-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes So, what about Leupold Mark 5 ?
- Thread starter longshot2000
- Start date
@msstate56 I tend to agree with your duplex comment. The way the stadia increases size slightly as is moved away from the center really helps it be useful across the mag range
I tried the non illuminated TMR first and thought the same. It was a little fine, but still functional with NV. Then I got the tremor and it was completely useless at minimum power to my eye... So that's gone and I've got an illuminated TMR on its way now.
It appears the illuminated TMR is very slightly heavier stadia lines at the first 5mil. Leupold drawings show .05 no illumination vs .1 illuminated. So that may be even slightly better for a hunting scenario where you will go to minimum magnification.
I tried the non illuminated TMR first and thought the same. It was a little fine, but still functional with NV. Then I got the tremor and it was completely useless at minimum power to my eye... So that's gone and I've got an illuminated TMR on its way now.
It appears the illuminated TMR is very slightly heavier stadia lines at the first 5mil. Leupold drawings show .05 no illumination vs .1 illuminated. So that may be even slightly better for a hunting scenario where you will go to minimum magnification.
Of two samples of the same scope I didn’t have any issue with that. I’d give it a trip to Leupold and let them check it out. Something is off if your diopter is set correctly and the target is out of focus when parallax is dialed out.
I agree, something doesn’t sound right. I’ve used 3 different Mk5s, and they all focus as they should
I’m 4 deep and they all have excellent optics with no issues having the reticle and target in focus at the same time from 50 yards out to 1200 yards.
Personally after buying my first MK5 and doing extensive side by side with my 2 ATACRs and PMII I only have MK5’s in my safe. Well and a older NF Benchrest scope.
Honestly the MK5 has just as good to slightly better resolution, better low light performance, all of mine have tracked perfectly, and are lighter weight. The only 2 negatives against the MK5 is the turrets are not as positive as either the NF or Bender (but they are not that bad), & Leupold’s reticle selection sucks. The CCH is very well thought out & easy to use if you like or need a tree style (which I don’t, I dial elevation and hold wind), I honestly do like the Illuminated TMR for shooting steel but it’s a little coarse for super fine aiming at small targets. But maybe I am just being picky.
Honestly the MK5 has just as good to slightly better resolution, better low light performance, all of mine have tracked perfectly, and are lighter weight. The only 2 negatives against the MK5 is the turrets are not as positive as either the NF or Bender (but they are not that bad), & Leupold’s reticle selection sucks. The CCH is very well thought out & easy to use if you like or need a tree style (which I don’t, I dial elevation and hold wind), I honestly do like the Illuminated TMR for shooting steel but it’s a little coarse for super fine aiming at small targets. But maybe I am just being picky.
I’ve kinda been looking at the gun werks moa version for hunting. I like the looks of that reticle.
I'm on my 3rd as well with no such issue
The non illuminated TMR had a thinner cross line, maybe that'll help
It is an open center, I tried the TMR years ago in the MK4 with the open center and just can’t get used to it. I know I am a picky bitch...
I have the illuminated PR1-MOA recticle in my Mark 5 HD 3.6-18 and I cannot recommend it enough. I do not like a busy reticle or Christmas tee types, so the PR1-MOA was an easy choice for me. It is thin enough for great accuracy at the range but also thick enough to be useful hunting on low power. Side note, the illumination on my Mark 5 is daylight bright, which I don't know if that was mentioned earlier by other users.
the reticle should always be in focus. maybe watch or read some how-to's again on how to adjust the primary focus (with bare sky background) and then the parallax should be more accurate and help getting the object in focus (bringing the distant object into the same focal plane) without affecting the reticle focus.
/i realize you probably know this and it might be more frustrating than helpful ?
/i realize you probably know this and it might be more frustrating than helpful ?
Anybody know if Tenebraex is making a set of scope caps for the 7-35, or 3.6-18 for that matter?
Interesting. It took a little getting used to, but I'm pretty happy with the CCH reticle. Curious to see what they come up with. Yeah, I agree, a MIL-based tree would be better than anything MOA.
I think mark 5 hd is the best scope leupold ever put together
Doubt you'll see that unless Leupold goes full retard. When you have a ton of 1-6's, 1-8's, and 1-10's on the market then making a 1-5 would be a really good way to waste a lot of $$ on R&D because that's all you'd do. If you want a LPVO then you should look at the MK6 and MK8. They're both great optics.
There is zero reason it needs to be a 1-5. That is probably what’s stumped their retarded engineers. They could easily turn it out as a 1-6 or 1-8. I own a MK6 1-6 already. It’s a $3,000 optic. So how about a 1-6 MK5 fitting to the current MK5 pricing.
uhhhhh.... Mark 5’s are a 5x erector line just like Mark 6’s are 6x erector and Mark 8’s are 8x erector.... that’s the reason it’d be a 1-5. It’s really not that complicated.
If you want a 1-6 or 1-8 they already have it in the proper lines ?
1. Touché
2. Didn’t even think about it, so that was my stupidity.
3. I just want a cheaper Mk6 1-6 CMR-W because I love my MK 6.
4. I also want them to bring back the same 2.5-8 MR/T in mil/mil. I should never have sold mine to a damn cloner.
5. I was wrong and you were right.
Agreed about the Mark 6 but you can get them for under $2K if you call the right place and IMO they’re worth that. You can get deals on used ones too. I’ve seen them as low as $1000-$1200. I’ve been waiting for a deal on a used CMR-W 5.56 to pop up.
Even without being a 6x erector, I'd much rather have a proper 1-5 with high quality glass and very forgiving eye relief. Most people prefer a K16i or Razor 1-6 at 6x than a NX8 at 8x and with the 35mm tube you could make a really really good product.
I could personally deal with a 1-5.
When I compared the NX8 1-8 to the MK6 1-6 the MK6 won hands down. It wasn't even close to me. Didn’t care for the edge distortion on the NX8 or the lame reticle with the lame excuse “It was designed for shooting people” uh huh, right. CMR-W FTW.
When I compared the NX8 1-8 to the MK6 1-6 the MK6 won hands down. It wasn't even close to me. Didn’t care for the edge distortion on the NX8 or the lame reticle with the lame excuse “It was designed for shooting people” uh huh, right. CMR-W FTW.
That makes me feel good! I just received my Mark 5 TMR illum 3.6-18 the other day. I still need to finish building the rifle it is going on.
I don’t think they make them for the mk5hd but Aadmount does & they are top quality. Everyone I know that has Aadmount really likes them. I’ve owned tenebraex caps & I think the Aadmount caps are just as good. One thing I really like about the Aadmount caps is the tension screw makes it easy to adjust or take off & rock solid when finally set
Here’s a pic of a tenebraex on the tract Toric. It protrudes just as much as Aadmount.
If your scope is that close then you might think about the leupold alumina caps. They are as flush fitting as it gets but expensive. If your scope is that close do you have trouble getting behind it? You might need higher rings
If low light performance is the deciding factor, is the 5-25 significantly better than the 3.6-18 at a given mag? Would like the weight savings and compactness of the 3.6-18, but if the 5-25 is noticeably better in low light I would probably lean to it.
So now that this thread has gone on for some time how are people feeling about them? Also how do these do in lower light?
Had mine for two years now. Still pretty satisfied with what I got, for the price I paid. Solid scope IMHO. Really good in low light (5-25x).
I’m happy with mine. Very good in low light. Will be shooting a lot more in the upcoming months so I’ll get more time behind it as well, but so far happy.
Good discussion on Mark 5 scopes going on over here: http://www.snipershide.com/shooting...5hd-3-6-18-or-5-5-25x56.6986622/#post-8305785
You will notice the brightness difference when conditions are darker or at higher mag but not much in the bright conditions. An 8x56 conquest hd binocular is a lot brighter than the 8x42 at night looking at stars but in the day it’s hard to tell a difference. 56m will be brighter than the 44mm.
For the $$ these non illuminated scopes are tough to beat. The mk5 25/35x has good brightness, nice turrets, & clear image. Only thing I don’t like about them is the parallax isn’t that nice vs other high end scopes & it has a small fov but I can live with that vs paying $3000+ for better. If you get them on sale a non illuminated 5-25x can be bought for around $1600. The xrs2 can goes for $1600 & DMR pro $13-1400 but I like the mk5 25x better mainly because the turrets are better, but the optics are very close. I would still like to compare the mk5 with a trijicon 30x ffp. Anyone here get to compare the trijicon 30x with the mk5 25x?
Similar threads
