason it needs to be a 1-5. That is probably what’s stumped their retarded engineers. They could easily turn it out as a 1-6 or 1-8. I own a MK6 1-6 already. It’s a $3,000 optic. So how about a 1-6 MK5 fitting to the current MK5 pricing.
uhhhhh.... Mark 5’s are a 5x erector line just like Mark 6’s are 6x erector and Mark 8’s are 8x erector.... that’s the reason it’d be a 1-5. It’s really not that complicated.
If you want a 1-6 or 1-8 they already have it in the proper lines ?
1. Touché
2. Didn’t even think about it, so that was my stupidity.
3. I just want a cheaper Mk6 1-6 CMR-W because I love my MK 6.
4. I also want them to bring back the same 2.5-8 MR/T in mil/mil. I should never have sold mine to a damn cloner.
5. I was wrong and you were right.
Even without being a 6x erector, I'd much rather have a proper 1-5 with high quality glass and very forgiving eye relief. Most people prefer a K16i or Razor 1-6 at 6x than a NX8 at 8x and with the 35mm tube you could make a really really good product.uhhhhh.... Mark 5’s are a 5x erector line just like Mark 6’s are 6x erector and Mark 8’s are 8x erector.... that’s the reason it’d be a 1-5. It’s really not that complicated.
If you want a 1-6 or 1-8 they already have it in the proper lines ?
That makes me feel good! I just received my Mark 5 TMR illum 3.6-18 the other day. I still need to finish building the rifle it is going on.I think mark 5 hd is the best scope leupold ever put together
Hello, Did you ever do some testing on the Mark 5 as you planned?I liked the Mark 5 3.6-18x44 and plan to test one when the opportunity presents.
I am probably in the minority here, but I think moving to a 35mm tube is a good move for Leupold. That gives them some uniformity with Mark 8 (and I think Mark 6 will be either re-deisgned or made LE/Mil only option at some point, like the Mark 4). Also, keep in mind that Leupold also makes and sells mounts, so they can do whatever diameter they want if they are so inclined. Either way, there are enough 35mm mounts out there.
The outstanding feature of the Mark 5 is still compactness, and I suspect that the turrets have everything they learned on the Mark 6 incorporated into them. If I were to be a betting man, I would bet that the 3.6-18x44 Mark 5 will outperform the 3-18x44 Mark 6 if you put them side by side. Also, while illumination is still expensive, it is not as expensive as on the Mark 6.
I think they need to do more with reticles, but it is workable as is.
I plan to test one.
ILya
I don’t think they make them for the mk5hd but Aadmount does & they are top quality. Everyone I know that has Aadmount really likes them. I’ve owned tenebraex caps & I think the Aadmount caps are just as good. One thing I really like about the Aadmount caps is the tension screw makes it easy to adjust or take off & rock solid when finally setAnyone know what tenebraex caps fit the 5-25x56 scope?
My scopes close enough to the bore that an aadmount prob wouldn't fit. The few tannebrex don't protrude out any wide that the objective it screws into.
An Aadmount objective cover goes around the outside of the scope housing. A tenebraex obj cover has an insert that screws into the threads that a sunshade would. The actual cover itself mounts to the insert and fits into that. It doesn't protrude much, it at all, from the od of the obj housing of the scope.
An Aadmount objective cover goes around the outside of the scope housing. A tenebraex obj cover has an insert that screws into the threads that a sunshade would. The actual cover itself mounts to the insert and fits into that. It doesn't protrude much, it at all, from the od of the obj housing of the scope.
If low light performance is the deciding factor, is the 5-25 significantly better than the 3.6-18 at a given mag? Would like the weight savings and compactness of the 3.6-18, but if the 5-25 is noticeably better in low light I would probably lean to it.
If low light performance is the deciding factor, is the 5-25 significantly better than the 3.6-18 at a given mag? Would like the weight savings and compactness of the 3.6-18, but if the 5-25 is noticeably better in low light I would probably lean to it.
For the $$ these non illuminated scopes are tough to beat. The mk5 25/35x has good brightness, nice turrets, & clear image. Only thing I don’t like about them is the parallax isn’t that nice vs other high end scopes & it has a small fov but I can live with that vs paying $3000+ for better. If you get them on sale a non illuminated 5-25x can be bought for around $1600. The xrs2 can goes for $1600 & DMR pro $13-1400 but I like the mk5 25x better mainly because the turrets are better, but the optics are very close. I would still like to compare the mk5 with a trijicon 30x ffp. Anyone here get to compare the trijicon 30x with the mk5 25x?So now that this thread has gone on for some time how are people feeling about them? Also how do these do in lower light?