-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes So, what about Leupold Mark 5 ?
- Thread starter longshot2000
- Start date
It's taken a little to get used to, but it works as advertised. I usually dial for everything, so it's a matter of training and trusting the reticle to do it's thing.
I agree, the Mark 5 turrets are quickly becoming my favorite, I have not had a TT but out of all the scopes I've had (and I've had a fair share) I think I like the Mark 5 the best, very precise clicks, I hope to be wrapping up my review of the 3.6-18x44 this week.
I could not justify paying another $590 just for illumination with the plain TMR reticle (if Leupold came out with a decent Christmas tree style and offered illumination it might be more compelling) and I wanted to try out the Tremor3 and see if it would work for me. To be honest, it's not as cluttered as I thought it would be in actual use, but it is cluttered more than others so if that is something that bothers you and you plan on dialing elevation then probably not the best choice for you, but if you want to get more into using the reticle in place of dialing, then I can see the merits of the Tremor3. I have not played around with the wind dots as of yet, but those who've taken the time to learn that system seem to swear by it.
Was eyeballing that CCH FFP.. Not typically a fan of busy reticles, but don’t care for TMR either.
I got a Mark 5 5-25x56 a few weeks ago. On paper the scope appears to be a contender in the long range scope market. I like the glass, turrets and the CCH reticle. It appears that a lot of thought was put into those components. I think the 10.5 mil per revolution makes sense. It eliminate the need to do simple math on the fly. The offset numbers on the dial are easy to read when you mount the rifle. The CCH reticle is brilliant. I think it has all of the benefits of a Horus with less clutter. With all of those positives here is the negative. My scope did not track or return to zero. Changes from zero to ten mils in one mil increments had a 2%-11% error and each time I dialed from 10 mil to 0 mil my zero would change. On the bright side Leopold has great customer service. Unfortunately I had to use it on a new scope.
I'm about to make a move and it is coming down to trying a Mk5 5-25x T3 ... primarily for a .300WM(24) for LD targets. The alternative is a NF ATACR F1 probably a repeat of the 7-35x T3 I already have. One aspect that makes the price closer than it might seem is that I would have to get a whole new Spuhr mount for the Mk5 (35mm tube) whereas I already have a spare 34mm mount for the NF. That and I might be able to get a decent discount for the NF. So, price will be closer than it might seem for my transaction.
But Konarex seems to think maybe he got a "lemon" and after some "customer service" ... the tracking issue will be solved.
Last edited:
Deleted, cause mistakes are not fun to admit to.?
I actually shot a mk8, but had mk5 on the brain. Not relevent to the thread.
I actually shot a mk8, but had mk5 on the brain. Not relevent to the thread.
Last edited:
Nothing specifically against the MK5, but if it were my choice, with the stated criteria, I'd choose the Nightforce in a heattbeat... In fact, I did ?!
I am hoping it is a lemon and not representative of the entire line. I regularly talk with one of the Team APA shooters who are sponsored by Leopold. He has been using a Mark 5 since their launch and has had no tracking issues.
I agree with Plong about Nightforce. Money was the deciding factor with the Mark 5. It was way cheaper when I bought it.
I agree with Plong about Nightforce. Money was the deciding factor with the Mark 5. It was way cheaper when I bought it.
Hey Bill, whilst I know they are not directly comparable scopes would you mind commenting on the Mk5 vs the Bushnell Lrts (I know you've had both).
I'm eyeing one of the Bushy 4.5-18x44's, I have no need for a compact scope with this build (mainly hunting/steel), but if there are significant reasons to opt for the mk5 I'll certainly consider it. Illumination is a feature I value in a hunting scope, and the LRTS offers that will only a slight price bump
Cheers,
BP
Last edited:
Aye, it is just that I am trying to make a "data driven" decision ... and there is still not much DATA to go on, as far as the Mk5. No data driven comparative reviews, etc. Though hearing it doesn't track, at least in one case, I consider to be a data point in the data book.
The CCH seems just as busy as a Tremor3 to me but the Tremor3 seems better thought out, I may be wrong but that was my initial impression and why I went with the Tremor.
Hey BP, that is hard as I sold my LRTS last year; however, in a few weeks I should be getting my GAP LRHS which is the same scope but different reticle. I keep thinking of selling the Mark 5 3.6-18x44 to get a Kahles K318i, but I also keep trying to convince myself to just keep the Mark 5. Like you, I prefer reticles that have illumination and I opted for the Tremor3 with the Mark 5 which does not come with an illumination option for the 3.6-18 but even if it did it would be very hard to justify almost $600 more for illumination, Leupold really needs to get with the program.
In lieu of what you shared, I would definitely recommend the LRHS/LRTS as it has a better reticle (than the TMR) has illumination for a minor price bump (have you checked out the GAP deal for the LRHS, they are supposed to be doing another pre-order run in a few weeks) , the Leupold is 2" shorter and has better turrets (but the Bushnell turrets aren't bad). The Leupold has more CA than I'd like to see for a $2kish scope but CA doesn't bother a lot of shooters so take that with a grain of salt; the Bushnell also exhibits CA but controls it better than many scopes in that price range. If you can get in on the next GAP deal at $750 there just is no other scope that comes close at that price point while the LRTSi at around $1250 or so street price starts getting closer to other scopes that you might consider.
I'd really need both side by side to give a more thorough response, I can say that Leupold has done something to make the Mark 5 an excellent low light performer, next to my S&B US 3-20 it was very difficult to discern between the two in low light settings; however, in bright light the Leupy seems like it may be slightly washed out, most shooters would probably not notice but it is something I picked up when comparing to other scopes and I wonder if its a result of whatever they did for low light. I'm wrapping up my mini review of the Mark 5 and will post that soon.
Do you need a QR mount? If not, then I highly recommend the Badger 22MOA Riser Rail that can be used with standard rings. I bought ARC M10 rings for my Mark 5...
Larue has 2 options. LT107 and LT745.
LT 107 has 3 locking levers and 30 MOA.
LT 745 is an extended mount with option of 10 or 20 MOA.
I believe there may be a SPUHR mount as well.
I'm running a Spuhr as well - their reputation is well earned. In May Mile High was giving away Spuhr mounts with MK5s...
After 3 trips to the range I'm really happy with my 3.6-18. It's the first Leupold I've owned in many years and it's a winner to my amateur eyes. The folks that have used my rifle have also been impressed. The TMR reticle is still lacking - a Vortex-ish Christmas tree with .2 mil hashes would be great, but it is what it is and the MK5 saved more than a pound vs. a Razor2 3-18, a trade off I'd probably make again for a sub eight pound ar15.
Thanks Bill, decision fatigue is a real thing
I'm interested in your thoughts once you can compare the Mk5 and the LRHS side by side. Cheers, BP
What’s the verdict on the CCH reticle? I’ve used H59 and Tremors plenty and while I don’t dislike them, they are not my favorite either. CCH seems like it could be a good balance of them?
I can also get the CCH a fair bit cheaper than either of the Horus options. Just trying to figure out if it’s been a well received reticle or if it’s just better to stay with the tried and true.
I can also get the CCH a fair bit cheaper than either of the Horus options. Just trying to figure out if it’s been a well received reticle or if it’s just better to stay with the tried and true.
It's a solid grid / tree reticle that's easy to use. The plus and minus is that the lines are heavy so you can see it clearly even at 5x and there's lots of reference points for holding for dope, but that also means it's pretty cluttered and for some people its distracting. Really personal preference here.
Sooooo.......I went to go shoot with my buddy who received his MK 5 5-25..... I was excited because this scope checked all the boxes on what I personally feel should be in a LR scope.
The rifle it sits on is a new Bergara HMR PRO, and that action felt amazing! The trigger is the best I’ve felt on any factory rifle! Anyway...... I digress...
When checking Zero, the scope paralax seemed off, so I looked to the sky and set the Diopter which was off slightly, went back to 100yds to check paralax, it would resolve into a clear edge to edge picture at 200ish yards... not bad, so I loaded one and fired.... it was about 1/3 Mil high, and slightly out of focus. I adjusted the paralax again without looking at the knob, into a clear picture again, fired another round and hit half mil low....again out of focus... so again I adjusted paralax with out looking at the knob to a clear picture.... then out of curiosity, I peek at the setting.....400yds.... clear image at 100yds...wtf... we ended up shooting a few more, even pulled a bore snake a couple times, then it settles in to a consistent group. Paralax still off, eye box seems touchy, crosshairs out of focus again.... we try some dialing with it, it tracks to 400, 500, 600 and 700 with good first round hits on target.... but paralax remains off with poor focus on diopter with it adjusted fully in....I am at a loss....
I brought my Weaver 6-30 and had zero issues with paralax or diopter. I’m not a scope pro, but I’m no noob either.... what gives???
The rifle it sits on is a new Bergara HMR PRO, and that action felt amazing! The trigger is the best I’ve felt on any factory rifle! Anyway...... I digress...
When checking Zero, the scope paralax seemed off, so I looked to the sky and set the Diopter which was off slightly, went back to 100yds to check paralax, it would resolve into a clear edge to edge picture at 200ish yards... not bad, so I loaded one and fired.... it was about 1/3 Mil high, and slightly out of focus. I adjusted the paralax again without looking at the knob, into a clear picture again, fired another round and hit half mil low....again out of focus... so again I adjusted paralax with out looking at the knob to a clear picture.... then out of curiosity, I peek at the setting.....400yds.... clear image at 100yds...wtf... we ended up shooting a few more, even pulled a bore snake a couple times, then it settles in to a consistent group. Paralax still off, eye box seems touchy, crosshairs out of focus again.... we try some dialing with it, it tracks to 400, 500, 600 and 700 with good first round hits on target.... but paralax remains off with poor focus on diopter with it adjusted fully in....I am at a loss....
I brought my Weaver 6-30 and had zero issues with paralax or diopter. I’m not a scope pro, but I’m no noob either.... what gives???
Can you share your thoughts on the MK5 vs the AMG? Lowlight, eyebox, clarity, CA , etc. I've been trying to hold out for the Steiner M7xi but it looks like its going to be a bit latter than I thought before they drop so its between the Mk5 and AMG for a place holder.
Better glass IMHO, better turrets, lighter, etc. The athlon might get the nod in reticle selection.
Diopter is full stop in. No more room to adjust. I’ll mess/shoot with it again.
Had my first chance behind a MK5 today and was kinda disappointed honestly.
There are some nice features like the zero stop and capped windage but I was expecting more for the cost.
Turrets have some play in them and don’t line up perfectly. Eye box wasn’t horrible but it wasn’t great either. And there was pretty significant chromatic aberration in both overcast and sunny conditions. For as much good as guys talk about them it was just very... meh.
There are some nice features like the zero stop and capped windage but I was expecting more for the cost.
Turrets have some play in them and don’t line up perfectly. Eye box wasn’t horrible but it wasn’t great either. And there was pretty significant chromatic aberration in both overcast and sunny conditions. For as much good as guys talk about them it was just very... meh.
Last edited:
Splitting hairs, but the AMG has a bit less CA to me. I would say go with the turrets and reticle you prefer.
3.6-18 with H59.
Like I said it was not horrible, but based on current street prices... there are better values in my humble opinion.
Yeah i'm getting the impression the 3.6-18 isn't quite up to snuff as the 5-25. That's why i was curious as i've not heard many negative impressions of the 5-25. Including my own, which i was quite impressed. Though it's unfair to expect the 3.6-18 compete with the 5-25 given the design. I do agree it's priced a little much considering where as the 5-25 is quite affordable without illumination. I'd say $1500 is the spot where i'd look to buy a small mark 5.
For one thing, I have the 3.6-18x44 Mark 5 which is not a fair comparison to the AMG, the Mark 5 3.6-18 is an ultra short design and will exhibit different optical characteristics from say the 5-25 which would be a more fair comparison IMO. That being said, here are my early thoughts
Lowlight: MK5 3.6-18x44 = AMG 6-24x50 (the Mark 5 is very impressive in my early analysis of low light performance which is very good for a 44mm scope)
Eyebox: MK5 3.6-18x44 < AMG 6-24x50 (I'd say the AMG is slightly easier to get behind, but the MK5 is not bad especially for an ultra short)
Clarity: MK5 3.6-18x44 < AMG 6-24x50 (Clarity is a tough one because different people look for different things, the resolution of the Mark 5 is up there; however, in bright daylight the image seems a little washed out in some situations which takes away from the clarity for me)
CA: MK5 3.6-18x44 < AMG 6-24x50 (The AMG controls CA better than most scopes out there so no surprise here; however, the MK5 shows pretty considerable magenta fringing at the edges of high contrast objects in bright daylight, it sounds like the 5-25 controls this better but the 3.6-18 reminds me more of the Steiner T5Xi or the Kahles K624i which for the price I had hoped would be better)
Turrets: MK5 3.6-18x44 > AMG 6-24x50 (surprisingly, I like the turrets of the Mark 5 even better than the AMG and I really like the AMG turrets)
Like I mentioned above, the comparison of the Mark 5 3.6-18 to the AMG 6-24x50 is kind of unfair, if the length of the scope doesn't matter to you and you're okay with the FOV of the 6-24 then I'd say the AMG is the way to go; however, if you're looking for a short scope that is also light weight and don't mind the reticle options from Leupold then the Mark 5 is an excellent choice. True, it's more expensive than the PST II's, the XTR II's, the DMR II's and so forth, but none of those scopes are as short as the Mark 5 (and most are not as light either) and the resolution of the Mark 5 looks really good so far. If CA really bothers you then you might be disappointed in the scope, but you'll also be disappointed with every scope $2k or less (and some that cost more), in many shooting situations you'll never even notice CA but it can affect other areas of the scopes performance. Just because March, Vortex AMG, Minox ZP5 and TT exhibit better control over CA than Schmidt & Bender does that make them a better scope optically? Not necessarily, there are other factors that go into a scopes optical design which make it a "better" scope even though it may not perform in certain areas better than others; don't just look at CA or resolution or color, etc. as the "deciding" factor because a great scope takes all of these characteristics into consideration to provide a "complete" package and that's what I think Schmidt (and others) do well.
I am working hard to get my mini review finalized and will be providing that soon which will provide a lot more in depth information vs. the summary above.
For the "size" of the Mark 5 3.6-18 I don't think there are better values as there are no other scopes this short and with this magnification range for the price, and if weight is a factor, then no other scope comes close except for the mysterious EOTech Vudu 5-25 which can't seem to make its way into the market.
Fedex says my LRHS is supposed to arrive on Wednesday, this is when I hope to wrap up my analysis of the Mark 5 as I want to put it directly up against the LRHS which I think is going to be its closest competitor with regard to magnification range and weight as well as optical performance, from my time with the LRTS I had last year I look forward to seeing how these two stack up to one another.
I am hoping that to be the case.
I don’t disagree. For the size it is a nice little package. Unfortunatley I have little care for how much it weighs or how compact it is. None of my comp rifles are light to begin with so for those applications, I would say there are better values.
For hunting/lightweight purposes I would say that it’s a very viable option. Definitely better than the MK6, it’s predecessor, and anything else in its class. But because of its limitations as you listed above I do think it’s better classified/used that way rather than as an all-purpose type of optic.
For my first big boy optic, I'm happy with my 3.6-18. I bought it for hunting and to dip my toes into touching 1000 yard targets, and for these two purposes I think it works extremely well. It will be a while until I get a S&B or a Kahles.
Not a fair comparison, but I have a 5 x 25 Mark 5 and the 4.5 x 18 LRHSi . To me the Leupold is clearly better, optically , turrets, and features. Tracking is a tie with both spot on to 10 mils { thats as far as I've tested }.
@wjm308
Thanks for the response. I haven't decided between the 3.6-18 or 5-25x. Ive already had a vast majority of the higher end optics (just sold a Zp5 and 3-20x PmII within the past two weeks) so I'm not expecting the Mk5 to compare equally to them, just looking for a baseline for something to hold me off until the new Steiners are out. I've had two AMG's so I know what to expect but haven't seen the Mk5 locally and highly doubt Id have the chance to unless I purchase it myself.
For me the Mk5 has all the features I'm looking for, not really jazzed about the CA as I find it an annoyance, but the Mil pricing does make it an attractive option and costs less than another Amg. The only other optic thats peaked my interest is the 5-25x Vudu for its larger FOV, MD3 reticle, and the cost savings compared to the others. If it releases soon, I may just put in an order for that.
Thanks for the response. I haven't decided between the 3.6-18 or 5-25x. Ive already had a vast majority of the higher end optics (just sold a Zp5 and 3-20x PmII within the past two weeks) so I'm not expecting the Mk5 to compare equally to them, just looking for a baseline for something to hold me off until the new Steiners are out. I've had two AMG's so I know what to expect but haven't seen the Mk5 locally and highly doubt Id have the chance to unless I purchase it myself.
For me the Mk5 has all the features I'm looking for, not really jazzed about the CA as I find it an annoyance, but the Mil pricing does make it an attractive option and costs less than another Amg. The only other optic thats peaked my interest is the 5-25x Vudu for its larger FOV, MD3 reticle, and the cost savings compared to the others. If it releases soon, I may just put in an order for that.
My pleasure Bandit, I have a ZP5 and a Schmidt Ultra Short 3-20 and while the Mark 5 3.6-18 does not match those scopes in regard to the full package, it is impressive none the less for such a short scope, in fact, in comparison to the Schmidt the Leupold seems "short", a better comparison would be to the US 5-20 and I had one of those too and loved it (better than the 3-20). Like I mentioned above, if you don't "need" a short scope I think there are some better options. @5RWill seemed to rave about the 5-25 and he's pretty picky about CA, so maybe that's the tool for you... Let me put it this way, if the Mark 5 3.6-18 wasn't so short and light I would be more meh about it.
So what are some of the long term opinions on the Mk5. I know they are still new, but for those of you who have had your 3.6-18x44 for a little while, are you still enjoying it as much as before? Any issues pop up? I’m still considering either this or the NF 4-16x44 Atacr F1. It will be on a work rifle that is used at all times of day and night. Don’t yet have clip on NVG. We are lucky to have PVS 14’s. Proble, isn’t I need 2 scopes. So first thought was an M5 and the Bushnell LRHSI from GAP. I would only be a few hundred over just the ATACR by itself. Biggest concern for now is low light, think DARK, and need for illumination.
So, are there any opinions that have changed for the better or worse? I’ve actually read all 16 pages over the last 2 days and it seams as though some are getting some that aren’t as good as originally reported, or possibly that quality is starting to slip now that they are flying off the shelves so fast.
Edit: I forgot to add that I get mil/Leo discount so that is what is driving some of the price differences so much.
So, are there any opinions that have changed for the better or worse? I’ve actually read all 16 pages over the last 2 days and it seams as though some are getting some that aren’t as good as originally reported, or possibly that quality is starting to slip now that they are flying off the shelves so fast.
Edit: I forgot to add that I get mil/Leo discount so that is what is driving some of the price differences so much.
Has anybody compared the 3.6-18 MK5 head to head with the Razor 3-18?
I’m wondering how they compare in low light in the bottom maginfication range.
I’m wondering how they compare in low light in the bottom maginfication range.
Similar threads
