Rifle Scopes So, what about Leupold Mark 5 ?

[5RWill]

Can you send link to this, all I see on their site is 30’s and 34’s

I might have been mistaken if they're not showing 35s they probably don't have em. A friend just mentioned that there was a sell going on.

 

[Ratnik]

 

[TipToeTango]

Mark 5 was first?

 

[TheOE800]

Mark 5 was first?

Yes.

 

[MilDot1960]

This is nice but I like the Mk 4's for basic durability, The standard Military Gear has served us well over the years, I really want a 4-14x44/50 FFP but over here I can't find one So I will try and find the Bushnell Dark Earth model they bought out a couple of years ago, Not the new one.

John.

 

[Lexington]

The mk5 clicks may be louder, but they got considerably more play in them then a NF and the like.

When I dial my kahles, NF or S&B there is minimal, if not no side movement. My Mk5 has enough slop in the turrets that the cap won’t align with the corresponding hash on the base of the optic.

Nice upgrade from the past turrets, but not jaw dropping precise like other makes.

Marketers are watching all of this. With all of the comments and videos comparing clicks, they know the way to sell a scope is to make the clicks louder. Nothing says louder clicks equate to any other desirable quality.

 

[kdub23]

First time posting here, but a long time lurker especially in this subforum. Like to see the varying opinions on scopes and glass.

I just got in my Mark 5HD 3.6-18. I see this scope as a direct competitor to the ATACR F1 4-16 (which I also own). I bought the Mark 5 to go on my Fierce CT Edge 6.5 Creedmoor. I was looking for a lightweight, long-range hunting scope that I could rapidly dial to range, but wouldn't have to worry about a turret cap or getting bumped off zero. Thanks to the Fierce's delay in arrival, the ATACR F1 found a home on my PWS MK220 (also in 6.5CM). The Mark 5HD looked like a great fit for the Fierce so here I am.

Without mounting and tracking test (which I'll leave to much more qualified people), initial impressions of the Mark 5HD are pretty positive. I like the turrets, but not as much as the Nightforce. Both have positive and audible clicks, but the Nightforce clicks feel more "ball-bearing" driven while the Leupold's feel more like a stiff flipper on a prize wheel (poor analog, but best way I can describe). They have similar amounts of play in my opinion. The Leupold has a couple different indicators to denote what rotation you're on while the ATACR turret rises on additional turns. My Mark 5 elevation turrent is CCW right. I do not like the zero indicator on the windage turret, because it's hard to see exactly what mark it's pointing back to, but again, most will set it and forget it using the subtensions for wind holds. I much prefer the Leupold eyepiece and offset power adjustment to the ATACR's entire eyepiece rotating. Parallax setting is much smoother on the ATACR than the Mark 5HD.

Overall, the ATACR F1 4-16 is the better scope, but it's a lot closer than I expected. Also, I'm in the Leupold TMR (#173296) for $1500, brand new, shrink-wrapped. I could never justify the upcharge for Leupold's illumination, but if you consider my cost of entry for the Leupold it DEFINITELY doesn't feel like $950 less scope than the ATACR (C542 and C552). That makes me a happy customer.

 

[Glassaholic]

Overall, the ATACR F1 4-16 is the better scope, but it's a lot closer than I expected. Also, I'm in the Leupold TMR (#173296) for $1500, brand new, shrink-wrapped. I could never justify the upcharge for Leupold's illumination, but if you consider my cost of entry for the Leupold it DEFINITELY doesn't feel like $950 less scope than the ATACR (C542 and C552). That makes me a happy customer.

I like what you have to say here kdub, this is what I was hoping for from the Leupold, that it would provide a viable alternative to the ATACR F1 4-16 if you do not require illumination. I am not as particular as some with turret clicks (I don't get my kicks from fancy clicks ) but want to know they are distinct enough for me to figure out that I clicked without having to look up at the turret. The two biggest questions with the Mark 5 3.6-18x44 are: does it track and how does the glass compare. Since you have both the ATACR F1 and the Mark 5 I would be curious to hear your thoughts as to how both perform in low light at say 12x or so, this is where I find some scopes that do great in daytime light have really struggled and others have really shined.

 

[K_4c]

Marketers are watching all of this. With all of the comments and videos comparing clicks, they know the way to sell a scope is to make the clicks louder. Nothing says louder clicks equate to any other desirable quality.

That’s my point of posting. It’s a good optic for the coin (pending it tracks). But it is not in the same league as the top tier optics.

Audible clicks mean nothing if they are not consistent, repetitive and true. Furthermore, knowing the quality of components, tight tolerances and assembly methods are far more important then “tactical clicks”. I don’t really care for turrets that have any excessive movement in them. Adjustments start there and if “slop” is observed there what other areas internally maybe on the loose side? Maybe none, but the system should give the end user total confidence, unfortunately my standards are much higher (kahles,SB, NF, premier). I’m a snob when it comes to glass. Should fit and function like a Rolex.

 

[Subwrx300]

So, after reading the few hands on experiences, I still want to make sure the consensus from the owners here: CA seems to be handled well (on par for $1800-2500 scopes), optically it's good to very good (depending on whose eyeballs) and turrets are pretty solid. That only leaves tracking... anyone take the time to run it through a longer tracking test? Videos maybe? Would love to see the reticle/glass in video to get an idea of clarity and CA.

Hope Ilya or some of the other guys here can get some time and photos/videos. Really like the concept and price is nearly spot on for TMR or CCH.

 

[kdub23]

Since you have both the ATACR F1 and the Mark 5 I would be curious to hear your thoughts as to how both perform in low light at say 12x or so, this is where I find some scopes that do great in daytime light have really struggled and others have really shined.

I just took them both out at dusk with a pretty decent rain shower going on. I put them both on 12X (or as near as I could since the NF isn't marked exactly at 12X). The Leupold is much easier for me to get behind. I've never been really good behind the NF getting comfortable. Leupold seems much more forgiving.

Everybody will have a different opinion, but these two scopes optical quality is so close to me. I tried to take a picture, but regular caveats apply here. Even though they were taken with a brand new iPhone X, it is what it is. Here they are.

Nightforce ATACR F1 4-16X42 MOAR (Image IMG_0211.jpg) and Leupold Mark 5 3.6-18X44 TMR (image IMG_0214.jpg)

 

[Glassaholic]

^^^ Thank you kdub, your eyes are a much better judge of performance than a camera taking a through the scope image. Very interesting you said the Mark 5 was much easier to get behind than the NF, that is a bit surprising but it is what it is and that is your experience. How about color, contrast and brightness, did the two scopes seem pretty equal in that regard?

 

[Subwrx300]

I just took them both out at dusk with a pretty decent rain shower going on. I put them both on 12X (or as near as I could since the NF isn't marked exactly at 12X). The Leupold is much easier for me to get behind. I've never been really good behind the NF getting comfortable. Leupold seems much more forgiving.

Everybody will have a different opinion, but these two scopes optical quality is so close to me. I tried to take a picture, but regular caveats apply here. Even though they were taken with a brand new iPhone X, it is what it is. Here they are.

Nightforce ATACR F1 4-16X42 MOAR (Image IMG_0211.jpg) and Leupold Mark 5 3.6-18X44 TMR (image IMG_0214.jpg)

From your photos it seems like the Leppy has a fair amount of CA along the tree limbs in front of the glare from street...did it appear this way to you in person? I cannot see any in the NF photo.

I'll agree that the clarity and color looks very good in the MK5 but I'd have a hard time with it if high contrast white to dark causes CA. Thanks on advance for any extra feedback here!

 

[kdub23]

From your photos it seems like the Leppy has a fair amount of CA along the tree limbs in front of the glare from street...did it appear this way to you in person? I cannot see any in the NF photo.

I'll agree that the clarity and color looks very good in the MK5 but I'd have a hard time with it if high contrast white to dark causes CA. Thanks on advance for any extra feedback here!

More a camera issue I think. I chose the last photo because it was a little more in focus. Here's another one attached that still shows a little, but not as much. In person I didn't notice it.

^^^ Thank you kdub, your eyes are a much better judge of performance than a camera taking a through the scope image. Very interesting you said the Mark 5 was much easier to get behind than the NF, that is a bit surprising but it is what it is and that is your experience. How about color, contrast and brightness, did the two scopes seem pretty equal in that regard?

Really, really close, in my opinion. And yeah, the Leupold was even much much easier to take a picture through too...

 

[Glassaholic]

More a camera issue I think. I chose the last photo because it was a little more in focus. Here's another one attached that still shows a little, but not as much. In person I didn't notice it.



Really, really close, in my opinion. And yeah, the Leupold was even much much easier to take a picture through too...

I can see what Subwrx is saying from the images; however, CA is often pronounced when taking through the scope images due to CA in the lenses of the system your taking a picture with, that being said we can get a general idea especially if both images are shot in the same conditions using the same settings. The NF appears to have better contrast in that regard and better CA but have to rely on the impression through the naked eye by the user, the fact that you could not see it or noticeably discern it is a good start.

Regarding eyebox, I was not expecting this result. The fact that you were able to get the through the scope images easier is also a testament to your own personal observations. I might forgive a bit of CA if resolution is on par and the scope is that much easier to get behind. Hmmm, Leupold keeps checking off the right boxes so far with this 3.6-18x44, waiting to hear back from ILya and his experience which hopefully we'll start getting some tidbits soon. Frank also mentioned he could see himself running one of these and with his relationship with Mile High would love to hear a podcast on that experience at https://theeverydaysniper.podbean.com/

 

[kdub23]

I can see what Subwrx is saying from the images; however, CA is often pronounced when taking through the scope images due to CA in the lenses of the system your taking a picture with, that being said we can get a general idea especially if both images are shot in the same conditions using the same settings. The NF appears to have better contrast in that regard and better CA but have to rely on the impression through the naked eye by the user, the fact that you could not see it or noticeably discern it is a good start.

Regarding eyebox, I was not expecting this result. The fact that you were able to get the through the scope images easier is also a testament to your own personal observations. I might forgive a bit of CA if resolution is on par and the scope is that much easier to get behind. Hmmm, Leupold keeps checking off the right boxes so far with this 3.6-18x44, waiting to hear back from ILya and his experience which hopefully we'll start getting some tidbits soon. Frank also mentioned he could see himself running one of these and with his relationship with Mile High would love to hear a podcast on that experience at https://theeverydaysniper.podbean.com/

Let me know if you have anymore questions or want to see anything else. Going to take the Leupold out and break in the barrel of this Fierce later on this week.

 

[Glassaholic]

Going to take the Leupold out and break in the barrel of this Fierce later on this week.

That's what it's all about, have fun and send some pics of the rig when you're out. Will be curious to hear more of your experience after getting some trigger time behind it...

 

[Subwrx300]

I can see what Subwrx is saying from the images; however, CA is often pronounced when taking through the scope images due to CA in the lenses of the system your taking a picture with, that being said we can get a general idea especially if both images are shot in the same conditions using the same settings. The NF appears to have better contrast in that regard and better CA but have to rely on the impression through the naked eye by the user, the fact that you could not see it or noticeably discern it is a good start.

Regarding eyebox, I was not expecting this result. The fact that you were able to get the through the scope images easier is also a testament to your own personal observations. I might forgive a bit of CA if resolution is on par and the scope is that much easier to get behind. Hmmm, Leupold keeps checking off the right boxes so far with this 3.6-18x44, waiting to hear back from ILya and his experience which hopefully we'll start getting some tidbits soon. Frank also mentioned he could see himself running one of these and with his relationship with Mile High would love to hear a podcast on that experience at https://theeverydaysniper.podbean.com/

Definitely agree with you on in person test. Cameras don't allow for the dynamic view that in person testing will. The reason I brought it up is I'm specifically in the market for scope that fills the gap between my 5-25 ATACR and an XTR2 3-15. The XTR2 is great EXCEPT for CA when not exactly perfect in the eyebox. A little low or high and CA pops up pretty quickly. My NF does not have this problem and if the Leupold allows some movement without CA, I'd absolutely forgive it as long as I can build position without tension in body to maintain sight picture. More of an issue with AR platform than anything because of the sight height and limited cheek weld adjustment.

Very interested in getting eyes on MK5HD but here in Michigan, not many dealers are stocking 2k+ scopes in any appreciable quantities. Keep the info/pics coming!

 

[JR869]

Out of curiosity, does anyone know where this is made?

 

[call_me_ski]

Out of curiosity, does anyone know where this is made?

Oregon.

 

[5RWill]

Alright. Finally got to my friends to look at the new scope. Good looking optic. Thing is ultralight for it's size, which Leupold has been leading in weight for some time. I was most worried after seeing the video above of the 3.6-18 turret wobble or slack between clicks but am relieved mine is not bad at all. Actually they're quite tight. I assure you if they had wobble as bad as the video i was gearing up to return it and pick up an AMG. Not the nicest turrets i've ever felt, but by no means bad. I went between it and my friend's Gen II the Gen II is more distinct between each click and a little harder to turn for each click. Which i actually prefer. The Leupold is not bad by any means, light years ahead of the M5B2 knobs for sure. Well ahead of the HDMR II i just let go also. Not quite as tactile as my EREK or a Gen II razor but they're by no means mushy. Wobble is a tad more than the Gen II but as my friend showed me he could make the Gen II wobble side to side as well. I mean you really have to purposefully wiggle the knob to actuate any side to side play between clicks. It's not something practically that would every hurt. Windage knob is much tighter, which kind of makes me wish that's what the elevation knob felt like but that's neither here nor there. Completely understand the gripes about the windage hash lol it's bizarre. I see what they were thinking but in reality it's not that practical. Doesn't matter as mentioned most of us don't dial wind. Magnification ring is perfect IMO, not too stiff (gen II razor 1-6) but not too easy. Parallax was extremely easy to turn, little off putting depending on your preference but we shall see if it has any bearing on it working properly (I would think not)

Haven't had the chance to compare glass yet, from the inside it looks phenomenal but i'm looking at a wall. When i get time i will take it out and put it against a Gen II Razor and ATACR.

 

[Glassaholic]

How come you didn't get the 3.6-18x44 Will, that's the one I want to hear more about Curious to hear your thoughts in comparison.

PS - Hasn't anyone told you that rifles and liquor don't mix

 

[TipToeTango]

Nice! What reticle did you go with? Interested to hear glass comparison

 

[5RWill]

How come you didn't get the 3.6-18x44 Will, that's the one I want to hear more about Curious to hear your thoughts in comparison.

PS - Hasn't anyone told you that rifles and liquor don't mix

Well Bill i was very close to going ahead and getting the 3.6-18 as well due to the tax return ha! Both my ARs are scopeless right now and that would be the perfect 224v SPR optic. Since the florida craze and a missed coyote out of a truck on the farm last weekend though, i think that money is going towards a 8" 300blk. Still given Kdub's impressions on the 3.6-18 i might try to swing one in the summer. ILya is going to review one as well and that will be the tell tail.

With all the studying i'm going to do for the next 9 days i'm going to need a drink

Nice! What reticle did you go with? Interested to hear glass comparison

I went with H59 non-illuminated. I will try to get a glass comparison but idk when that will be. I'm pretty much swamped until the 1st. I do plan to shoot an F-class match on the 10th though. So will probably zero and get dope the week of the 1st.

 

[Glassaholic]

Well Bill i was very close to going ahead and getting the 3.6-18 as well due to the tax return ha! Both my ARs are scopeless right now and that would be the perfect 224v SPR optic. Since the florida craze and a missed coyote out of a truck on the farm last weekend though, i think that money is going towards a 8" 300blk. Still given Kdub's impressions on the 3.6-18 i might try to swing one in the summer. ILya is going to review one as well and that will be the tell tail.

With all the studying i'm going to do for the next 9 days i'm going to need a drink

Sorry, couldn't resist with the stocked cabinet behind the rifle. Drinks are on me (from your cabinet of course)

Ooooh, an 8" 300BLK, now you're talking, here's my 9", it also wears a Vortex AMG UH-1 now too...

 

[Subwrx300]

Sorry, couldn't resist with the stocked cabinet behind the rifle. Drinks are on me (from your cabinet of course)

Ooooh, an 8" 300BLK, now you're talking, here's my 9", it also wears a Vortex AMG UH-1 now too...

Do you run that with an Ultra 5,7, or 9? Noticed the TBAC CB mount.

 

[MilDot1960]

More a camera issue I think. I chose the last photo because it was a little more in focus. Here's another one attached that still shows a little, but not as much. In person I didn't notice it.



Really, really close, in my opinion. And yeah, the Leupold was even much much easier to take a picture through too...

That's better, I was going to say that the NF was clearer than the Mk 5 but now you have a better focus I think the Mk 5 is a lot sharper,

thanks for posting them.

John.

 

[Disconnekt]

Well, I got too excited and had to place an order for a 3.6-18x44 Tremor 3 to take advantage of a President’s Day sale. Could be here as soon as Friday, but probably next week. I’ll post reticle shots and detailed impressions when it shows up.

 

[5RWill]

So at Lanbos armory the 3.6-18x44 TMR is $1450 once added to cart and the 5-25 is $1600. $1850 for the H59 variant..

 

[Mudlol]

Leupold has a lot of catching up to do...

 

[ssteve]

So at Lanbos armory the 3.6-18x44 TMR is $1450 once added to cart and the 5-25 is $1600. $1850 for the H59 variant..

Killer prices. Puts it right up against a DMR2

 

[Pusher591]

Alright. Finally got to my friends to look at the new scope. Good looking optic. Thing is ultralight for it's size, which Leupold has been leading in weight for some time. I was most worried after seeing the video above of the 3.6-18 turret wobble or slack between clicks but am relieved mine is not bad at all. Actually they're quite tight. I assure you if they had wobble as bad as the video i was gearing up to return it and pick up an AMG. Not the nicest turrets i've ever felt, but by no means bad. I went between it and my friend's Gen II the Gen II is more distinct between each click and a little harder to turn for each click. Which i actually prefer. The Leupold is not bad by any means, light years ahead of the M5B2 knobs for sure. Well ahead of the HDMR II i just let go also. Not quite as tactile as my EREK or a Gen II razor but they're by no means mushy. Wobble is a tad more than the Gen II but as my friend showed me he could make the Gen II wobble side to side as well. I mean you really have to purposefully wiggle the knob to actuate any side to side play between clicks. It's not something practically that would every hurt. Windage knob is much tighter, which kind of makes me wish that's what the elevation knob felt like but that's neither here nor there. Completely understand the gripes about the windage hash lol it's bizarre. I see what they were thinking but in reality it's not that practical. Doesn't matter as mentioned most of us don't dial wind. Magnification ring is perfect IMO, not too stiff (gen II razor 1-6) but not too easy. Parallax was extremely easy to turn, little off putting depending on your preference but we shall see if it has any bearing on it working properly (I would think not)

Haven't had the chance to compare glass yet, from the inside it looks phenomenal but i'm looking at a wall. When i get time i will take it out and put it against a Gen II Razor and ATACR.

View attachment 6875980
View attachment 6875981

What ring height is that for the ARCs and where did you get them

 

[osu92]

Leupold has a lot of catching up to do...

Yes, and by most actual reviews it seems the Mark 5 is a pretty decent start.

 

[5RWill]

What ring height is that for the ARCs and where did you get them

Low (24mm) straight from arc

 

[Bender]

Got my mark 5 5-25 H59 in earlier today. Weather is overcast but I still took it out to do some side by side comparisons with the kahles 624i, minox zp5, sightron siii ffp, a gen 2 razor 4.5-27, and a meopta meopro 6-18 (why not, it was in the safe too). Ill break down the side by side comparisons based on what I saw today alone. There will be more comparisons once I get a bright sunny day and time at the range to do a proper tall target test. I didn't feel like unmounting all my scopes for weighing, but the leupold feels pretty light and not in a cheap way. Seemed comparable to the kahles but my calibrated arm isn't the best judge.

Turrets- seems to be one of the biggest concerns. The mk5 turrets have very positive clicks, and I have no play in mine at all. They're easy to turn, clicks are very audible, everything lines up as it should but my only complaint is the windage indicator being set at the 11 o clock position. It's downright annoying trying to line anything that isnt numbered up ( like 1.4 mils for example). Maybe it will become easier with more use but as of now I dont like it at all. The zero stop thing that pops out is ok, but seems kind of pointless if you have zero stop capability already. The saving grace is that the clicks are so damn loud and positive I can easily count from a whole number to wherever I need to be. Other saving grace is the H59 reticle. Really wont need to dial for wind unless theres a tornado. Best turrets go to the Kahles ( no surprise) followed by the minox, then razor,leupold (very close to the razor but not as much resistance as the razor when dialing), sightron, and lastly the meopta .

Glass- As subjective as this is and how everyone's eyes will perceive optimal clarity differently, along with this overcast day, the leupold really shines. I couldnt really notice any CA on any of the optics due to the weather Im thinking. On a sunny day I'm sure they will stand apart but the Kahles, minox, and leupold had the best image quality which I couldnt distinguish a difference followed by the razor with a slight slight edge over the sightron, and lastly the meopta. Again, they were all damn close. I need better weather to get a good impression but the leupold performs well on overcast days. Ill get them all out at dusk again to see if theres any noticeable difference in very low light situations. Were any of them so shitty I wanted to return them? Nope, not even the meopta.

Parralax- Works as it should and was not a pain in the ass to fine tune where I needed on the leupold to be for 400 yards ( distance I tested all these scopes to.) There isnt much rotation on the leupold between min paralax and infinity however. The distances are numbered which some people like but personally I could care less. I just dial until my image is nice and clear. Really nothing major to note other than the meopta has a very finnicky paralax. The sightron does as well which is probably why they came out with the fine focus on the svss models.

At this point my neighbor came home and saw me laying in the driveway with a bunch of rifles and quickly went in to his house. I waited for the cops to show up for a good 15 minutes but nothing.. Guess Albuquerque cops have better things to deal with on a Tuesday afternoon.

Eye relief- on 5x all the way to 25x, I had zero issues behind the leupold. I didnt have to break my cheek weld at all. It was the easiest of all the scopes to get behind and build a good sight picture. Following the leupold was sightron, minox, then razor, meopta, and lastly the kahles. Again, was it a substantial difference between all of them? not really. Between the leupold and the kahles though there was a very noticeable difference. This doesnt mean the kahles is a piece of shit, it just took a couple extra seconds to get a good alignment. Is this really imnportant? Maybe for a timed competition but for every day plinking at the range I don't think it would be. All of the scopes were easy to get eye relief with low magnification, but at max is usually where they differentiate.

Reticles. Leupold with an H59, kahles with skmr3, minox with the mr4, razor with ebr2c, sightron with lrmoa, and meopta with a standard mil dot ( my hunting scope). They all have their advantages and disadvantages, but Im partial to the christmas tree style reticles as a personal preference . While the H59 is very useable, it seems a little cluttered. It's a standard H59, nothing different than anything else with an H59, but still feels a little cluttered. The minox and kahles have very similar reticles but I prefer the windage dots of the mr4 opposed to the lines the kahles has. The sightron lrmoa is very basic but very useable as well, and a mil dot is as basic as it comes and is great for hunting being so bold, but I wouldnt take it target shooting when trying to make tiny groups.

Free shit- Leupold comes with scope caps, a sweet sticker, manual, and allen key as did most of the others. I didn't get a lens cloth which I thought was pretty standard with any scope. It also comes with a sun shade. Sonce this is a non illuminated reticle I didnt get a battery.

Ill keep adding to this as weather permits and hopefully get some range time this weekend to run a tall target test for tracking. I have a padded pelican case so my plan is to zero the leupold, put it in the case with rifle, and drop it down some steps to shake the crap out of it and see if it maintains zero. I did this with the minox because if a 2700$ scope cant hold zero when being banged around in a padded case, then it doesn't seem very reliable to me. The minox held zero perfectly. The meopta has been on my hunting rifle for a couple years ( 270 win) and has never lost zero, same with the sightron. I really havent used the razor much but it too has held zero going from the range to the safe and the kahles is pretty new as well so I havent abused it.The razor didnt do very well on the tall target test last time I ran it though. I was .2 mils off at 10 mils elevation. Im going to retest it with the leupold though.

So far with only one overcast afternoon of fiddling, I am happy with the leupold and the only negative I have is that 11 oclock windage marker. If it tracks after being pounded down some steps, maintains zero, and doesn't go to absolute shit in bright sunlight, I think it is a great buy. I did get it at the mil discount which makes the price a little more attractive, but after eahring lanbos armory is selling the tmr model for well under 2k, I have a feeling dealers are going to drop their prices on the rest of the models after a little time on the market.
Im in no way a leupold fanboy or have any preference in scopes. I only owned one other 2x leupold I had on a 454 casull and it worked fine. I will say I am partial to the minox and kahles because theyre pretty much awesome in every way but their price goes in to the 2600-3000$ range.

Don't bash me and call me a blind dumbass, this is just what I observed and wanted to share. If you want to have me test anything specific this weekend, let me know and Ill do it

No bashing at all, that was a solid report. Thank you for your time.

 

[5RWill]

Looking forward to hearing more of your findings Eric seeing as i can't take mine out until likely next weekend. I lol'd at the neighbor running back inside

 

[K_4c]

It tracks true?

 

[Glassaholic]

Do you run that with an Ultra 5,7, or 9? Noticed the TBAC CB mount.

Good eye Sub, it's the older 30 BA (9"), been thinking about get the guts replaced through TBAC's program to make it an Ultra 9; however, I also want to get an Ultra 5 once the funds come in.

 

[Glassaholic]

Got my mark 5 5-25 H59 in earlier today.

So far with only one overcast afternoon of fiddling, I am happy with the leupold and the only negative I have is that 11 oclock windage marker. If it tracks after being pounded down some steps, maintains zero, and doesn't go to absolute shit in bright sunlight, I think it is a great buy.

Appreciate the quick and thorough review Eric. Sounds like the Mark 5 is rounding up to be a win for Leupold, they've needed this. Sure it doesn't have all the reticles that many are looking for but the price and weight make it worth considering alone and if you're into Horus rets it almost sounds too good to be true at its price point!

Now, will someone do a similar review with the 3.6-18x44 please

 

[Stoweit]

"Now, will someone do a similar review with the 3.6-18x44 please "
This!!!!

 

[redneckbmxer24]

It tracks true?

Bu bu bu bu bu but Leupold can't make a scope that tracks! Your mounting device must be off in the perfect amount of error to be in sync with the error of that particular scope.

I like seeing reviews like this. I wish I hadn't hesitated and snagged a 3.6-18x44 Tremor 3 before Euro Optic sold out, now I'm waiting a few more weeks for them to come back in.

 

[K_4c]

I’ve had 2 mk 6’a that did not track for shit (like a half mil off at 10 mils).

The mk5 seems to be better then the mk6 in almost every way.

 

[Monstershot]

I’ve had 2 mk 6’a that did not track for shit (like a half mil off at 10 mils).

The mk5 seems to be better then the mk6 in almost every way.

Did your two poor tracking mk6’s have the M5B2 or the M5C2 turrets?

 

[K_4c]

M5B2’s

 

[5RWill]

The mk5 seems to be better then the mk6 in almost every way.

It's certainly looking that way. Pretty eager to get mine to the range.

 

[Glassaholic]

Can someone explain why they offer an illuminated Tremor 3 in the 5-25 but not in the 3.6-18x44? I am not a Horus fan but have considered playing with the Tremor 3 and like illumination; however, I can live without illumination for this application but was just curious why Leupy doesn't offer it in their ultra short?

For those with experience with the Tremor 3 and who shoot with 6.5 Creedmoor, what has your experience been with the windage markers which I believe were designed for military loads like M118LR and 300WM, how are they aligning with 6.5CM loads?

 

[redneckbmxer24]

For those with experience with the Tremor 3 and who shoot with 6.5 Creedmoor, what has your experience been with the windage markers which I believe were designed for military loads like M118LR and 300WM, how are they aligning with 6.5CM loads?

The wind dots aren't designed for any particular ammo, they're designed so they can be used with any load out there. It's as simple as running your ballistics and matching up your load to what dot = what MPH. There's a good video on youtube with Todd Hodnett explain the system and how to match it up to your rifle.

 

[TheMammoth]

This positive feedback is extremely exciting. Here's hoping this optic is the shot of adrenaline Leupold needed. Seems like it is so far!

 

[Glassaholic]

The wind dots aren't designed for any particular ammo, they're designed so they can be used with any load out there. It's as simple as running your ballistics and matching up your load to what dot = what MPH. There's a good video on youtube with Todd Hodnett explain the system and how to match it up to your rifle.

Thanks bmx, I’ll have to look at that as I thought the Tremor was a blend of mil and ballistics based on military ammo, my bad for not investigating further

 

[Disconnekt]

Yeah, the T3 should be pretty close all the way down once you figure out your wind dot value for your load and atmosphere, especially considering it’s meant for speed shooting, and any error is going to get lost in the noise of your ability to make an accurate wind call quickly down to 1-2 mph or so over the range of the shot. One of the Hodnett videos shows how the dots can easily be used to bracket a target to intuitively see your margin of error in wind calling to land a hit, which can help you decide if it’s worth taking the shot at that moment or if you need to refine your call or hold your fire. Of course, you can do all this stuff with a mil scale too, but then you have a lot more numbers to remember than just one wind value in mph that corresponds to the dots if you want to work quickly, unless you have the experience and rounds downrange to just know what it’s going to do in a given set of conditions.

It also doesn’t account for spin drift, Coriolis, or crosswind jump, but those vary with your load, rifle, and geographic location, and probably within 400-500 yards or so with a .308, they get lost in the noise as well if you’re just trying to make a quick call and shot. If you want all that stuff (minus Coriolis) you need to get a David Tubb reticle and shoot a load that works with it. But the beauty of the T3 is that it includes the H59 mil grid, so if you really want to drill down and get the most precise possible hold for your conditions, you still have that option. The wind dots are just there so you can make a quick call, a quick shot, and quick correction at the original range (or any other down to 10 mils of elevation) in the same wind condition.

Now, about those Mark 5s, any updates from anyone with one in hand? Mine won’t show up until Monday, and I’m dying here!