Rifle Scopes So, what about Leupold Mark 5 ?

[MarinePMI]

Bill,

I've taken mine out a few times now to the range, and like you, still getting comfortable with the additional clutter. Pretty sure I understand the calibration for the wind dots, but haven't played with it much yet. May mess with it this Sunday, after our club match. This will be going out on a PD shoot this summer, so I'm interested to see how it'll do (wind dots and reticle in general) in non-range environment with clutter and scattered brush.

BTW, with my dope at 4 mils, it takes 7mph wind to hit .95 mils for the second wind dot. So if I understand it correctly, then each wind dot is a 3.5 mph value (.223, 75gr ELDM @2960fps). Is that how you understand it as well?

So far, the more I use it, the more and more it grows on me (the scope in general, as well as the reticle).

 

[stwcattle]

Bill,

I've taken mine out a few times now to the range, and like you, still getting comfortable with the additional clutter. Pretty sure I understand the calibration for the wind dots, but haven't played with it much yet. May mess with it this Sunday, after our club match. This will be going out on a PD shoot this summer, so I'm interested to see how it'll do (wind dots and reticle in general) in non-range environment with clutter and scattered brush.

BTW, with my dope at 4 mils, it takes 7mph wind to hit .95 mils for the second wind dot. So if I understand it correctly, then each wind dot is a 3.5 mph value (.223, 75gr ELDM @2960fps). Is that how you understand it as well?

So far, the more I use it, the more and more it grows on me (the scope in general, as well as the reticle).

You just have to force yourself to trust the reticle. When i first started using the TReMoR3, I only used it on generous targets and only to 3 mils of elevation with is 600 yards with my 6 creedmoor. In time I began to trust the reticle on smaller targets and longer ranges. I have become so comfortable with the reticle, I am using one on my 6 CM hunting rifle. In this situation, i really appreciate the wind dots. If i have a handle on the wind, all i need is new range dope and I can make the wind adjustments on my own with the wind dots saving a lot of time and possible confusion with my spotter.

Your wind dot calibration looks right on to me.

 

[brian_]

FYI for anyone interested in ordering through their VIP discount program, I placed my order for a Mark 5 5-25 CCH and received the scope a week later.
That was a pretty pleasant surprise compared to my experience of ~5 month waits with Vortex.

 

[koshkin]

It takes me forever to actually write up a review these days. My dayjob has sorta gone into overdrive and I do some consulting on the side as well.

That having been said, I do spend a fair amount of time at the range and the 3.6-18x44 Mark 5 HD has become one of my favourite designs of the last year or two. My complaints about the reticle options are a personal preference, so that does not count as a ding against the scope.

Outside of the reticle business, the scope has been rock solid optically and mechanically and it easily going to end up on my list of recommendations. I have been very critical of Leupold in the past for resting on their laurels and re-using old designs against ever more sophisticated competition.

Mark5 HD is an absolutely competitive design against anythign in its price range and good enough to compete against some mroe expensive scopes too.

The 3.6-18x44 with its compact size and good performance is one of the better options out there for an accurate gas gun or a lightweight precision rifle.

Scanning through available reviews from other people, it looks like I am not alone thinking that.

ILya

 

[IOWASHOOTER]

I received my 3.6-18 a few days ago and I've been out with it a few times now and wanted to touch on the a parallax question I had seen in here earlier.

While it is only marked down to 75 it does spin past that a good amount. I was able to focus down to about 30yards on 12x. It also seems as though the markings aren't as close as my other optics, ATACR 4-16F1 and GENII Razor. My 100 yard parallax is near the 200yard marking on the knob. While not an issue, just a bit of an annoyance. (EDIT) I was informed the parallax turret is user resettable, set it to line up for me around 100yds and it is now perfect.

The glass is good, real good, but I will say the ATACR and Razor are noticeably ahead of it, at least to my eyes. Considering the price I was able to pick it up at makes it really difficult to complain about that though.

So far tracking has been spot on and setting the zero stop was jokingly easy. The turrets are not as tactile as the ATACR or Razor but I do like them quite a bit. They have very distinct clicks but have a touch of mush between them. Im not exactly sure how to describe it but it does not bother me at all.

The windage index mark is easy to see just by raising your head a bit off the gun, but it is difficult to line up, but I tend to only hold windage and rarely even take the windage cap off, so again, not an issue.

The size and weight are outstanding and for that it is probably ahead of the ATACR as an overall scope for me, as it feels like a brick in comparison.

I think this is the scope to get in its price range.

If anyone has any questions about it or would like a comparison, feel free to ask. I am no expert compared to others in here, but I have used my fair share of scopes.

 

[bulldozer3]

So... question for the crowd...
I got the badger 35mm mount in, but the inside of the top half of therings have a lip on them, like the were cut for a smaller size. Any advice? Anyone see this before?

 

[Threadcutter308]

So... question for the crowd...
I got the badger 35mm mount in, but the inside of the top half of therings have a lip on them, like the were cut for a smaller size. Any advice? Anyone see this before?

Consider that if you have to cut apart the ring during manufacturing, the "Kerf" (or width of cut) must be considered. To put your mind at ease, mount the bottom half of both rings on the base and gently set the scope in them. There will be (or should be) no gap around the bottom half of the rings where they meet the scope body. Now, gently place each ring cap in it's proper place above each ring bottom, on the top of the scope. You should not see any gap between the ring top and the scope body. Put the screws in, all the way around and tighten only finger tight. Again, you should not see any gap between the ring parts and the scope body. You will also probably see a gap between the lower and upper ring halves where the screws go through, which is normal.
Each ring was likely manufactured as one piece, then cut into upper and lower halves and the cut was made above (horizontal) centerline. If the cut was made perfectly on center and the "kerf" equally straddled the upper and lower portions, you would not see a "lip", but with the top caps installed, the ring bore would appear ellipsoidal.

I think you're fine, provided the above fitment plays out as described. If in doubt take your time and don't force anything. BTW, Badger makes good stuff and it's highly unlikely they shipped out bad product.

Oh.......and the simple example is to flip the top half of the ring upside down and place it next to the bottom half and compare the radius (radii) of both. They should match. Or, even simpler, just place the top ring half on top of your scope and look for gaps. If there are any, the top cap is indeed for a smaller diameter scope. I really doubt you will find that to be the case though.

 

[Bandit31]

I received my 3.6-18 a few days ago and I've been out with it a few times now and wanted to touch on the a parallax question I had seen in here earlier.

While it is only marked down to 75 it does spin past that a good amount. I was able to focus down to about 30yards on 12x. It also seems as though the markings aren't as close as my other optics, ATACR 4-16F1 and GENII Razor. My 100 yard parallax is near the 200yard marking on the knob. While not an issue, just a bit of an annoyance.

The glass is good, but I will say the ATACR and Razor are noticeably ahead of it, at least to my eyes. Considering the price I was able to pick it up at makes it really difficult to complain about that though.

So far tracking has been spot on and setting the zero stop was jokingly easy. The turrets are not as tactile as the ATACR or Razor but I do like them quite a bit. They have very distinct clicks but have a touch of mush between them. Im not exactly sure how to describe it but it does not bother me at all.

The windage index mark is easy to see just by raising your head a bit off the gun, but it is difficult to line up, but I tend to only hold windage and rarely even take the windage cap off, so again, not an issue.

The size and weight are outstanding and for that it is probably ahead of the ATACR as an overall scope for me, as it feels like a brick in comparison.

If anyone has any questions about it or would like a comparison, feel free to ask. I am no expert compared to others in here, but I have used my fair share of scopes.

Which Atacr did you compare to the Mark 5? Which did you think had a more friendly eye box?

 

[Chalkeye]

Anyone used the CCH reticle in a hunting scenario?

Or, thoughts about how this reticle would perform at low mag for hunting?

 

[bulldozer3]

Consider that if you have to cut apart the ring during manufacturing, the "Kerf" (or width of cut) must be considered. To put your mind at ease, mount the bottom half of both rings on the base and gently set the scope in them. There will be (or should be) no gap around the bottom half of the rings where they meet the scope body. Now, gently place each ring cap in it's proper place above each ring bottom, on the top of the scope. You should not see any gap between the ring top and the scope body. Put the screws in, all the way around and tighten only finger tight. Again, you should not see any gap between the ring parts and the scope body. You will also probably see a gap between the lower and upper ring halves where the screws go through, which is normal.
Each ring was likely manufactured as one piece, then cut into upper and lower halves and the cut was made above (horizontal) centerline. If the cut was made perfectly on center and the "kerf" equally straddled the upper and lower portions, you would not see a "lip", but with the top caps installed, the ring bore would appear ellipsoidal.

I think you're fine, provided the above fitment plays out as described. If in doubt take your time and don't force anything. BTW, Badger makes good stuff and it's highly unlikely they shipped out bad product.

Oh.......and the simple example is to flip the top half of the ring upside down and place it next to the bottom half and compare the radius (radii) of both. They should match. Or, even simpler, just place the top ring half on top of your scope and look for gaps. If there are any, the top cap is indeed for a smaller diameter scope. I really doubt you will find that to be the case though.

Thanks, i think ill wait for the scope and see how it fits. just never seen this before with Geisslle mounts, seekins rings, etc

 

[cleric]

Thinking about the mark 5. I just wish the temperature had finer adjustments. I am not sure if I should step up to the tremor

 

[TSU99]

I shot my first match since getting my Mark 5 CCH reticle and it performed great. Tracks great, easy to use and the glass is better than any I've used ( Burris XTR ii and Steiner T5XI). After the match we compared it to my buddy's SB it was as clear. The Leupold didn't have the pop the SB did in regards to how bright and vibrant the colors were. The SB does cost at least a thousand more. All in all I am very satisfied and will repeat what I've said before. I don't think there is a sub $2k scope that can touch it.

 

[IOWASHOOTER]

Which Atacr did you compare to the Mark 5? Which did you think had a more friendly eye box?

It was the 4-16F1. In usage, I can't tell an eyebox difference between the two. On max for both so 16 for the ATACR asnd 18 for the MK5, I think the ATACR had a slight advantage. On about 12x, where I do the majority of my shooting, they are equivalent.

 

[stwcattle]

I received my 3.6-18 a few days ago and I've been out with it a few times now and wanted to touch on the a parallax question I had seen in here earlier.

While it is only marked down to 75 it does spin past that a good amount. I was able to focus down to about 30yards on 12x. It also seems as though the markings aren't as close as my other optics, ATACR 4-16F1 and GENII Razor. My 100 yard parallax is near the 200yard marking on the knob. While not an issue, just a bit of an annoyance.

The glass is good, but I will say the ATACR and Razor are noticeably ahead of it, at least to my eyes. Considering the price I was able to pick it up at makes it really difficult to complain about that though.

So far tracking has been spot on and setting the zero stop was jokingly easy. The turrets are not as tactile as the ATACR or Razor but I do like them quite a bit. They have very distinct clicks but have a touch of mush between them. Im not exactly sure how to describe it but it does not bother me at all.

The windage index mark is easy to see just by raising your head a bit off the gun, but it is difficult to line up, but I tend to only hold windage and rarely even take the windage cap off, so again, not an issue.

The size and weight are outstanding and for that it is probably ahead of the ATACR as an overall scope for me, as it feels like a brick in comparison.

If anyone has any questions about it or would like a comparison, feel free to ask. I am no expert compared to others in here, but I have used my fair share of scopes.

Thanks for your review IWOASHOOTER.

I been hesitant to pull the trigger on a Mark 5 on a new 6 creedmoor hunting rifle build over another NF ATACR 4-16x42 and your review has convinced me the ATACR is the way to go for me as a hunting scope.

Reasons are you mention better glass with the ATACR, and better turret feel with the ATACR. Additionally you mention the extra weight of the ATACR a negative. I however do not. Perhaps the weight is why the ATACR has better appearing glass, crisper turret feel, a more attractive appearance and near bullet proof performance and reliability that I can count on year after year, hunt after hunt.

I do hope Luepold has finally gotten it right with the Mark 5, as a Leupold was on my very first hunting rifle my father gave me. At this time however, I have to go with another NF ATACR 4-16x42.

 

[Milo 2.5]

I just picked up a Mark 5 3-18, cost and weight savings were my goal, gun being built for a 12 yr old. Mine was a package deal with a sphur mount included. Sphur has been sold, and the scope looks solid, and hope to test it by next weekend. I must admit though, even if it is not up to my standards, doubt I'll do much to remedy it for a couple yrs, I'll be at 6k on the build and not sure if the kid could tell the diff between this and a 3-18 kahles.

 

[oscar2550]

Anyone try QD mount for 3.6-18x? Deciding american defense or bobro

 

[lte82]

While it is only marked down to 75 it does spin past that a good amount. I was able to focus down to about 30yards on 12x. It also seems as though the markings aren't as close as my other optics, ATACR 4-16F1 and GENII Razor. My 100 yard parallax is near the 200yard marking on the knob. While not an issue, just a bit of an annoyance.

The parallax knob is actually user adjustable so you can loosen the cap and set it to where it should be.

 

[Duffman1975]

Thanks for your review IWOASHOOTER.

I been hesitant to pull the trigger on a Mark 5 on a new 6 creedmoor hunting rifle build over another NF ATACR 4-16x42 and your review has convinced me the ATACR is the way to go for me as a hunting scope.

Reasons are you mention better glass with the ATACR, and better turret feel with the ATACR. Additionally you mention the extra weight of the ATACR a negative. I however do not. Perhaps the weight is why the ATACR has better appearing glass, crisper turret feel, a more attractive appearance and near bullet proof performance and reliability that I can count on year after year, hunt after hunt.

I do hope Luepold has finally gotten it right with the Mark 5, as a Leupold was on my very first hunting rifle my father gave me. At this time however, I have to go with another NF ATACR 4-16x42.

What i noticed with the ATACR in comparision to the Mark 5 was that in low light, the ATACR's reticle seemed to fade making it hard to get a good sight picture and a quick shot, while the Leupold's reticle is easily visible. Not a big deal if you get the illuminated reticle, but that was the decision that took me away from the ATACR.

 

[Bender]

I just picked up a Mark 4 3-18, cost and weight savings were my goal, gun being built for a 12 yr old. Mine was a package deal with a sphur mount included. Sphur has been sold, and the scope looks solid, and hope to test it by next weekend. I must admit though, even if it is not up to my standards, doubt I'll do much to remedy it for a couple yrs, I'll be at 6k on the build and not sure if the kid could tell the diff between this and a 3-18 kahles.

I think you meant mk 5 Milo.... lol. One lucky kid!

 

[Blackfoot 7]

My Mark 5HD 3.5-18x CCH was delivered last week and was promptly mounted to my MWS. I already had a Spur SP-5602 for it on hand. Initial impressions are very positive and I'm happy to have taken a chance on it sight unseen. Figured if it did not live up to expectations I'd offload it for another ATACR, but so far so good. Optical quality is very good and the CA at the top end appears to be better controlled than some higher end scopes I've seen and/or used. The CCH grid is very nice, and I honestly don't feel the need to pay extra for the Horus options. It's relatively lightweight when compared to its competitors, and it seems to balance out the rifle much better than the heavier scopes that have come and gone before it (XTR II, Mark 6, PMII). Overall, very satisfied and pleasantly surprised. There wasn't a lot of fanfare when this scope was introduced, largely going under the radar in light of other major optic announcements this year, and I think Leupold was smart in doing the bare minimum marketing as to not create an insane amount of hype that it might have not lived up to. This is a sleeper hit for sure.

 

[lte82]

I got to spend some time behind my Mark 5 5-25, XRS2 4.5-30, Razor 2 4.5-27, and HDMR2 3.5-21 yesterday afternoon. Without typing up a huge report, I would rank them like this:

Resolution/Clarity: Mark 5 > XRS 2 = Razor 2 > HDMR2

The resolution of the Mark 5 is just a TINY bit better than the XRS2 or Razor 2, but significantly better than the HDMR2. I have 20/15 vision, so if you have 20/20 or worse you might not be able to tell the difference between the top 3. You really have to look for fine detail, like spider webs at 100 yards in order to see the difference.

CA: Razor 2 = XRS 2 = Mark 5 > HDMR2

I felt that CA on the Mark 5 is just a tiny bit easier to induce than on the Razor 2 or XRS 2, but it was hard to say for sure so I would put the top three as equals. The HDMR2 lagged behind significantly.

Turrets: Razor 2 = Mark 5 > XRS 2 = HDMR2

This is really subjective, but pure function wise I would put the Razor 2 and Mark 5 turrets as equals. The Razor 2 is definitely more "tactile", but neither have any slop and they both line up perfectly when dialing elevation and windage. I almost prefer the Mark 5 turrets because they are easier to spin without disturbing the gun, but I also think they could get spun unintentionally as well. I'm disappointed that the XRS 2 uses the same turrets as the HDMR2. The scope deserves better IMO. The linkage between the knob and the turret is sloppy, and for a $2000 scope it should be better. They all track EXTREMELY well on the tall target, none of them were off any discernable amount at 10 mil on the tall target.

FOV: Razor 2 > XRS 2 = HDMR2 > Mark 5

This one is easy. Razor 2, all day every day for FOV. The XRS 2 and HDMR 2 have SLIGHTLY more FOV than the Mark 5.

Eye Box: Razor 2 > XRS 2 = Mark 5 > HDMR 2

The Razor 2 clearly has the best eye box of the four, but it was tough to tell between the XRS 2 and Mark 5. Physically the bottom three scopes all had relatively the same amount of forgiveness, but the XRS 2 and Mark 5 had a better useful eyebox as the HDMR 2 started to exhibit more CA and some fuzziness as you get to the outer limits of where you could still see full FOV.

Hopefully this answers some questions for those that are considering the Mark 5.

 

[Glassaholic]

So I'm comparing my Mark 5 3.6-18x44 against my S&B Ultra Short 3-20x50 and I have to say I am quite impressed with the Mark 5, the glass is really good resolution wise and has good depth. CA is more noticeable than on the Schmidt but nothing too crazy. So far eyebox seems pretty forgiving on the Leupold and low light color and contrast are very impressive. This is just playing around with them at home, I really need to get them out to the range soon to conduct some more thorough tests.

 

[SoloAmigo]

I received my 3.6-18 a few days ago and I've been out with it a few times now and wanted to touch on the a parallax question I had seen in here earlier.

While it is only marked down to 75 it does spin past that a good amount. I was able to focus down to about 30yards on 12x. It also seems as though the markings aren't as close as my other optics, ATACR 4-16F1 and GENII Razor. My 100 yard parallax is near the 200yard marking on the knob. While not an issue, just a bit of an annoyance. (EDIT) I was informed the parallax turret is user resettable, set it to line up for me around 100yds and it is now perfect.

The glass is good, real good, but I will say the ATACR and Razor are noticeably ahead of it, at least to my eyes. Considering the price I was able to pick it up at makes it really difficult to complain about that though.

So far tracking has been spot on and setting the zero stop was jokingly easy. The turrets are not as tactile as the ATACR or Razor but I do like them quite a bit. They have very distinct clicks but have a touch of mush between them. Im not exactly sure how to describe it but it does not bother me at all.

The windage index mark is easy to see just by raising your head a bit off the gun, but it is difficult to line up, but I tend to only hold windage and rarely even take the windage cap off, so again, not an issue.

The size and weight are outstanding and for that it is probably ahead of the ATACR as an overall scope for me, as it feels like a brick in comparison.

I think this is the scope to get in its price range.

If anyone has any questions about it or would like a comparison, feel free to ask. I am no expert compared to others in here, but I have used my fair share of scopes.

IOWASHOOTER - What height rings are you using in the pic? I have an AIAT also . Thanks in advance for the info.

 

[IOWASHOOTER]

IOWASHOOTER - What height rings are you using in the pic? I have an AIAT also . Thanks in advance for the info.

Those are the ARC Low rings, .94"

 

[msstate56]

For those that have a 3.6-18 Mark 5, does it come with a sunshade and flip caps? I can't get a response from Leupold one way or the other. I don't want to order something and pay extra for what already comes with the scope.

 

[Milo 2.5]

For those that have a 3.6-18 Mark 5, does it come with a sunshade and flip caps? I can't get a response from Leupold one way or the other. I don't want to order something and pay extra for what already comes with the scope.

Mine did, sunshade and covers.

 

[msstate56]

Ok thanks.

 

[Milo 2.5]

What is the story behind the 10.5 mil turret?

 

[Glassaholic]

... and the video of the clicks he sent me sounds great.

I am not obsessive about turret clicks as some others are (but I am obsessive in other areas ) however, I must say the Mark 5 turrets are one of my favorites to spin - nice succinct snap to each .1 mil click.

 

[mrobles3808]

Why do I spend time here. I haven’t even had time to mount my most recent 5-20 ultra short and now I’m thinking I have to have a Mark5.

 

[cleric]

Mine did, sunshade and covers.

Good quality covers or flimsy ones?

 

[Milo 2.5]

Good quality covers or flimsy ones?

I did not open from the plastic, by feel, rolling with the flimsy variety. lol

 

[5RWill]

They're definitely flimsy but it's better than nothing. Though i do wonder why a scope of that price doesn't warrant the aluminum covers that the VX6HD lineup receives.

 

[sbernier123]

Anyone making decent aftermarket covers (Tenebraex, AADMOUNT) yet? Doesn't look the Mark 6 has the same dimensions.

 

[Glassaholic]

Why do I spend time here. I haven’t even had time to mount my most recent 5-20 ultra short and now I’m thinking I have to have a Mark5.

Don't, I've had the 5-20 Ultra Short and it is an awesome scope, I now have the 3-20 Ultra Short and think I like the 5-20 better, don't get me wrong, the 3-20 is amazing but there was something special about the 5-20 and with its huge FOV it acts more like a scope that has greater than 4x magnification. The glass is better in the Schmidt vs. the Leupold Mark 5, but then again for a scope that costs more than 2x as much one would hope to see that. If you don't need illumination and are okay with the reticle choices I think the Leupold 3.6-18x44 represents the best value to date in an ultra short design and its turrets are really growing on me. It exhibits more CA than I hoped it would but about on par for this price range, the only exception would be the Vortex AMG, at $2400 it exhibits amazing resolution and minimal CA (almost unnoticeable); if Vortex were to make an AMG 4.5-18 or 5-20 that was a shorty and the price was around $2k I would be all over that! But wishing a scope existed doesn't get me anywhere so the Mark 5 3.6-18x44 is easily the best scope in its class - the shortest, lightest, cheapest scope in the 18-20x top end magnification range. Also, for turret purists, the Mark 5HD has my favorite feeling turrets to date, keep in mind I am not bothered by most turrets and find I can easily dial my elevation given enough time behind the unit, but the clicks on the Mark 5 have a very distinct click with a sharp sound to it and I like the spacing and resistance between clicks.

 

[Glassaholic]

They're definitely flimsy but it's better than nothing. Though i do wonder why a scope of that price doesn't warrant the alumina covers that the VX6HD lineup receives.

I agree with Will, better than nothing or lame bikini caps for sure. They are plain plastic and my only gripe about them is that they will not lay flat once opened, they stay at a canted 45 degree angle or so. A nice little design touch is the rear cap is almost flush with the ocular housing and completely protects the diopter adjustment, it gives it almost a built in look to it.

 

[redneckbmxer24]

None of the plastic caps are exactly precision made pieces, but they're more than serviceable. I've opened and closed mine hundreds of times and caught them on stuff and they're still as good as new. They stay shut when you close them and open when you open them.

 

[CBuck]

I know the turrets have 30 Mils of elevation adjustment but what is the total internal elevation? I just bought a 3.6-18x44 tremor 3 and ordered a 20moa mount. Will 20 MOA be enough for a 6.5 Creedmoor?

 

[Stpilot12]

Will 20 MOA be enough for a 6.5 Creedmoor?

For a 6.5CM to do what?? My current dope is 10.0 mil to 1225 yards. How far are you looking for??

 

[CBuck]

I’ll have it mounted on a 16” 6.5 Creedmoor Aero M5 gas build. Depending on load I think I should be supersonic out to @ 1200 yards or so. So 1000 to 1200 yards would be fine.

 

[Glassaholic]

I’ll have it mounted on a 16” 6.5 Creedmoor Aero M5 gas build. Depending on load I think I should be supersonic out to @ 1200 yards or so. So 1000 to 1200 yards would be fine.

Elevation is 29.1 mil on the 3.6-18x44, you'll have more than enough with the 20 MOA mount

 

[Milo 2.5]

I know the turrets have 30 Mils of elevation adjustment but what is the total internal elevation? I just bought a 3.6-18x44 tremor 3 and ordered a 20moa mount. Will 20 MOA be enough for a 6.5 Creedmoor?

You may have worded the question wrong, the total internal elevation is 29.1 mils. So if you mounted the scope with a 0 moa base and everything held true, you would have 14.6 up and 14.6 down. Now a 20 moa base should give you 5.5 mils more on the upside. Let's just say you lose a mil in the noise of mounting and zeroing, theoretically you should have over 18 mils up, just an estimate. I'm positive this will take you way past subsonic range of any bullet you use.

 

[CBuck]

You may have worded the question wrong, the total internal elevation is 29.1 mils. So if you mounted the scope with a 0 moa base and everything held true, you would have 14.6 up and 14.6 down. Now a 20 moa base should give you 5.5 mils more on the upside. Let's just say you lose a mil in the noise of mounting and zeroing, theoretically you should have over 18 mils up, just an estimate. I'm positive this will take you way past subsonic range of any bullet you use.

This is what I was asking without knowing exactly how to word it. Thanks. I feel good about my choice in getting a 20moa now. I didn’t want to have ~15 mils on either side and need ~13 and be almost maxed out.

 

[Milo 2.5]

This is what I was asking without knowing exactly how to word it. Thanks. I feel good about my choice in getting a 20moa now. I didn’t want to have ~15 mils on either side and need ~13 and be almost maxed out.

I'm putting one on a dasher, do not have rings yet and am using a kahles in the interim, want to do load dev with the 24 power anyway. But at 1600 yards, I will need 16.1 mils up, bullet goes subsonic at 1585, and the actions rail is 20 moa.

 

[J.Boney]

I’d really like to see the 3-18.. Have heard nothing but good things.. Was looking at this for a 20” .308 bolt gun..

 

[Milo 2.5]

I’d really like to see the 3-18.. Have heard nothing but good things.. Was looking at this for a 20” .308 bolt gun..

I do not have mine mounted, but glass seems legit, I viewed way over a mile, the turrets I heard some complaints on seem more than fine, see what happens with use, it's light, but the 10.5 mil turret is lost on me, leave it to Leupold to make a guy do math. I shot enough of their 15 moa turrets to dislike it before I fire a shot.

 

[J.Boney]

I don’t know why they just didn’t make 10 mils per rev..

 

[Chalkeye]

I don’t know why they just didn’t make 10 mils per rev..

The offset labels are easier to read IMO. 3 layers of text stacked on top of each other would be pretty cluttered

 

[MarinePMI]

I do not have mine mounted, but glass seems legit, I viewed way over a mile, the turrets I heard some complaints on seem more than fine, see what happens with use, it's light, but the 10.5 mil turret is lost on me, leave it to Leupold to make a guy do math. I shot enough of their 15 moa turrets to dislike it before I fire a shot.

Hmmm, the turrets are one of the features on the Mk5 that I've come to really like. Zeroing is snap with these turrets. No trying to hold the turret steady, while not bumping the post and then trying to screw in three set screws with an allen wrench. just dial up to your zero, undo two set screws and turn the turrret back to zero until the zero stop clicks and locks the post in place. Tighten the two screws and you're done. Hands down this scope has the easiest zeroing method of scopes within it's price range.

 

[J.Boney]

Hmmm, the turrets are one of the features on the Mk5 that I've come to really like. Zeroing is snap with these turrets. No trying to hold the turret steady, while not bumping the post and then trying to screw in three set screws with an allen wrench. just dial up to your zero, undo two set screws and turn the turrret back to zero until the zero stop clicks and locks the post in place. Tighten the two screws and you're done. Hands down this scope has the easiest zeroing method of scopes within it's price range.

What reticle do you have?