Sorry I keep accidentally posting I’m having to learn how to use my left hand because I’m loosing the ability to control my right leg & right hand from infections in the spine & brain from spina bifida & the stupid spell check but I can still manage to shoot
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes So, what about Leupold Mark 5 ?
- Thread starter longshot2000
- Start date
Heavy doesn't necessarily mean stronger or better quality.
Just look at carbonfibre vs aluminium vs steel, you can get the same strength from all materials but the weights will vary a lot.
I don't think anyone is in a position to claim the Mark 5HD is less durable than anything else until they've actually had one fail in a situation an ATACR or Razor would not have.
Look at the Mark 4 Leupold, it's a feature weight compared to most scopes these days but the military has been using and relying on it for decades.
Higher weight isn't necessarily better anyway, if you can get the required strength from 40thou thick aluminium going to 50thou is just extra weight for no real benefit. Sure if you are going to use your scope as a hammer it may help, but under normal operation it doesn't make a difference. Over engineering is often just a waste of material and money if it's not required.
Where I would ve happy to pay a weight penalty is in the turrets internals and adjustments, using a higher density material may allow for greater precision when machined or give greater wear resistance, but unless companies are going to tell us what materials they put in their internals it's all a big guesing game.
Unless someone is willing to put a Mark 5 and competing scopes through scientific tourture tests, the only way to tell if the lesser weight has a negative effect will be to see if Mark 5s start failing at a high rate in years to come.
Just look at carbonfibre vs aluminium vs steel, you can get the same strength from all materials but the weights will vary a lot.
I don't think anyone is in a position to claim the Mark 5HD is less durable than anything else until they've actually had one fail in a situation an ATACR or Razor would not have.
Look at the Mark 4 Leupold, it's a feature weight compared to most scopes these days but the military has been using and relying on it for decades.
Higher weight isn't necessarily better anyway, if you can get the required strength from 40thou thick aluminium going to 50thou is just extra weight for no real benefit. Sure if you are going to use your scope as a hammer it may help, but under normal operation it doesn't make a difference. Over engineering is often just a waste of material and money if it's not required.
Where I would ve happy to pay a weight penalty is in the turrets internals and adjustments, using a higher density material may allow for greater precision when machined or give greater wear resistance, but unless companies are going to tell us what materials they put in their internals it's all a big guesing game.
Unless someone is willing to put a Mark 5 and competing scopes through scientific tourture tests, the only way to tell if the lesser weight has a negative effect will be to see if Mark 5s start failing at a high rate in years to come.
That was my point that we don’t know how reliable/durable it is yet you’re right there. The mk4 has a bad rep vs the nightforce & pmII at sniper schools when it comes to reliability. I used a mk4 on my 338 & the parallax broke so that’s when I got the pmII & no problems since
I would like to think Leupold learned a lesson from the past and the Mark 5 will be as reliable as a NF or PMII, it's good for the market and good for me (I was a Mark 5 early adapter).
I don't think a heavy or light scope is always or never better, it just depends on what you're doing. PRS and NRL seem to be going almost bench rest with really heavy guns, so I don't know if weight is an issue like it used to be. That said, I think I'd rather put my weight into the barrel down low, than the scope up high.
I don't think a heavy or light scope is always or never better, it just depends on what you're doing. PRS and NRL seem to be going almost bench rest with really heavy guns, so I don't know if weight is an issue like it used to be. That said, I think I'd rather put my weight into the barrel down low, than the scope up high.
Agreed, I am not trying to say brand X scope is better thank brand Y scope. I am just saying the MK5 has brought Leupold back to the table as a player. I am by no means a "fan boy" of any particular item or brand, I am just happy to see an American company back in the game. MERICA!
Don’t have one for sale (or illuminated), but the Tremor 3 5-25x is an impressive piece of glass for the price. I was leery of them as an early adopter, but have continually been impressed by its performance. I doubt you’ll be disappointed.
Did you go illuminated? I’m on the fence, but I think it’d be a nice addition...
For me going illuminated on the mk5 pushes it into a higher price than I wanted to pay. The non illuminated mk5 is one the best value in higher end optics out there. IMO
Agreed. And I have one listed here:
http://www.snipershide.com/shooting/threads/wts-leupold-mark-5-5-25-cch-w-rings-1850.6918319/
A "newer" design does not necessarily make for a "better" design, I would say your statement applies more to the Mark 5HD vs. the Mark 6 line; however, the Mark 8 seems to have held its own for quite a few years, I have not heard anyone complain about the optical quality of the Mark 8 scopes
Understood, I’m only passing on the info I was told that the MK5 was designed based on impovemts made on the previous models.
There’s a bushnell dmr2 pro on eBay for $1700. They have Christmas tree reticle, 34mn tube, illumination, & top tier Ed glass. To match that the mk5 tremor illuminated is $2700 msrp, $1000 more. I would get the dmr2 pro & save a lot of $$$. I can’t believe Leopold charges $4-500 more for illumination.
More R&D for a feature most people won't buy even if it was $200 more because they don't need/want it. It's really not that hard to see why they have to charge more for it. At least they make it an option so that people can buy it if they want it.
You can't even get a Horus reticle illuminated in the Bushnells, only their shitty G3 reticle so that's not exactly a fair comparison. You can currently get illuminated Horus reticles in the Mark 5 5-25 and the 3.6-18 will be available with them soon.
I haven't owned a pro but I've owned several HDMR's, HDMR2, and ERS as well as 2 MK5's and I can tell you 100% for a fact that the overall build quality of the Mark 5 blows the Bushnells I've had out of the water, it's not even a comparison. The Mark 5's are in the realm of the ATACR's and Kahles scopes, a tier above the Bushnells.
The xrs2 & dmr2 pro has new Ed glass that’s as good nf atacr, better than the ca prone kahles 624i, gives the best scopes a run for there $$$. A lot of prs shooters are doing pretty good with the xrs for some time now, this is a proven scope in competition & Leupold is not
The Bushnells aren't pieces of shit by any means but the reason for their huge success in PRS is because of GAP's relationship with them and GAP running them. If GAP chose to run Leupolds then the same thing would happen. It's not rocket science.
The Mark 5's have been out for less than a year and there's already PRS shooters running them and there was even some at the finale which was the top shooters of the year, so don't act like nobody is running them.
I guarantee you will see their popularity grow more and more because they are phenomenal scopes and are at a very good price point.
I've heard the illuminated Bushnell's reticles are not as fine as the non-illuminated G3. I have a non-illuminated, but have not compared it to the illuminated ones.
I agree there will be more in competition eventually. This was a good start for them & with time I think they will come out with better reticles of their own & improve the glass even more. I didn’t say there aren’t any in prs I said proven meaning winning, top 10s, & reliability. So that will take time to establish but now there is a lot of competition for them in that price range
Nah, the ATACR is better for sure. Nowhere near a Schmidt or Tangent either. It's in the same realm as a Razor 2, Kahles 624i, Mark 5, etc tho. I've had two XRS2's, and both were very good, but not top tier. At the $1400-$1500 used price though, it's definitely a great bang for the buck scope.
I have a pmII 25x & my friend got his xrs2 for $2000 & I was surprised how good it was & I wouldn’t say my pmII blows it away, definitely better & it should be for $1000 more. A lot of people say it’s close to best but not quite. So for around $2000 it’s hard to beat that value & if the dmr pro uses the same glass & can be had for $1700-1900 these scopes bring a lot to the table for the $&&
Totally agree. I still use the DMR2's for my 22 trainer and a backup rifle. I've had 8 Bushnell's between the DMR, DMR2, and XRS2, and never had issues with any of them, and they all tracked great.
I haven't used 'em, so I can't say much about 'em, but while looking for a .50 BMG optic I ran across a mount Cadex makes for USMC for the M2HB, and the package they sell them has the Mk5 CQBSS(?) included, but others can be used IIRC and they make a .50 reticle for it, so the it's not only rated for .50 recoil, it's intended for it.
So as far as use/abuse goes, they seem GTG regarding that aspect. I wouldn't mind having one for the SR25, something in the mid mag. range, but I've almost always been able to find a better deal on something else, especially with illumination. You'd think Leupold would've cracked that by now and able to offer it for a lot less or even standard. I have a CNVD but I'd still like the illumination for dusk and dawn.
So as far as use/abuse goes, they seem GTG regarding that aspect. I wouldn't mind having one for the SR25, something in the mid mag. range, but I've almost always been able to find a better deal on something else, especially with illumination. You'd think Leupold would've cracked that by now and able to offer it for a lot less or even standard. I have a CNVD but I'd still like the illumination for dusk and dawn.
The pmII has a better eye box at 25x & really easy to get behind, better brightness at 25x, great color, the double turn turrets are just firm enough not to skip with no slip/play between clicks, & better at handling ca & distortion towards the edge. That’s where the extra $$$ goes for the pmII vs xrs2
That's one sample, Bushnell glass varies a lot, more than most mid to high end manufacturers in my experience. Of the DMR's and HDMR's I had one had absolutely amazing glass, a couple were just ok but serviceable all the way to 21x and then the others were bad enough that they weren't usable above about 18x. The ERS I had was serviceable too but the XRS the glass sucked on the top end and wasn't usable.
I had two DMR2's and neither had amazing glass but they were both servicable throughout the magnification range and about what you'd expect in their price point. The 2's are definitely better all around than the previous models without a doubt, but they still lack the quality compared to other scopes, it isn't all about glass quality. They're still plagued by turrets that don't line up right and you can't make line up right because of the spline style fitment, and just overall lack the quality feel of of other more expensive optics.
Have you actually compared the pro side by side with a Mark 5, or had any time behind a Mark 5, or are you just in here for an armchair assessment?
I haven’t had them side by side with the mk5 but I’ve seen the new xrs2 beside my pmII 25x & it’s a very good scope. The xrs2 & dmr2 pro are a lot better than the older ones, i didn’t get to see the regular dmr2 but I did use the xrs. I’m not saying the mk5 is bad I’ve seen 4 different ones 2 that didn’t handle ca well & 2 that did. The mk5 that did handle ca good was impressive & everyone sees ca differently so some people see it on the mk5 & some don’t. These new xrs2 & dmr2 pro should be considered given there price. I like the pmII & it can be had for $2600-3100 & I also like the razor amg can be bought around $2300
I have a rifle that needs a scope so I’m definitely looking at the mk5. If they had 34mm tubes & their own open center tree reticle it would be even more popular. When Chevy came out with the ls1 it was way better than the lt1 & they fixed all the little bugs & produced the awesome ls3. So it takes time to perfect & with the huge Leupold following it will be even better I think as time goes on & they listen & cater to the target shooters
I can definitely attest to this. I used an ERS for years and loved it. Beat the shit out of that scope and it looked the part when I sold it. Went to a Mk6 then when the DMR 2 came out I gave it a try. The glass was what you'd expect in a $1-200 scope and it also shit the bed at a match and stopped dialing. I think it was the least bang to buck scope I've ever used. But most people have no issues with them. I think there is just a whole lot of variance.
Even the best scopes will fail from time to time. My family’s gun shop returned a lot of broken scopes over the years. People will start out with cheaper ones & eventually learn that scopes like pmII & nightforce have a good reputation for a reason. PmII has come down in price over the years to keep pace with nightforce, vortex razor gen2, & kahles which I would like to see the new 5-25. With those scopes you are less likely to see them go down. Pick the right tool for the right job
I just talked to sport optics & they said the mk5 does have a Christmas tree reticle of their own called the cch & I like it a lot. They have a sale for them I asked for the non illuminated one because I never use it & was quoted $1900 so that is pretty cool & I might have to pick one up
Mile gave me the wrong price it’s $2000 for the 18x & $2200 for the 25x & those are with a free spuhr mount which is my favorite mount. It’s super easy to level because of their leveling wedge & you know it’s reliable. When I showed customers how easy those are to mount & how fast you can can get it done they love it but not the price of course
I’ll just chime in with my hands on experience with the Mark 5 HD. I have the benefit of living minutes from Europtic. I went to the showroom and asked to see a bunch of scope since I plan on buying a new one in Feb.
I wanted to see Steiner, Vortex, Bushnell, Nightforce, & Leupold.
By far and away the Vortex AMG and the Leupold Mark 5 HD were my favorite. This is in both glass, weight, and features. I am military so I get nice discounts with both brands. The NF also has nice glass but the AMG and Mark 5 had better brightness and contrast to my eyes. I feel overall the Mark 5 was the best of them, which is crazy given I’m a Vortex fan boy.
The turrets were awesome and it focused super close. Like super close. This is all subjective and based on my eyes and scopes in my hands. They were super nice there and let me take them outside the whole deal. I will be buying a Mark 5 in Feb for sure (saving up some more cash, I don’t use credit cards anymore).
Just my .02 from my limited in hand experience.
I wanted to see Steiner, Vortex, Bushnell, Nightforce, & Leupold.
By far and away the Vortex AMG and the Leupold Mark 5 HD were my favorite. This is in both glass, weight, and features. I am military so I get nice discounts with both brands. The NF also has nice glass but the AMG and Mark 5 had better brightness and contrast to my eyes. I feel overall the Mark 5 was the best of them, which is crazy given I’m a Vortex fan boy.
The turrets were awesome and it focused super close. Like super close. This is all subjective and based on my eyes and scopes in my hands. They were super nice there and let me take them outside the whole deal. I will be buying a Mark 5 in Feb for sure (saving up some more cash, I don’t use credit cards anymore).
Just my .02 from my limited in hand experience.
I’m going through the same thing vortex amg or mk5. I also went to sportsman wherehouse & the young man helped me take a bunch of scopes outside I told the kid it does no good inside, he agreed & I gave him an extra $20 & he said come by any time to look at scopes. So I looked at 2 mk5 which exhibited more ca than I like, amg I couldn’t see any. I saw 2 more mk5 scopes the 18x & 25x at the range & I was impressed no ca but the price was high for his tremor 3 illuminated. I found out that they make a reticle called the cch which looks very nice for $300 cheaper & I don’t need illumination so that saves another $400. So mile high offers the 25x with spuhr mount for $2200 & spuhr mounts cost $375-500, so it’s a good deal or sport optics sells for $1900 with no mount also a good deal, I really like spuhr mounts, you should check them out. I imagine if I got a mk5 with bad ca leupold would fix it, I hope.
Thats good to know it’s always smart to look at as many as you can. I like the cch reticle, it’s similar to the horus & tremor but less busy & $300 cheaper
FYI...generally speaking, it's bad form to post quoted prices on the open forums. Just stating "I got a really good price on X product" should suffice and numbers can be passed in PM space. Each vendor has their own prices, and reasons for lowering or raising them occasionally. Let's not potentially get any of them in trouble for selling products that may be under the MAP, since that just hurts us all.
You're new here, so I take it that you just aren't aware of this, so feel the need to point this out. No harm, no foul.
Carry on...
Thank you for informing me, I didn’t know that, I’ve read other threads where they were talking prices, so when you talk prices you don’t mention the place for the price or at all?
A lot of times, sniper's hide vendors will do what they can to offer us good deals. They have contracts with companies such as vortex, Leupold, Athlon, etc in order to stock their products and by law are not allowed to sell under certain price points. By making a public post that so and so vendor is selling X product at so and so prices, we risk the manufacture finding out about this by possibly another vendor who can't compete. When the manufacture finds out, they terminate the contract with the vendor offering us insane deals and now none of us can have good products at good prices.
Hope this helps.
I haven’t read this entire thread until this morning. It was quite amusing, there was a guy who really seamed to not like Leupold, saying the used shit Chinese glass & they got in trouble about the made in the USA. I remember when this happened I was working at the family gun shop. If I remember correctly it was the vx1 & vx2, $200-350 scopes, no high end scopes were made in China & reassembled here to be called made in the USA. After that Leupold had to stop calling them made in the USA. The binoculars was where people got mad because, leupold just made the golden ring hd binos here & they rivaled the Swarovski, zeiss, & Leica at a fraction of the price & one of there all time best optics especially at controlling ca. They quit making those to introduce the mark 4 binoculars, so a lot of people sold the old ones & bought the new ones, I did too, & when they got here they said made in China & were nowhere near the quality of the golden ring hd. I believe leupold has always used high quality Japanese glass & never Chinese in high end scopes but some people keep insisting they use Chinese ( maybe in the vx1/2). Some Leupold haters will say why don’t they use the best German glass & I would counter that by saying Japan probably makes the best optical glass, cannon fluorite crystal is the best being used in the most expensive telescopes & super telephoto lenses & ohara fpl53 glass is also close to cannon fluorite. So leupold is not skimping on glass, they made a mistake a long time ago & some people can’t get over it, my family did & we lost some money to doing refunds to keep customers happy. So I have every confidence that they are using high quality glass
There are also deals for LEO's, Mil etc., etc. There's always a deal, It's one thing to say you got a deal, but saying the terms can mess it up for everybody.
I asked in a FB group but didn't get much feedback. Is there any consensus on image quality between the 3-18 and the 5-25? It seems the 5-25 would be better because they didn't have to compromise to make it a certain size. Is there really any downside to going 3-18 besides the lower magnification?
-Dan
-Dan
Get a mk5 & a razor amg & if you don’t like one of them sell it. The xrs2, mk5, razor amg are all good choices I doubt you would be unhappy with either but I haven’t seen the Cronus. For me I like the amg reticle & turrets, the mk5 I like the 56mm objective giving a slightly better 25x view, & the xrs2 is a very good scope & compact for a high mag. Pick the one the has the features you like but getting the amg & the mk5 would be nice then you could sell the one you don’t like & replace
I already have a Cronus and really like it. This may get me crucified by some folk here but I liked it more than the Kahles (a Gen 2, but still) I had. The only thing I liked better on the Kahles were the turrets. So I ordered a second Cronus the other day. Then I ended up getting a good deal on the XRS II here so I scooped that up. I haven't been able to put my hands on a Mark 5 so when I saw Scott had them included in his end of the year sale I said screw it and ordered one. One of the three will end up getting sold. I just have to spend some time with each to decide.
A lot of people didn’t like the ca on the kahles so I think that’s why they came out with the 5-25x & with the great selection of reticles & if they fixed the glass this new kahles may be a cotender for the top scope, something to think about. It will be interesting to see what you think about the other scopes
Similar threads
