Rifle Scopes THOUGHTS ON LEUPOLD MARK 5HD 3.6-18X44 M5C3 FFP ILLUM PR1-MIL RETICLE

[D_TROS]

Interesting. That's definitely not how I would rank them at all and I have seen them all and have several on hand right now.

You should really check out March 4.5-28x52.

ILya

your problem with my ranking is the exclusion of the march 4-28? which is unobtanium and not their most compact? It was excluded as I consider the 3-24 much more compact and in line with the leupold asked about. good point tho the 2 I have seen have been redic. it may be at the top honestly if it were considered compact and it may well be. would love to see it next to a zco 4-20.

I would be shocked if ur ranking differed that much from mine so will be eagerly waiting to see it.

fine line for sure. I knew I would forget a couple scopes. Its very tight in the $1000-$2000 and my ranking was a 30sec write up that will suffice for 90% of shooters. THats why I said pick the one with the reticle you prefer in the "budget line" and go from there. def a big jump from mid 1500's to over $3k


GL
DT

 

[nick338]

MY RANKING OF COMPACT SCOPES

ZCO 4-20
TT 3-15
March 3-24
S&B Ultrashort 4-20
Kahles 3-18
NF 4-16
Burris 3-18
Leupold Mk6 3-18
Bushnell 3-21
Leupold Mk5 3-18 (crappy FOV and retc)
Vortex LHT

I have or have owned all of the above except the top 2 but they speak for themselves. The FOV of the Mk5 is really bad. I liked the Mk6 way better but it was more expensive. Sold them both when I helped design the XTR3 and its truly is a better scope. I do love the Mk5 turrets but that is the only thing I prefer over the XTR3

Honestly from the Kahles down I would pick whichever retc you liked the best.


GL
DT

You mentioned the field of view being really bad on the Mark 5 yet, according to the specs it is slightly larger than the NF 4-16x42 I currently have and I've always wished that scope had a larger FOV.

What's interesting is I purchased the Burris 3.3-18 last year and compared it side by side to the NF and felt like I could see a wider image than the Burris on the same power.

 

[Huskydriver]

SB 520 US or gtfo

 

[Secant]

MY RANKING OF COMPACT SCOPES

ZCO 4-20
TT 3-15
March 3-24
S&B Ultrashort 4-20
Kahles 3-18
NF 4-16
Burris 3-18
Leupold Mk6 3-18
Bushnell 3-21
Leupold Mk5 3-18 (crappy FOV and retc)
Vortex LHT

I have or have owned all of the above except the top 2 but they speak for themselves. The FOV of the Mk5 is really bad. I liked the Mk6 way better but it was more expensive. Sold them both when I helped design the XTR3 and its truly is a better scope. I do love the Mk5 turrets but that is the only thing I prefer over the XTR3

Honestly from the Kahles down I would pick whichever retc you liked the best.


GL
DT

Haven’t had them all, but of what I own/have owned I’d say in terms of overall package:

"Tier 1"
ZCO420 (12.8")
TT315M (13.8")

"Tier 2" (or maybe 1B?)
Kahles K525i (14.8")

"Tier 3"
Gen 2 Razor 4.5-27 (14.4")
Mk5 3.6-18 (12.06")
ATACR 4-16 (12.6")

"Tier 4"
Bushnell LRTS 3-12 (13.4")
Bushnell DMR2 3.5-21 (13.2") (didn’t own but have used)

Compact is relative & subjective to me (unless there's some hard & fast industry standard that I haven't seen). The K525i & G2R might not be compact in the absolute sense, but I think they are compact in the comparative sense (S&B PMII 5-25 is 16.4", TT525P is 16.7", Minox ZP5 5-25 is 16.3").

 

[koshkin]

your problem with my ranking is the exclusion of the march 4-28? which is unobtanium and not their most compact? It was excluded as I consider the 3-24 much more compact and in line with the leupold asked about. good point tho the 2 I have seen have been redic. it may be at the top honestly if it were considered compact and it may well be. would love to see it next to a zco 4-20.

I would be shocked if ur ranking differed that much from mine so will be eagerly waiting to see it.

fine line for sure. I knew I would forget a couple scopes. Its very tight in the $1000-$2000 and my ranking was a 30sec write up that will suffice for 90% of shooters. THats why I said pick the one with the reticle you prefer in the "budget line" and go from there. def a big jump from mid 1500's to over $3k


GL
DT

No. I am saying that the scopes you have in the list, I would rank differently. With the March, I am saying that you should take a look at the 4.5-28x52 because it should be on this list. It is actually more compact than the 3-24x52, although a bit heavier.

What are your ranking criteria? That and sample variation probably have something to do with it.

For example, I liked Mark 5, more than Mark 6. The FOV of Mark 5 is pretty respectable, so I am sorta mystified by that comment. For example, Mark 5 3.6-18x44 has wider FOV than the 3-18x50 Kahles.

Burris XTR3 is a really nice scope optomechanically, but until I see a version with illuminated reticle, it does not feature in any of my ranking lists simply because a non-illuminated ultra thin reticle has very marginal usability for me. Hopefully, they will have an illuminated version next month at SHOT, so I can have a clearer idea of where to rank it.

That is one of those things where priorities are different for everyone. I value light weight very highly for a crossover scope, so the 4.5-22x50 Razor HD-LHT ranks much higher for me, than for you.

Kahles K318 is a very nice scope, but narrow FOV for that kind of money just bugs me, so I rank it lower overall.

I rank Mark 5 higher than Mark6 on the strength of better turrets and more forgiving eye position.

ILya

 

[nick338]

Wow this March F tactical 3-24x42 really hits on everything at least on paper and the weight is perfect.

 

[Clownbuster]

OP, 1st, I'm not a Leupold fan, but I will add this: I don't know if you're familiar with Jon Pynch, but he's a championship-winning pro shooter and all his rifles have a Mark 5 on top of them, and there are plenty others doing the same. When Jon's not regularly (and annoyingly) kicking all our asses with this scope in competition, he's climbing big mountains and killing big shit with an MK5 during hunting season. If that's not a testament to this scope's capability/durability, I don't know what is.

 

[nick338]

OP, 1st, I'm not a Leupold fan, but I will add this: I don't know if you're familiar with Jon Pynch, but he's a championship-winning pro shooter and all his rifles have a Mark 5 on top of them, and there are plenty others doing the same. When Jon's not regularly (and annoyingly) kicking all our asses with this scope in competition, he's climbing big mountains and killing big shit with an MK5 during hunting season. If that's not a testament to this scope's capability/durability, I don't what is.

I take information like this with a grain of salt because of sponsorship.

 

[Clownbuster]

I take information like this with a grain of salt because of sponsorship.

They don't sponsor his hunts.

 

[nick338]

They don't sponsor his hunts.

Well if you know what scopes he uses on his hunts, so does his sponsors.

 

[Clownbuster]

Well if you know what scopes he uses on his hunts, so does his sponsors.

Regardless, the results are the same. This is a pointless conversation.

 

[nick338]

Regardless, the results are the same. This is a pointless conversation.

I'm not bashing the scope because I've never had one in my hands and it was still very much my first choice until I discovered the March 3-18.

However, he's kicking your asses in competitions because he's a better shooter, not because the Mark 5 is giving him some magical powers over everyone else's scopes.

 

[Clownbuster]

However, he's kicking your asses in competitions because he's a better shooter, not because the Mark 5 is giving him some magical powers over everyone else's scopes.

Thanks for clearing that up, until now all us idiot competitors believed it was the magical powers theory. And thanks for continuing to prop up a pointless conversation.

 

[nick338]

When Jon's not regularly (and annoyingly) kicking all our asses with this scope in competition, he's climbing big mountains and killing big shit with an MK5 during hunting season. If that's not a testament to this scope's capability/durability, I don't know what is.

Thanks for clearing that up, until now all us idiot competitors believed it was the magical powers theory. And thanks for continuing to prop up a pointless conversation.

At least your honest.

You can remove yourself from the conversation anytime.

 

[Clownbuster]

...

 

[koshkin]

For what it is worth, I am not sponsored by Leupold (or anyone really) and I have been very critical of many Leupold designs in the past. That does not make me any friends up in Oregon, but it is what it is.
That having been said, the few Mark5 products I have had a chance to test were legitimately good scopes. Leupold did a good job on these. I am not always a fan of their reticle options, but I like PR-1 and PR-2.

ILya

 

[nick338]

For what it is worth, I am not sponsored by Leupold (or anyone really) and I have been very critical of many Leupold designs in the past. That does not make me any friends up in Oregon, but it is what it is.
That having been said, the few Mark5 products I have had a chance to test were legitimately good scopes. Leupold did a good job on these. I am not always a fan of their reticle options, but I like PR-1 and PR-2.

ILya

How would you compare the March 3-18x42 with the Mark 5, excluding the reticle?

 

[knoxp11]

This is why this site rocks!

 

[koshkin]

How would you compare the March 3-18x42 with the Mark 5, excluding the reticle?

March does not make a 3-18x42.

ILya

 

[J-Ham]

March does not make a 3-18x42.

So can I assume you'd choose the Mk5 then?

 

[nick338]

March does not make a 3-18x42.

ILya

Sorry meant 3-24x42

 

[Fred @ Bison Tactical]

As an aside I own a March 4.5-28x52 with the FML-PDK reticle. I currently run it on my precision air rifle because it can focus to short distances. Most of my other scopes suck at close distance parrallex so that is how it came to live on my air rifle (which I use in training - and lives in an MPA chassis by the way .

I haven't spent a lot of time yet behind the March as I just got it mounted and zeroed, but I am not a big fan of their packaging and the turrets - I feel like they could have done a better job on the turret design, and would have preferred them to be a bit larger. The glass so far is pretty good, but again I haven't done any side by side comparisons.

 

[Zuul]

Finally popped the MK5 out of the box tonight and finger banged it for a bit, initial thoughts are that this is a great compact scope. Glass is good (was only able to look at shit in the house) and the turrets are awesome. Nice crisp audible clicks, no slop. I went with the CCH reticle, I like it. I’ll get it out tomorrow during the daylight and compare the glass to a Razor and PMII.

 

[762 ULTRAMAGA]

Finally popped the MK5 out of the box tonight and finger banged it for a bit, initial thoughts are that this is a great compact scope. Glass is good (was only able to look at shit in the house) and the turrets are awesome. Nice crisp audible clicks, no slop. I went with the CCH reticle, I like it. I’ll get it out tomorrow during the daylight and compare the glass to a Razor and PMII.

I'm bringer her back..
How are the mk5s holding up for you guys that are still running them?
I had a 3.6-18 that was awesome for the year or so that I used it, I regret selling it and am considering a 5-25×56 for a 300 NM build

 

[Fred @ Bison Tactical]

I still really like my 3.6-18's, I still own both, and run them on a bunch of stuff. They are still working great for me, no problems so far, and nothing has fallen off yet. One has been through (2) Sniper Adventure Challenges which is pretty hard on equipment, and they are still going strong.

 

[WB300]

Still debating between the Mk5HD 3.8-18 and TT 3-15 for a crossover scope under 27oz. Can anyone comment on the eyebox of the Mk5HD between 15x-18x??

 

[Secant]

Still debating between the Mk5HD 3.8-18 and TT 3-15 for a crossover scope under 27oz. Can anyone comment on the eyebox of the Mk5HD between 15x-18x??

I’ve had both. Tangent, no question. I liked my Mk5HD, but it’s not in the same class at all.

 

[USNavy06]

I have 3 mk 5’s, 2x 3.6-18’s and 1x 5-25. I’ve used them out to 1300 yards with zero issues. All of them track true and have been holding up just fine. Eye box is fine for me.

I was a little cautious as I normally run Nightforce but the mark 5 has been good to go.

Would I rather have Tangents? Yeah but over 3x the cost of a mark 5 I’m good.

It’s been a solid scope for me.

 

[Burdy]

This scope just needs that .25 mil reticle they put in all the other Mark 5's and I would be a buyer.

 

[koshkin]

This scope just needs that .25 mil reticle they put in all the other Mark 5's and I would be a buyer.

I would really like the 3.6-18x44 Mark 5HD with PR2 reticle and illumination. That would be an excellent option for an accurate gas gun or a lighter boltgun.

ILya

 

[762 ULTRAMAGA]

Good to hear guys
A certain fella over at Rokslide just posted up some of his cough "famous drop tests" with a 3.6-18 and 5-25 mk5.
Basically he's saying they're junk for holding zero..

 

[Burdy]

I would really like the 3.6-18x44 Mark 5HD with PR2 reticle and illumination. That would be an excellent option for an accurate gas gun or a lighter boltgun.

ILya

Yup, I've got a 16" Proof cf barrel and magnesium XLR chassis awaiting my Defiance anti-X action and I just really can't figure out the scope that should go on it.. That combo would fit the bill. Currently I do have a 4.5-22 light hunter in the safe but it's still more mag than I need and longer than I prefer.

 

[GUNNER10]

You see this happen when a company sponsors a bunch of the top shooters all in a short time frame.... Most of these guys would win with just ok glass as long as the scope is mechanically sound. Not saying anything bad about Leupold just not surprising that they are in the winners circle when they are giving out so many scopes to so many shooters. Your post proves the marketing works.

Your not wrong,

I think this is one of those things were a lot of brand loyalty has been established and people are going to naturally opine there what they bought is the best. It's the same for Playstation vs Xbox, Ford vs Chevy Trucks, Rolex vs Omega, android vs apple, in reality most of this stuff is pretty pretty close and choosing one of the other is not going to make or break anything.

Anecdotally, between mil contracts and their presence in PRS, it would seem to indicate that the new Mk5's are serviceable. I shot NF for a while but changed over to the new Mk5's as they just make more sense for purpose Than a Night force, this is primary based on Leupold having a better LE/MIL program. I can basically get two non illuminated Mk5's for the same price as an ATACR. Is the ATACR a better optic, sure, I think so, but everything has a point of diminishing returns.

If somebody else is footing the bill, I would be shooting NF's, hell, why not ZCO's or S&B's,

If I had an ATACR, I would not swap it out for a mk5 as I really don't think the weight difference is going to be worth the energy.

 

[koshkin]

Yup, I've got a 16" Proof cf barrel and magnesium XLR chassis awaiting my Defiance anti-X action and I just really can't figure out the scope that should go on it.. That combo would fit the bill. Currently I do have a 4.5-22 light hunter in the safe but it's still more mag than I need and longer than I prefer.

That sounds like it is going to be a nice build.
I am hunting with a 16" barreled Fix in 8.6Blackout this year. It has Tangent TT315M on it. Altogether, it is right around 8.8lbs with the optic and mount. However, something shorter could be good. I just started looking at the Emerge 2-12x44 from Blackhound. It is a nice Japanese scope, but it is only an inch shorter than TT315M, while being a bit heavier. Mark5 would be near perfect on this gun with the right reticle and illumination.

ILya

 

[Burdy]

That sounds like it is going to be a nice build.
I am hunting with a 16" barreled Fix in 8.6Blackout this year. It has Tangent TT315M on it. Altogether, it is right around 8.8lbs with the optic and mount. However, something shorter could be good. I just started looking at the Emerge 2-12x44 from Blackhound. It is a nice Japanese scope, but it is only an inch shorter than TT315M, while being a bit heavier. Mark5 would be near perfect on this gun with the right reticle and illumination.

ILya

I'm anxious to get the action in. It is at nitride right now so hopefully not much longer, but it should fit my use case pretty well. 52 week lead time by the way which is insane.

Let me know how that 8.6 performs. It's a very interesting round and if I didn't consolidate calibers 6 years ago I would probably give it a shot but I'm holding strong so far with my main 5.

As for illumination, I've gotten to where I don't even care if a scope includes it to be honest. At least to my eyes, there's only about 37.2 seconds twice a day where illumination actually helps, so I would just rather not have to worry about the electronics.

 

[koshkin]

I'm anxious to get the action in. It is at nitride right now so hopefully not much longer, but it should fit my use case pretty well. 52 week lead time by the way which is insane.

Let me know how that 8.6 performs. It's a very interesting round and if I didn't consolidate calibers 6 years ago I would probably give it a shot but I'm holding strong so far with my main 5.

As for illumination, I've gotten to where I don't even care if a scope includes it to be honest. At least to my eyes, there's only about 37.2 seconds twice a day where illumination actually helps, so I would just rather not have to worry about the electronics.

What five calibers did you consolidate to? I went in exactly the opposite way after all the various ammo shortages. When all the common calibers and components disappear, the exotic stuff is often still available, so I have a fair number seldom used guns in different weird calibers. When you could not find 223/308/9mm/etc with a compass, map, searchlight and a stack of golden bars I had ammo available.

8.6 is a very promising round. It might displace a few of the more common ones in my typical use.

ILya

 

[Burdy]

What five calibers did you consolidate to? I went in exactly the opposite way after all the various ammo shortages. When all the common calibers and components disappear, the exotic stuff is often still available, so I have a fair number seldom used guns in different weird calibers. When you could not find 223/308/9mm/etc with a compass, map, searchlight and a stack of golden bars I had ammo available.

8.6 is a very promising round. It might displace a few of the more common ones in my typical use.

ILya

You are 100% right about the exotic calibers sticking around but you could also buy those instead and then trade for the common calibers. There was a lot of that going on at least down here in the southeast.

I consolidated to .22LR, 9mm, 6.5CM, 223/556 and 300 BLK. I struggled with going 300 BlK or 7.62x39, that was the toughest decision, but ultimately the 300 fit dual roles better and had magazine commonality with my 223/556 guns so it won out. The goal was to stockpile those five instead and hopefully be able to live through the shortages.

I don't regret it. The best part was selling off a bunch of guns and then fully completing all the guns that I wanted to finish that I never did. Pretty much every gun has a purpose at this point and it has made it more enjoyable for me to be honest.

 

[koshkin]

You are 100% right about the exotic calibers sticking around but you could also buy those instead and then trade for the common calibers. There was a lot of that going on at least down here in the southeast.

I consolidated to .22LR, 9mm, 6.5CM, 223/556 and 300 BLK. I struggled with going 300 BlK or 7.62x39, that was the toughest decision, but ultimately the 300 fit dual roles better and had magazine commonality with my 223/556 guns so it won out. The goal was to stockpile those five instead and hopefully be able to live through the shortages.

I don't regret it. The best part was selling off a bunch of guns and then fully completing all the guns that I wanted to finish that I never did. Pretty much every gun has a purpose at this point and it has made it more enjoyable for me to be honest.

Selling off guns? That's plain unethical. I am going to have nightmares now.

ILya

 

[GUNNER10]

I have 3 mk 5’s, 2x 3.6-18’s and 1x 5-25. I’ve used them out to 1300 yards with zero issues. All of them track true and have been holding up just fine. Eye box is fine for me.

I was a little cautious as I normally run Nightforce but the mark 5 has been good to go.

Would I rather have Tangents? Yeah but over 3x the cost of a mark 5 I’m good.

It’s been a solid scope for me.

This is where I have ended up as well. Used to shoot and prefer NF, but Leupold offered a viable competitor and has a far better mil sales program. If NF improved their MIL program, i would probably shoot NF again.

 

[haunas]

This is where I have ended up as well. Used to shoot and prefer NF, but Leupold offered a viable competitor and has a far better mil sales program. If NF improved their MIL program, i would probably shoot NF again.

Looking at both programs the nf atacr 4-16 and leupy 3.6-18 illuminated seem to be the same price. Of course dropping down to a leupy non-illuminated is for sure cheaper. As of right now, the Vortex I have had a turret issue on a hunt so I sent in and received an all new scope. Definitely don’t trust it and want something a little more durable. Looking at the leupy in title or atacr with really long lead time.

 

[GUNNER10]

Looking at both programs the nf atacr 4-16 and leupy 3.6-18 illuminated seem to be the same price. Of course dropping down to a leupy non-illuminated is for sure cheaper. As of right now, the Vortex I have had a turret issue on a hunt so I sent in and received an all new scope. Definitely don’t trust it and want something a little more durable. Looking at the leupy in title or atacr with really long lead time.

Agree,

I've had illuminate scopes for a long time, and I honestly really never use it. Thats sort of the reason that I find the Mk5 appealing. If I needed an optic with illumination, I would probably I would probably lean towards the NF but for a what a non illuminated Mk5 goes for, its almost a no brainer.

 

[haunas]

Agree,

I've had illuminate scopes for a long time, and I honestly really never use it. Thats sort of the reason that I find the Mk5 appealing. If I needed an optic with illumination, I would probably I would probably lean towards the NF but for a what a non illuminated Mk5 goes for, its almost a no brainer.

I was hunting with my son on Lanai and spotted a nice moufie ram at 750yds. We closed to 650yds at around 6:30p which had some light. Didn’t shoot but saw the benefit of an illuminated reticle.

 

[The Pizza Guy]

Yup, I've got a 16" Proof cf barrel and magnesium XLR chassis awaiting my Defiance anti-X action and I just really can't figure out the scope that should go on it.. That combo would fit the bill. Currently I do have a 4.5-22 light hunter in the safe but it's still more mag than I need and longer than I prefer.

Any chance you have a picture of your rig? I debating between the 16 inch barrel and 18. Any big difference in speed with that short of a barrel?

 

[Burdy]

Any chance you have a picture of your rig? I debating between the 16 inch barrel and 18. Any big difference in speed with that short of a barrel?

I can send a pic of the barrel blank and the chassis. The action is at nitride right now. It's been a looooong wait.

 

[The Pizza Guy]

I can send a pic of the barrel blank and the chassis. The action is at nitride right now. It's been a looooong wait.

Please do send a picture. Just trying to get an idea of what the package looks like. That’s a bummer it’s taking so long for your action.