-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes So, what about Leupold Mark 5 ?
- Thread starter longshot2000
- Start date
Well, looks like I overpaid by $111 bucks! Someone needs to jump on that, I’m not sure there’s a cheaper way to get into a new scope with a Tremor 3 if you want one. Hell, it’s less than $100 more than an HDMR 2 that weighs 8 oz more and doesn’t offer a Tremor.
Wow... the non illuminated TMR is going to be available at a price point that kind of boggles the mind, if that Tremor 3 models discount percentage is relative across all models.
Holy crap.
Holy crap.
The discount is across the entire Mark 5 lineup. Looks like the stock is dwindling, though. Almost all models were in stock two days ago.
If this thing is even 80% of what it seems to be and can prove itself mechanically robust, yeah, you're not going to be alone.
It’s an amenable price point for sure. The reticle and illumination choices/surcharges are annoying from a consumer point of view though. I also wonder why no illuminated H59, but I can’t remember the last time I was able to use illumination successfully on any of my other scopes even the Razor.
It’s raining here and I’m swamped until next Thursday. I’ll make sure to get the 5-25 out next weekend though. Mainly going to be hunting for CA. But hopefully one of my friends is free and we can compare it to the atacr or gen II. Two tracking test survived thus far on here with the 3.6-18.
I have illumination on my SN-3 and have never really used it. Maybe a couple scenarios hunting where it was getting really dark and i had to back off magnification. But competition? I’ve not come across the need for it.
I have illumination on my SN-3 and have never really used it. Maybe a couple scenarios hunting where it was getting really dark and i had to back off magnification. But competition? I’ve not come across the need for it.
I love nice illumination to get contrast against dark targets, but in any kind of lower light my vision is bad enough that the reticle winds up always being doubled. I'll take the simplicity and price point of this easily.
There's a few discounted mark 5s left at Big Supply Shop.
https://www.bigsupplyshop.com/search.asp?keyword=leupold+mark+5&search=
https://www.bigsupplyshop.com/search.asp?keyword=leupold+mark+5&search=
Last edited:
Got my 5-25 Illuminated TMR on the way for sub $2000 shipped through a dealer. At that price I’m gonna eat crow and say this thing has a lot of value based on these reviews. I’ll give final thoughts once it comes in.
It's a bit iffy on 3x in a S&B, but on 4x it's easier to see. It's assumed that if you have the H59 on 3x, and want to take a shot, that the target is very close and very big so the likely hood of a miss is small. Also by that point you can use the top of the grid as a see through post type reticle. Then there's the how good are your eye's thing.
Just because 3x is on the mag dial you don't need to feel obligated to use it. Honestly the only time I use mine is for an occasional gaze, OH, that's what the reticle looks like on 3x moment, and when I shoot through my Oehler crono.
I emailed Leupold about that the CW elevation turret is just for the European market, that's all.
I'm mainly glad to hear most are satisfied with the glass on the 25x. I was worried it might under perform but thus far it seems to be a great price/performance option in the $2000 segment.
Whoever bought one, are you seeing a TMR reticle with a floating center dot? I'm hearing of one, but it would be a departure from the TMR I have in my Mark 4 scope and my Gold Ring spotter.
Is there a difference between the illuminated and non-illuminated TMR?
Is there a difference between the illuminated and non-illuminated TMR?
Last edited:
I think it's the illuminated TMR that has the floating dot. Non-illum doesn't for sure.
Interesting they would make them different. Found this image here on the Hide. Mark 5 TMR, illuminated, with dot.
Yes I have confirmed with a Leupold that the
non-illuminated is open center and the Illuminated has a open center with a dot. They began doing this a few years ago with the Leupold Mk6 and I guess just carried it over, not sure why though.
I noticed the mark v still has the leoupold "mushy clicks" thats the first thing guys complain about with the leupold tac scopes. i bought their attempt at the long range hunting market it was the vxiii lrp. bought it through optics planet without handeling one. got it home and had it back in the box on its way to the returns dept the same day. the thing was just bad.
I say that to say that it feels like leupold knows they have to evolve and throws out these half hearted attempts. the mark v i dont think is going to light any fires.
I say that to say that it feels like leupold knows they have to evolve and throws out these half hearted attempts. the mark v i dont think is going to light any fires.
Have you handled one? Mine aren't mushy. They're leaps and abounds above the scope i sold to get it also leaps and bounds over the M5B2 knobs that were on my mark 6. Never used the M5C2. Does seem like it varies scope to scope. More so on the 3.6-18 than the 25x also. Don't get me wrong not the best turrets i've felt but i wouldn't classify them as mushy by any means.
Last edited:
I have not handled a mark v. i dont want sound like im saying they are bad at all. i have owned bad...with what other companys are doing though (with a lower retail price) leupold dosnt feel like the stand out gold standard that i grew up knowing
I haven’t had a lot of time to test mine out yet but the main thing that I noticed especially after owning a 3-18 mark 6 is how easy the mark 5’s are to get behind at 25x. That’s honestly something I’m looking more for in a scope these days and one of the things I liked about the gen 2 razor I had before this.
Yeah, that makes a ton of sense..................
I've actually handled numerous Mark 5's. None of them had 'mushy' clicks.
I don't really think they're going for the gold standard with this lineup given the aggressive pricing on non-illuminated versions and the discounts retailers have been letting them go for. All indications seem to be they're a ton of scope for the money considering this month you could snag a 25x anywhere from $1600-1800 with the H59/T3.
I've said it before but i believe its pretty obvious Leupold is trying to establish itself in the PRS market. I can't speak to the glass of the scope yet but they definitely did some work on their knobs to what i had previously messed with.
I've got to go home this weekend so it's going to get compared to my SN-3.
My 3.6-18x44 showed up just before it got dark (of course), plus UPS decided to take my 35mm rings on the scenic route from TX to WY by way of Memphis (shipped Ground, of course), so they’ll be here tomorrow evening (4 days late). I’ll see if I can “mount” it in a vise with a rag tomorrow afternoon so I can take some pictures for you guys, and I’ll mount it for real Wednesday and see if I can’t get some time behind it, zero it up, check the tracking, and take some shots at my 350 yard plate.
For now, first impressions: seems very nice and sturdy. It comes with BC-style caps like the Mark 6 does as well as a 3” sunshade and a wrench for the turret set screws. The quick-adjust diopter seems stiff enough that it won’t get knocked around, but once I have it set, I’ll just index it with the cap so I’ll know if it got moved. The parallax adjustment is definitely quicker (both in knob resistance and in total travel) than my Bushnell XRS and DMR (both first generation). Since I can’t mount it up and hold still behind it, it’s pretty hard to actually see how easily it sets and if there are any issues. I’ll report back on that. The knob can be slipped with a set screw, so you can dial the parallax for your favorite range and “zero” the number there for a quick reference.
The capped windage is nice since it does not have a lock like the elevation and the index mark is offset at an angle, which is pretty damn hard to read. It clicks nicely and positively, but I’m going to set and forget, especially since I got the Tremor 3. The elevation knob, on the other hand, is wonderful. The zero lock is ever so slightly offset from the index mark, but once you take it off zero, the 1/10 mil adjustments line up well with very little play. The clicks are quiet but audible, tactile, and positive. The adjustments provide a little less resistance than my XRS... I think I like those adjustments better, but the turret is ridiculously huge, and getting to to sit down just right when you lock it can be a pain in the ass. The Mark 5 turret is definitely easier to use. The second and third turn indicators are very nice; the lock button falls flush into the turret at the second revolution, and a post comes out of the top of the dial on the third revolution. Additionally, I was able to dial 0.6 mils below zero before I hit the rotational stop. My turret dials the American standard counterclockwise.
As for the glass, it seemed pretty bright and clear for the little time I had to look through it. It was cloudy out, but chromatic aberration seemed to be fairly well controlled looking at the edges of snow patches in the yard. It was definitely a step above the XRS and DMR in that department. CA does depend on eye position to some extent, though, and without mounting the scope on a rifle, it was tricky to stay in the middle of the eyebox. I think I’m really going to like the Tremor 3 reticle; I’ve been using the H37 for a bit now, and having the zero 4 mils high in the glass is a little annoying at high magnification, plus most of the markings are really thick. Not so with the T3; the 4th wind dots are kind of big, but everything else stays out of the way surprising well for such a busy reticle. The floating center dot is going to be great for precision, as will be the super-fine grid below. The refined milling chevrons will be great for any measurements I want to do.
Anyway, those are my first impressions; I’ll try to get some pics tomorrow.
For now, first impressions: seems very nice and sturdy. It comes with BC-style caps like the Mark 6 does as well as a 3” sunshade and a wrench for the turret set screws. The quick-adjust diopter seems stiff enough that it won’t get knocked around, but once I have it set, I’ll just index it with the cap so I’ll know if it got moved. The parallax adjustment is definitely quicker (both in knob resistance and in total travel) than my Bushnell XRS and DMR (both first generation). Since I can’t mount it up and hold still behind it, it’s pretty hard to actually see how easily it sets and if there are any issues. I’ll report back on that. The knob can be slipped with a set screw, so you can dial the parallax for your favorite range and “zero” the number there for a quick reference.
The capped windage is nice since it does not have a lock like the elevation and the index mark is offset at an angle, which is pretty damn hard to read. It clicks nicely and positively, but I’m going to set and forget, especially since I got the Tremor 3. The elevation knob, on the other hand, is wonderful. The zero lock is ever so slightly offset from the index mark, but once you take it off zero, the 1/10 mil adjustments line up well with very little play. The clicks are quiet but audible, tactile, and positive. The adjustments provide a little less resistance than my XRS... I think I like those adjustments better, but the turret is ridiculously huge, and getting to to sit down just right when you lock it can be a pain in the ass. The Mark 5 turret is definitely easier to use. The second and third turn indicators are very nice; the lock button falls flush into the turret at the second revolution, and a post comes out of the top of the dial on the third revolution. Additionally, I was able to dial 0.6 mils below zero before I hit the rotational stop. My turret dials the American standard counterclockwise.
As for the glass, it seemed pretty bright and clear for the little time I had to look through it. It was cloudy out, but chromatic aberration seemed to be fairly well controlled looking at the edges of snow patches in the yard. It was definitely a step above the XRS and DMR in that department. CA does depend on eye position to some extent, though, and without mounting the scope on a rifle, it was tricky to stay in the middle of the eyebox. I think I’m really going to like the Tremor 3 reticle; I’ve been using the H37 for a bit now, and having the zero 4 mils high in the glass is a little annoying at high magnification, plus most of the markings are really thick. Not so with the T3; the 4th wind dots are kind of big, but everything else stays out of the way surprising well for such a busy reticle. The floating center dot is going to be great for precision, as will be the super-fine grid below. The refined milling chevrons will be great for any measurements I want to do.
Anyway, those are my first impressions; I’ll try to get some pics tomorrow.
Well, I promised pics, so here are a few. Turns out it’s really difficult to get a good picture through this without a PhoneSkope. First, though, in no way do these pictures represent the clarity of the glass. The resolution is fantastic, and I can see (sharply) blades of grass and the twigs at the ends of the tree branches at over 350 yards (what you see in the picture). I can induce chromatic aberration if I go off center in the eyebox, but when I’m centered up, I have edge to edge clarity of both image and reticle, and I don’t notice any CA.
So the pictures: this is looking out my window. I couldn’t do this outside because it was ridiculously windy, and I couldn’t get the scope or camera to hold still. I took shots of a hillside in full sun with snow, rocks, grass, and a dead tree for lots of contrast and to to induce as much CA as I could. I was looking for detail in highlights and shadows, resolution, contrast, color fidelity, etc.
3.6x:
6x:
18x:
So, side by side with the XRS at 18x, the Mark 5 looked great. It seemed brighter somehow even with its 44mm objective, and the eyebox was much more forgiving. I had to move very slightly behind the XRS to get the edges of the image clear, but with the Leupold, the whole thing looks good at once. The colors are also a bit warmer and more natural with the Leupold, whereas the XRS gives everything a cool tint. The contrast is fantastic as well. I could see detail in the tree bark even though it looked very dark against the snow. The one thing that I thought was better in the XRS was that the picture in the scope seemed larger... I mean, it was the same field of view, but it was like looking at 2 TVs showing the same program, just one was a bit bigger than the other. I’m not sure how to explain that impression, but the Leupold was clearer than the XRS for sure, so I don’t think the “bigger” picture means very much. This was a tough scene and the Leupold handled it a lot better than the pictures indicate. Maybe the camera lens was tilted relative to the scope so the focal planes didn’t line up, or maybe the camera didn’t like the diopter setting for my right eye.
At 3.6x, the Tremor 3 is a bit thin, but it’s easy enough to pick up as you move, even against dark, cluttered backgrounds. I love the way it looks at 18x.
What else... the parallax numbers are not very well calibrated. When I dial out the parallax at 100 yards and slip the knob to be correct at that range, 350 yards actual range corresponds to about 450 on the dial. Even so, it’s easy enough to set the parallax, even with the fairly short travel. Pick whatever range you shoot most often, slip the dial to match, and ignore the numbers for the rest.
I forgot to mention that the stubby throw lever on the power ring is removable, and a plug is included in the box to fill the hole if you want a lower-profile scope. I don’t really see the point of that, though, since the turrets stick out pretty far from the centerline; the turrets aren’t too tall, but the turret housing is gigantic. I tried mounting an Aimpoint H1 on an LT724 offset mount in front of the turrets, and I could only see a sliver of the Aimpoint’s glass with the turrets in the way. I think they’re still lower profile than the XRS, though. I ended up mounting the Aimpoint on a side rail on my handguard.
If the wind lets up tomorrow, I’ll do some shooting!
So the pictures: this is looking out my window. I couldn’t do this outside because it was ridiculously windy, and I couldn’t get the scope or camera to hold still. I took shots of a hillside in full sun with snow, rocks, grass, and a dead tree for lots of contrast and to to induce as much CA as I could. I was looking for detail in highlights and shadows, resolution, contrast, color fidelity, etc.
3.6x:
6x:
18x:
So, side by side with the XRS at 18x, the Mark 5 looked great. It seemed brighter somehow even with its 44mm objective, and the eyebox was much more forgiving. I had to move very slightly behind the XRS to get the edges of the image clear, but with the Leupold, the whole thing looks good at once. The colors are also a bit warmer and more natural with the Leupold, whereas the XRS gives everything a cool tint. The contrast is fantastic as well. I could see detail in the tree bark even though it looked very dark against the snow. The one thing that I thought was better in the XRS was that the picture in the scope seemed larger... I mean, it was the same field of view, but it was like looking at 2 TVs showing the same program, just one was a bit bigger than the other. I’m not sure how to explain that impression, but the Leupold was clearer than the XRS for sure, so I don’t think the “bigger” picture means very much. This was a tough scene and the Leupold handled it a lot better than the pictures indicate. Maybe the camera lens was tilted relative to the scope so the focal planes didn’t line up, or maybe the camera didn’t like the diopter setting for my right eye.
At 3.6x, the Tremor 3 is a bit thin, but it’s easy enough to pick up as you move, even against dark, cluttered backgrounds. I love the way it looks at 18x.
What else... the parallax numbers are not very well calibrated. When I dial out the parallax at 100 yards and slip the knob to be correct at that range, 350 yards actual range corresponds to about 450 on the dial. Even so, it’s easy enough to set the parallax, even with the fairly short travel. Pick whatever range you shoot most often, slip the dial to match, and ignore the numbers for the rest.
I forgot to mention that the stubby throw lever on the power ring is removable, and a plug is included in the box to fill the hole if you want a lower-profile scope. I don’t really see the point of that, though, since the turrets stick out pretty far from the centerline; the turrets aren’t too tall, but the turret housing is gigantic. I tried mounting an Aimpoint H1 on an LT724 offset mount in front of the turrets, and I could only see a sliver of the Aimpoint’s glass with the turrets in the way. I think they’re still lower profile than the XRS, though. I ended up mounting the Aimpoint on a side rail on my handguard.
If the wind lets up tomorrow, I’ll do some shooting!
Yes indeed. Like I said, I can induce it if I move around the eyebox a lot, but centered up, I can’t see any. I couldn’t get it to completely go away with the camera, though. That picture was the best one; all the other ones had horrible purple and yellow mess all over them, hahaha. Trying to do too much with too many lenses, I guess. The scope is optimized for the lens system in your skull, and it seems to work just fine in that context.
Thanks, and no problem!
Oh, one more thing I forgot to mention: I weighed the scope on a pretty accurate digital scale. Leupold says 26 oz, but I got 25 3/8. With the caps and the 3” sunshade, it’s 28. Considering the Bushnell DMR weighs like 35 oz (according to a Hide member who weighed one on a postal scale) and doesn’t really do anything better than this scope except for a hair more top-end power (at the cost of tunneling from 3.5-4.5x), I’d say the Mark 5 3.6-18x44 is easily worth the money, especially with some of the ridiculously low prices that have been popping up lately.
This is my main worry with the scope is CA. Thus far though reports are good. One more day and i can finally get back home and give an update on mine compared to my SN-3.
I have to say i'm thoroughly impressed with the eyebox this time around, at least going on most people's opinion of them. That was one of the main issues with the mark 6 other than tracking and price. If i'm not too busy try to get another AR pistol built i think i'm going to snag a 3.6-18 for my SPR.
Thank you Disconnekt, the mini review is greatly appreciated. I have found some scopes with smaller objectives to appear brighter to my eye than the scope with the larger objective at the same magnification, I also understand there are ways to make the image "appear" brighter to our eyes which is predominantly a proprietary process with each manufacturer. I don't have all the details but this has been confirmed by at least one manufacturer and it sounds like Leupold has found a way to make their Mark 5HD glass excel which is very good news indeed. The blue cast you mention of the XRS reminds me of my DMR which also had a blue cast that caused the scope to suffer in low light for my eyes, my guess is the XRS has the same feature. The DMR II has fixed this issue and Bushnell claims it was simply through a change of multicoating but I wonder if they too have not added something special to the DMR II/XRS II line. When you say "with the Leupold, the whole thing looks good at once" that is what I call a forgiving eyebox and a feature I appreciate in a scope. Both the XRS and the Mark 5 have similar specs for eye relief, but what you experienced is more than just eye relief, it is the ability to quickly and easily get a good sight picture when behind the eye piece. With proper mounting, hold and cheekweld/position most scopes can get a good sight picture, you probably did not have much of an issue with your XRS, but you noticed pretty quickly that the Leupold was even better in this regard. Having good resolution and contrast is something else I look for and it sounds like the Leupold has checked that box as well.
For the discounted prices these scopes are already going for, and if the mechanics can hold up then I can see myself getting the 3.6-18x44 for my next large frame AR build. The size is right, the weight is right, the glass sounds right, just wish they had better reticles.
Thanks to all the members posting photos and reviews! This is the reason SH is a great community!
I really REALLY wanted to buy into this line. But I just can't get past some of the photos showing a fair amount of CA, at least in comparison to the ATACR 4-16 and to a lesser degree the DMR line. Even if it's not as bad in person with real eyes on the scope, the fact that it doesn't show up in the ATACR photos but does in many if not all the photos of the Mark 5HD, is concerning (for me at least).
With real world prices on the 3-18 falling between 1700-2100 for non-illum to illuminated Tremors/H59s, I ended up going with a used 4-16 ATACR for under $2k. Features are nearly identical, except for weight, but this is a scope I can run for 4-5 years without becoming upset that CA shows up exactly when you need a clear image in a high contrast environment.
My opinion only: I think the non-illuminated 3.6-18 models represent a great value for their price point but if illumination is important, it seems like their are other scopes that may offer more long-term benefit, albeit at a slightly higher price point. But it's SOOOO close to call. In this case, my experience
with NF products (durability, tracking consistency and optical clarity for my eyes) is worth a bit more than 100-200 saved short term. Now the 5-25 is a different story and may actually be a huge value to the community as optical trade offs may be very small/negligible compared to an extra 500-1000 for similar scopes.
Really hoping a few of the other guys on here can put up videos through the Mark 5 of tracking, looking at various objects/targets and objective comparisons against scopes below and above it's price point (XTR2, SSHD, Razor, AMG, NF etc). I want this scope to be a new start for Leupold's long range market to help spur competition and drive some prices down a bit.
But but all accounts so far, most everyone seems very happy with their new Leppys! That's a huge step in the right direction!
I really REALLY wanted to buy into this line. But I just can't get past some of the photos showing a fair amount of CA, at least in comparison to the ATACR 4-16 and to a lesser degree the DMR line. Even if it's not as bad in person with real eyes on the scope, the fact that it doesn't show up in the ATACR photos but does in many if not all the photos of the Mark 5HD, is concerning (for me at least).
With real world prices on the 3-18 falling between 1700-2100 for non-illum to illuminated Tremors/H59s, I ended up going with a used 4-16 ATACR for under $2k. Features are nearly identical, except for weight, but this is a scope I can run for 4-5 years without becoming upset that CA shows up exactly when you need a clear image in a high contrast environment.
My opinion only: I think the non-illuminated 3.6-18 models represent a great value for their price point but if illumination is important, it seems like their are other scopes that may offer more long-term benefit, albeit at a slightly higher price point. But it's SOOOO close to call. In this case, my experience
with NF products (durability, tracking consistency and optical clarity for my eyes) is worth a bit more than 100-200 saved short term. Now the 5-25 is a different story and may actually be a huge value to the community as optical trade offs may be very small/negligible compared to an extra 500-1000 for similar scopes.
Really hoping a few of the other guys on here can put up videos through the Mark 5 of tracking, looking at various objects/targets and objective comparisons against scopes below and above it's price point (XTR2, SSHD, Razor, AMG, NF etc). I want this scope to be a new start for Leupold's long range market to help spur competition and drive some prices down a bit.
But but all accounts so far, most everyone seems very happy with their new Leppys! That's a huge step in the right direction!
I see it too but it's so hard to tell when taking pictures from one optical system (camera and lens) through another optical system (scope) due to the combination of aberrations between the two, this is why I try to always caveat my images with the fact that CA was less to the naked eye than it appears within the image or vice versa. I also know that I am more sensitive to CA than others and I can see it where they cannot, if you're one who doesn't see much CA in scopes then do yourself a favor and don't go looking for it, be happy that you can't pick it up because while it's nothing that will affect your ability to put a round on target it is an annoyance especially when you're paying over $1k for these optics (and for some optics well over $2k even which I find difficult to justify).
Isn't it funny that the narrative with Leupold just a few months ago was pretty much the opposite. With the Mark 8 and Mark 6 representing Leupold's top of the line tactical offering and the astronomical prices of these offerings it seemed like Leupold was trying to push the market way up, but the competition was too fierce and it would seem Leupold has had to change their game plan accordingly, but I agree, this is good news for the community. Hopefully what comes next are better reticles (the TMR being a glorified mil dot and the other reticles considered too busy by some) and a drop in the price of entry for illumination, those are still two areas where Leupold is behind.
Mile High has 15% off all their Mark 5s right now, with all Tremor 3s and TMRs in stock (but not H59s or CCHs). Just sayin’...
Do not tempt me! I wonder if Leupold is allowing these discounts to their dealers to encourage sales and get shooters on board, but how long will the discounts last is the question, will the price drop even further in six months, or will it go up?
I just would have rather seen something more along the lines of the MSR2 or what EOTech has with their new MD3 reticle, still simple but a little more usable.
I did some shooting with it yesterday and today, plus I tested the tracking on a precisely drawn tall target with the rifle secured, so time for probably the last update!
Yesterday around sunset I put the 3.6-18x44 Mark 5 on my 16” suppressed AR15 to do some preliminary sighting in to get it close with cheap ammo. In a 20 MOA mount, impact was about 5 mils high and half a mil left at 100 yards. I made the single correction and was immediately able to smack a 9.25” steel target with every shot in the rest of the magazine at 345 yards. This shooting was done in low light, but I never had any difficulty picking up the target, even though it blends in with the shaded snowy slope in the background really well.
Today I put the scope on my 16” LaRue PredatOBR to zero with 3 different Hornady loads, since this will be the gun it stays on most of the time. It was just .3 mils high at 100 yards with windage dead on even after switching rifles. I dialed down .3 mils (thanks, M5C3 turrets!) and the composite group for Hornady Black 155gr and 168gr plus 168gr A-max TAP Precision was centered up and less than 1.3 MOA. Every individual 5 round group was 1 MOA or less. I haven’t been able to achieve that on one target after 2 years with this rifle, and I wonder if maybe the old scope had something to do with it. I thought it might have been the mount, but I mounted the Mark 5 in the mount in question with no trouble. In any case, clearly nothing is loose in the scope, as the tOBR is overgassed and recoils a lot harder than my other .308. After the sighting in, I used the reticle to hit the steel some more until I got bored.
This time around I did notice a little CA, but a lot less than I was used to with the Bushnell scopes. It didn’t bother me, and the image resolution at 18x was much higher than my old DMR was at 21x. I had no trouble picking out the bullet holes on the target. So if CA reeeeeally bothers you, yes, this scope has a bit of it, but it doesn’t make it any harder to see anything that I can tell, so if you are able to not worry about it, it shouldn’t cause you trouble.
Now for some bad news: elevation adjustments are 1% too small (101 clicks for 10 mils, 202 for 20, etc.). Contrast this with my XRS, which is dead nuts on through the entire adjustment range. Fortunately, it’s consistent across the entire adjustment range, it’s repeatable, and it returns to zero every time, so an entry in the ballistic calculator can make it a non-issue. You can only dial 5 mils of windage in either direction before hitting the stop, and those 5 mils are dead on both left and right through the whole elevation range.
Problem #2: the reticle is canted between .6 and .8 degrees. This manifests as point of aim shifting about .1 mils left about every 7.5 mils of elevation when the reticle is vertical. Again, just something I have to account for. I’ll mostly be shooting from the reticle, so this doesn’t bother me. The XRS is perfectly vertical in comparison.
Problem #3: I’m not sure if this is a limitation of all optics, but the parallax goes out of whack as I approach the limits of the elevation travel. In practical terms, this isn’t an issue because I presume you’d dial for the range before adjusting the parallax.
Anyway, I’m quite happy with it... it works great for my purposes, it’s nice and light, it’s really easy to look through and see through, and the price was right for the performance it delivers. Your mileage may vary depending on your priorities.
Yesterday around sunset I put the 3.6-18x44 Mark 5 on my 16” suppressed AR15 to do some preliminary sighting in to get it close with cheap ammo. In a 20 MOA mount, impact was about 5 mils high and half a mil left at 100 yards. I made the single correction and was immediately able to smack a 9.25” steel target with every shot in the rest of the magazine at 345 yards. This shooting was done in low light, but I never had any difficulty picking up the target, even though it blends in with the shaded snowy slope in the background really well.
Today I put the scope on my 16” LaRue PredatOBR to zero with 3 different Hornady loads, since this will be the gun it stays on most of the time. It was just .3 mils high at 100 yards with windage dead on even after switching rifles. I dialed down .3 mils (thanks, M5C3 turrets!) and the composite group for Hornady Black 155gr and 168gr plus 168gr A-max TAP Precision was centered up and less than 1.3 MOA. Every individual 5 round group was 1 MOA or less. I haven’t been able to achieve that on one target after 2 years with this rifle, and I wonder if maybe the old scope had something to do with it. I thought it might have been the mount, but I mounted the Mark 5 in the mount in question with no trouble. In any case, clearly nothing is loose in the scope, as the tOBR is overgassed and recoils a lot harder than my other .308. After the sighting in, I used the reticle to hit the steel some more until I got bored.
This time around I did notice a little CA, but a lot less than I was used to with the Bushnell scopes. It didn’t bother me, and the image resolution at 18x was much higher than my old DMR was at 21x. I had no trouble picking out the bullet holes on the target. So if CA reeeeeally bothers you, yes, this scope has a bit of it, but it doesn’t make it any harder to see anything that I can tell, so if you are able to not worry about it, it shouldn’t cause you trouble.
Now for some bad news: elevation adjustments are 1% too small (101 clicks for 10 mils, 202 for 20, etc.). Contrast this with my XRS, which is dead nuts on through the entire adjustment range. Fortunately, it’s consistent across the entire adjustment range, it’s repeatable, and it returns to zero every time, so an entry in the ballistic calculator can make it a non-issue. You can only dial 5 mils of windage in either direction before hitting the stop, and those 5 mils are dead on both left and right through the whole elevation range.
Problem #2: the reticle is canted between .6 and .8 degrees. This manifests as point of aim shifting about .1 mils left about every 7.5 mils of elevation when the reticle is vertical. Again, just something I have to account for. I’ll mostly be shooting from the reticle, so this doesn’t bother me. The XRS is perfectly vertical in comparison.
Problem #3: I’m not sure if this is a limitation of all optics, but the parallax goes out of whack as I approach the limits of the elevation travel. In practical terms, this isn’t an issue because I presume you’d dial for the range before adjusting the parallax.
Anyway, I’m quite happy with it... it works great for my purposes, it’s nice and light, it’s really easy to look through and see through, and the price was right for the performance it delivers. Your mileage may vary depending on your priorities.
Similar threads
