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

[nick338]

Looking at this scope for a lightweight mountain rifle in .223 Remington and wondering if anyone here has experience with it. Have had some less than stellar experiences with Leupold in the past but this particular scope checks all the boxes for what I'm looking for. Don't think I can actually put my hands on one before purchasing so I'll have to rely feedback.

Interested in all the usual questions, durability, glass, eyebox and field of view, reticle usability at lower power and maybe how it compares to other scopes in it's class.

Currently have a Nightforce 4-16x42 and that has been my go to scope for anything on the lighter side or gas guns but that's the only compact I've owned. This Leupold just has a little more of what I'm looking for.

Thanks for any replies.

 

[FuhQ]

Looking at this scope for a lightweight mountain rifle in .223 Remington and wondering if anyone here has experience with it. Have had some less than stellar experiences with Leupold in the past but this particular scope checks all the boxes for what I'm looking for. Don't think I can actually put my hands on one before purchasing so I'll have to rely feedback.

Interested in all the usual questions, durability, glass, eyebox and field of view, reticle usability at lower power and maybe how it compares to other scopes in it's class.

Currently have a Nightforce 4-16x42 and that has been my go to scope for anything on the lighter side or gas guns but that's the only compact I've owned. This Leupold just has a little more of what I'm looking for.

Thanks for any replies.

If you have had bad past Leupy experiences, I wouldn't expect too much more now. There's a reason you don't see a ton of them out there being used hard these days. There's just better, more robust & rugged, options.

Depending on your price range, the Kahles K318 would be worth looking into. Some of the best glass on the market.

 

[nick338]

If you have had bad past Leupy experiences, I wouldn't expect too much more now. There's a reason you don't see a ton of them out there being used hard these days. There's just better, more robust & rugged, options.

Depending on your price range, the Kahles K318 would be worth looking into. Some of the best glass on the market.

I think 2013 was the last time I attempted to run one so I was hoping they turned the corner in the last few years.

 

[SepticDeath]

Leupold Mark 5HD Selected by Army Precision Sniper Rifle Program

www-thefirearmblog-com.cdn.ampproject.org

 

[nick338]

Leupold Mark 5HD Selected by Army Precision Sniper Rifle Program

www-thefirearmblog-com.cdn.ampproject.org

Thanks for link but you do realize that military contracts are rarely ever based on actual quality and functionality?

 

[powdahound76]

OP. Gimme a few weeks.

Lots going on with holidays and traveling the next bit and have one coming.

 

[FuhQ]

Thanks for link but you do realize that military contracts are rarely ever based on actual quality and functionality?

A lot of snipers complained about the Leupy's being fragile and breaking easy, and not holding up. They're just not built to handle that type of use, honestly. They're lightweight civilian optics made to be babied and put in padded cases and not bumped around. Where you compare something like a NF, where the whole thing is overbuilt and is just a beast of a scope, but it also weighs a lot, too. There's always trade-offs. I haven't use a Leupold in about 15 years, so unless I inherit one, or get given one as a gift, I don't see myself using them again. Not bashing Leupold, but it's just my personal opinion.

 

[Shootnwrench]

OP, will have that exact model in hand in about 10 days, will update. In for info from anyone else until then.

Things change and just because a name is on it doesn’t make it equal to, greater or worse than other models and generations. Seems to be quite a few guys running them now days. Koshkin has a good review of the 3.6-18.

There’s been a number of MK5 threads if you look for them, most everyone has the non illuminated models though.

 

[DeathBeforeDismount]

If you have had bad past Leupy experiences, I wouldn't expect too much more now. There's a reason you don't see a ton of them out there being used hard these days. There's just better, more robust & rugged, options.

Depending on your price range, the Kahles K318 would be worth looking into. Some of the best glass on the market.

Best Glass and Kahles don't belong in the same sentence. Hands down dogshit glass for what they cost.

I would take a MK5 over any Kahles product. Much better value.

This is not a MK4, and despite what you "heard" it was actually a very robust little scope for its time considering the market. More dickheads took dirt naps through a MK4 optic than probally all other LR optics combined. It was also half the price or less of anything else comparable at the time (SB, Premier, USO and later on NF).

 

[SepticDeath]

Thanks for link but you do realize that military contracts are rarely ever based on actual quality and functionality?

Get what you want, I don't give a shit. I have 2 Mark 5s and they have both been excellent optics. I would say a military contract means it's not complete dog shit. Glass is great in both. FuhQ is the Arken guy so maybe listen to him.

 

[FuhQ]

Best Glass and Kahles don't belong in the same sentence. Hands down dogshit glass for what they cost.

I would take a MK5 over any Kahles product. Much better value.

This is not a MK4, and despite what you "heard" it was actually a very robust little scope for its time considering the market. More dickheads took dirt naps through a MK4 optic than probally all other LR optics combined. It was also half the price or less of anything else comparable at the time (SB, Premier, USO and later on NF).

The butthurt is real with you. You must be a Leupold fanboy or a sales rep. LOL

I used to sell Leupold for years, and we sent back more Leupold scopes than ANYTHING else...By a compounded margin. They are fragile. Period. Full-stop.

And the fact you're hating on Kahles, proves you have zero experience with them. Kahles and Zeiss are hands-down some of the best glass on the market. Proven.

 

[nick338]

Get what you want, I don't give a shit. I have 2 Mark 5s and they have both been excellent optics. I would say a military contract means it's not complete dog shit. Glass is great in both. FuhQ is the Arken guy so maybe listen to him.

Do you know the details of the article you cited? What other scopes were involved? How much of the decision was based soley on money and Leupold's ability to mass produce what the Army asked for in the time table required? I could go on and on with reasons why basing a decision on a military contract is meaningless.

Maybe next time answering the actual question with your experience would be a lot more helpful.

 

[FuhQ]

Get what you want, I don't give a shit. I have 2 Mark 5s and they have both been excellent optics. I would say a military contract means it's not complete dog shit. Glass is great in both. FuhQ is the Arken guy so maybe listen to him.

I have owned TONS of optics other than Arkens. I am not "the Arken guy", I just happen to really like mine, so I started a thread about them, and I like to study up and do my homework and "nerd-out" on things that intrigue me, so I learn everything I can about that item before purchasing. What's wrong with that? It's called making informed purchases.

I also own/have owned Vortex, Kahles, Zeiss, Leupold, Nikon, SWFA, old Bausch & Lombs, and many others...Including some $1,500+ optics (10-15 years ago, which would be $2,500+ now). Technology has changed, and at rapid speeds. What was a $2,000 scope 20 years ago, is now the same tech that's put into a $500 scope these days. That's called technological progression. It's the only way to continue to be relevant in a market that continuously changes/improves every single year.

 

[DeathBeforeDismount]

The butthurt is real with you. You must be a Leupold fanboy or a sales rep. LOL

I used to sell Leupold for years, and we sent back more Leupold scopes than ANYTHING else...By a compounded margin. They are fragile. Period. Full-stop.

And the fact you're hating on Kahles, proves you have zero experience with them. Kahles and Zeiss are hands-down some of the best glass on the market. Proven.

Yea I love Leupold so much i own exact, zero of their scopes, despite being able to get them 60-70% off and being a 20 minute drive from their factory. You got me , I must be that sales rep for Leupy that shoots ZCO and Vortex.

Zeiss is not Kahles and Kahles is not Ziess.

Zeiss actually has great glass not filled with CA and a subpar picture.

K624i gen 1 and 2 had Absymal CA and terrible turrets.. Gen 3 was better but still pretty bad. K5-25i comes out and somehow has worse glass than the K624i Gen 3. So bad in fact, they had to go back and come out with the DLR or whatever its called which is priced closer to a ZCO but still looks like a $2K optic. Kahles does make a reliable scope with good reticles. That is about it. Oh and they throw a ton of money at PRS so Shannon Kay changes the rules so their optic can qualify for retard class....aka production.

Here is the difference between a Leupold MK5 and a Kahles anything:

The Leopold is a $2K scope that looks and feels like a $2K scope

The Kahles is a $3.2-3.6K scope that looks and feels like a $2K Scope.

Its not hard to determine which one is a better buy.

Or don't listen to me and ask our resident optic experts what they think of Kahles and how they stack up to the compeitiuon. Its not exactly a secret.

 

[Zuul]

OP, I have one on order that should ship at the end of the week. I’ll give you my honest opinion when I get it. I needed something for my MK12 “wishes it was a clone” Mod0, the Leupold fit the bill. I had already gone hard in the paint this year optic wise so I needed something mid tier that wouldn’t break the bank.

Online reviews for the MK5 are overwhelmingly positive, if I’m not happy with it I’ll sell it and move on to another scope. Liberty Optics had the best deal on these that I could find.

 

[DeathBeforeDismount]

Do you know the details of the article you cited? What other scopes were involved? How much of the decision was based soley on money and Leupold's ability to mass produce what the Army asked for in the time table required? I could go on and on with reasons why basing a decision on a military contract is meaningless.

Maybe next time answering the actual question with your experience would be a lot more helpful.

While I will not defend government procurement, atleast on the weapons side of the house there a minimum performance baseline that must be met. You can be assured that any optic the select for servicewide issue, while it may not be the "best" will be acceptable and serviceable. Cost matters when you are buying 10's of thousands of a product and have a million other competing interests looking at the same money pile. 10K MK5's are better than Zero TT or ZCO.

 

[nick338]

While I will not defend government procurement, atleast on the weapons side of the house there a minimum performance baseline that must be met. You can be assured that any optic the select for servicewide issue, while it may not be the "best" will be acceptable and serviceable. Cost matters when you are buying 10's of thousands of a product and have a million other competing interests looking at the same money pile. 10K MK5's are better than Zero TT or ZCO.

You are correct, but I'm not interested in meeting a minimum baseline or purchasing a turd because it's cheaper than a better option. Exactly why I wouldn't base a purchase on what the military does.

In post #11 you mentioned having 2 Mark 5's and then in post 15# you said you own zero Leupy's so which is it?

 

[nick338]

Leupold Mark 5 3.6-18
Kahles 318i
Nightforce 4-16x42
Steiner 3-15 T5Xi

Now if I could put these 4 on a table somewhere and compare them I would be all set but I've only owned one of them so I have to ask for others input and then I'm still making a decision based on someone else's perception. Love this game we play.

 

[upSLIDEdown]

Pretty sure Leupold MK5s won more PRS matches than any other brand in 2021, including the AG Cup this weekend. To compare them to old MK4s or 6s is apples and oranges. Leupy knocked it out of the park with the MK5. I've owned SWFA, Vortex PSTs and Razors (Gen 1 and 2), and Nightforce SHVs and ATACRs, FWIW. I realize everyone's eyes are different, but the glass in my MK5s is every bit as good as my NF to my eyes.

 

[DeathBeforeDismount]

You are correct, but I'm not interested in meeting a minimum baseline or purchasing a turd because it's cheaper than a better option. Exactly why I wouldn't base a purchase on what the military does.

In post #11 you mentioned having 2 Mark 5's and then in post 15# you said you own zero Leupy's so which is it?

You are getting confused. That was another poster who said that.

 

[nick338]

You are getting confused. That was another poster who said that.

You're right, I promise I'm only an idiot some of the time.

 

[Secant]

I've had the 3.6-18x44 Mk5 and the 4-16x42 ATACR. They are very similar scopes overall in my opinion, but I liked the MK5 in terms of complete package. I thought the eyebox's were similar between the two - both are useable, neither were outstanding. Same with FoV & glass - both useable but neither were outstanding. I had no issues using the PR-1 on 3.6x. The Mil-XT was useable on 4x, but not ideal for me. Shot both to at least 1,000 yards. Didn't fall off a cliff with either.

That said, I definitely would not purchase the illuminated MK5. Paying an additional $400 for illumination is a joke.

I've since sold both if that says anything. If I were to go back, I'd probably choose the unilluminated Mk5.

 

[nick338]

I've had the 3.6-18x44 Mk5 and the 4-16x42 ATACR. They are very similar scopes overall in my opinion, but I liked the MK5 in terms of complete package. I thought the eyebox's were similar between the two - both are useable, neither were outstanding. Same with FoV & glass - both useable but neither were outstanding. I had no issues using the PR-1 on 3.6x. The Mil-XT was useable on 4x, but not ideal for me. Shot both to at least 1,000 yards. Didn't fall off a cliff with either.

That said, I definitely would not purchase the illuminated MK5. Paying an additional $400 for illumination is a joke.

I've since sold both if that says anything. If I were to go back, I'd probably choose the unilluminated Mk5.

Awesome, thank you.

 

[nick338]

Awesome, thank you.

If you had to pick one to get behind and find your target in a hurry, which one would you choose?

 

[jzerfoss]

Yea I love Leupold so much i own exact, zero of their scopes, despite being able to get them 60-70% off and being a 20 minute drive from their factory. You got me , I must be that sales rep for Leupy that shoots ZCO and Vortex.

Zeiss is not Kahles and Kahles is not Ziess.

Zeiss actually has great glass not filled with CA and a subpar picture.

K624i gen 1 and 2 had Absymal CA and terrible turrets.. Gen 3 was better but still pretty bad. K5-25i comes out and somehow has worse glass than the K624i Gen 3. So bad in fact, they had to go back and come out with the DLR or whatever its called which is priced closer to a ZCO but still looks like a $2K optic. Kahles does make a reliable scope with good reticles. That is about it. Oh and they throw a ton of money at PRS so Shannon Kay changes the rules so their optic can qualify for retard class....aka production.

Here is the difference between a Leupold MK5 and a Kahles anything:

The Leopold is a $2K scope that looks and feels like a $2K scope

The Kahles is a $3.2-3.6K scope that looks and feels like a $2K Scope.

Its not hard to determine which one is a better buy.

Or don't listen to me and ask our resident optic experts what they think of Kahles and how they stack up to the compeitiuon. Its not exactly a secret.

Having owned 3 K624s and 1 K525 over the years I can honestly say that you're probably giving them too much credit... Biggest waste of money, time, bullets, and match fees trying to troubleshoot those turds. Kahles is my biggest purchase regret. I don't own a leupold either but if I did it would be the one the OP is looking at but on the flipside the 4-16x42 NF has such a good reputation it would be hard to pass up for a hard use rifle.

 

[jzerfoss]

Pretty sure Leupold MK5s won more PRS matches than any other brand in 2021, including the AG Cup this weekend. To compare them to old MK4s or 6s is apples and oranges. Leupy knocked it out of the park with the MK5. I've owned SWFA, Vortex PSTs and Razors (Gen 1 and 2), and Nightforce SHVs and ATACRs, FWIW. I realize everyone's eyes are different, but the glass in my MK5s is every bit as good as my NF to my eyes.

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.

 

[Huckmeat]

If you have had bad past Leupy experiences, I wouldn't expect too much more now. There's a reason you don't see a ton of them out there being used hard these days. There's just better, more robust & rugged, options.

Depending on your price range, the Kahles K318 would be worth looking into. Some of the best glass on the market.

Serious question

What is more robust, in the same weight range. There is the TT3-15 hunter, and I did have to send mine back.

There are the light Vortex's, but having owned them, they are fine, I wouldn't say more robust than the mk5.

I owned the MK6's and had problems with both tracking. I own two MK5's and they have been spot on, and abused without losing zero or failing to track/adjust parallax. But I value lightweight reliability above all, so what fills that bill. Maybe ZCO will do a 26oz 4-20.

 

[FuhQ]

Serious question

What is more robust, in the same weight range. There is the TT3-15 hunter, and I did have to send mine back.

There are the light Vortex's, but having owned them, they are fine, I wouldn't say more robust than the mk5.

I owned the MK6's and had problems with both tracking. I own two MK5's and they have been spot on, and abused without losing zero or failing to track/adjust parallax. But I value lightweight reliability above all, so what fills that bill. Maybe ZCO will do a 26oz 4-20.

I don't worry about a scopes weight, so you're asking the wrong person. The only lightweight setup I have is my main deer rifle, which has an old Kahles Helia KX 3.5-10x50 I've had on it for about 15 years.

 

[lennyo3034]

If you had to pick one to get behind and find your target in a hurry, which one would you choose?

I have the 5-25 MK5 and the 4-16 ATACR so not apples to apples here. I find the FOV on the MK5 a little on the narrow side. Not sure if that is the case with the 3.6-18.

 

[nick338]

I have the 5-25 MK5 and the 4-16 ATACR so not apples to apples here. I find the FOV on the MK5 a little on the narrow side. Not sure if that is the case with the 3.6-18.

I also have the ATACR 4-16x42 and if I was going to change anything it would be the eye box and field of view. Other than that, it's a great scope.

 

[longshot2000]

just getting that model in stock. Pretty impressive. So far, the only illuminated model has been the TMR, which is solid.

 

[Softtail103]

I run these on all my hunting rifles. Top scores from me. To call it lightweight at 26 ounces? Swarovski Z5 3.5-18x50 BT saves 10oz.

 

[Huckmeat]

I run these on all my hunting rifles. Top scores from me. To call it lightweight at 26 ounces? Swarovski Z5 3.5-18x50 BT saves 10oz.

FFP vs SFP, apples and oranges.

 

[Franko]

I think that you should at least take a look at the Vortex 4.5-22 LHT.

 

[Softtail103]

FFP vs SFP, apples and oranges.

Did I miss where he asked for a FFP? If you think that’s what makes apples and oranges then you sir have never used either of them. Weight is the beginning. 1 inch tube vs a 35mm. On a 7mm wsm my MK5 turrets go out to 1300 yards. The Z5 700 yards. Tactical turrets. One is designed just for hunting. One is a multi use instrument. My comment was about weight.

 

[nick338]

This is a FFP application just to clear up any misunderstandings.

 

[Softtail103]

Mark5 or Vortex LHT

 

[DeathBeforeDismount]

I have the new LHT and have shot some of the MK5's but don't own one "yet".

LHT is really a hunting focused scope. It has tighter eyebox, turrets are not as nice and mine has a CRAZY tight magnification ring. The glass is really good and its incredibly light, and I really like the reticle.

I would say if its primarily a hunting gun, go with the LHT, if you are going to bang steel half the time or more and hunt with it, get the MK5. It will be more enjoyable to shoot with the eyebox, especially from positions other than prone.

The LHT is really designed as a lightweight hunting scope and maybe a NRL Hunter scope to meet 12lb limit. My Tikka 300wsm with LHT all guccied out weighs in at 9.6lbs.

 

[nick338]

I have the new LHT and have shot some of the MK5's but don't own one "yet".

LHT is really a hunting focused scope. It has tighter eyebox, turrets are not as nice and mine has a CRAZY tight magnification ring. The glass is really good and its incredibly light, and I really like the reticle.

I would say if its primarily a hunting gun, go with the LHT, if you are going to bang steel half the time or more and hunt with it, get the MK5. It will be more enjoyable to shoot with the eyebox, especially from positions other than prone.

The LHT is really designed as a lightweight hunting scope and maybe a NRL Hunter scope to meet 12lb limit. My Tikka 300wsm with LHT all guccied out weighs in at 9.6lbs.

Definitely paper and steel with the occasional packing/hunting application in mind so the eye box and field of view is important. I don't want a scope that isn't generous and forgiving when I get behind it, especially if I'm in a hurry.

 

[Fred @ Bison Tactical]

I ran the Mark 5HD (I own 2) this year at the Sniper Adventure Challenge on my 5.56 AR15 short barrel rifle. I spent a lot of time trying to decide between scopes. Last year I ran a 1-8 Schmidt & Bender Dual Dot but wanted more magnification. The problem is most higher magnification scopes with good optics are very heavy. This one solved the problem for me, and I am very happy to have run it this year. I also ran it on my AR15 18" rifle at the Steel Safari this year.

I normally run Tangent Theta, Schmidt & Bender and Nightforce, but have been extremely pleased with the Mark 5HD 3.6-18 for a lightweight medium magnification FFP scope (I run the Tremor3 reticle though).

It doesn't break the bank, its lightweight generally robust and has decent magnification - it was a win for me. I even ran it this year on my 7 SAUM hunting rifle since it was one of the lightest scopes I have in a mid-range magnification.

I have a new ATACR 4-20 on order so will be able to compare them later. I think my Schmidt & Bender 5-20 Ultrashort glass is better but it is significantly heavier. I feel also like my Schmidt is a bit more robust as well.

 

[nick338]

I ran the Mark 5HD (I own 2) this year at the Sniper Adventure Challenge on my 5.56 AR15 short barrel rifle. I spent a lot of time trying to decide between scopes. Last year I ran a 1-8 Schmidt & Bender Dual Dot but wanted more magnification. The problem is most higher magnification scopes with good optics are very heavy. This one solved the problem for me, and I am very happy to have run it this year. I also ran it on my AR15 18" rifle at the Steel Safari this year.

I normally run Tangent Theta, Schmidt & Bender and Nightforce, but have been extremely pleased with the Mark 5HD 3.6-18 for a lightweight medium magnification FFP scope (I run the Tremor3 reticle though).

It doesn't break the bank, its lightweight generally robust and has decent magnification - it was a win for me. I even ran it this year on my 7 SAUM hunting rifle since it was one of the lightest scopes I have in a mid-range magnification.

I have a new ATACR 4-20 on order so will be able to compare them later. I think my Schmidt & Bender 5-20 Ultrashort glass is better but it is significantly heavier. I feel also like my Schmidt is a bit more robust as well.

Would love a follow up comparison with that NF.

 

[Fred @ Bison Tactical]

Would love a follow up comparison with that NF.

I am not sure I can do a good comparison for a lot of stuff that matters. I have been thinking long and hard about how to compare scopes and I think unless your comparing scopes with very significant differences it gets really difficult to do a good comparison that is useful for another person.

Things like weight, length and features they have like illumination etc are easy, but things like optical quality get really hard because everyone is so different.

I mean I shoot out West in the open terrain in high elevation with colors that run in browns and light greens. I am certain that some place like Georgia's environment would be a different result for a comparison test of the same scopes. That doesn't even touch on personal differences in how people see colors and how our eyes are different.

I have been asking @koshkin to come up with a good methodology, so maybe some day I will have a fair and objective methodology to compare high end optics. Until then I think he is a good person to listen to, you can read a lot if you signup for his locals channel: https://darklordofoptics.locals.com/

I did a search, but I don't currently see any articles on the Mark 5HD, but maybe he will comment since I pinged him in this post?

 

[nick338]

I am not sure I can do a good comparison for a lot of stuff that matters. I have been thinking long and hard about how to compare scopes and I think unless your comparing scopes with very significant differences it gets really difficult to do a good comparison that is useful for another person.

Things like weight, length and features they have like illumination etc are easy, but things like optical quality get really hard because everyone is so different.

I mean I shoot out West in the open terrain in high elevation with colors that run in browns and light greens. I am certain that some place like Georgia's environment would be a different result for a comparison test of the same scopes. That doesn't even touch on personal differences in how people see colors and how our eyes are different.

I have been asking @koshkin to come up with a good methodology, so maybe some day I will have a fair and objective methodology to compare high end optics. Until then I think he is a good person to listen to, you can read a lot if you signup for his locals channel: https://darklordofoptics.locals.com/

I did a search, but I don't currently see any articles on the Mark 5HD, but maybe he will comment since I pinged him in this post?

Completely agree but the one thing you may be able to compare between the two scopes is the eye box and the field of view. If you pick up your rifle to acquire a target, which one is more forgiving? Let me know if that's something you can tell a difference with.

 

[Fred @ Bison Tactical]

Completely agree but the one thing you may be able to compare between the two scopes is the eye box and the field of view. If you pick up your rifle to acquire a target, which one is more forgiving? Let me know if that's something you can tell a difference with.

Will try to remember when it finally gets here (the 7-35 just arrived an I ordered them months ago...). It feels like waiting for an AT-X...

 

[koshkin]

I am not sure I can do a good comparison for a lot of stuff that matters. I have been thinking long and hard about how to compare scopes and I think unless your comparing scopes with very significant differences it gets really difficult to do a good comparison that is useful for another person.

Things like weight, length and features they have like illumination etc are easy, but things like optical quality get really hard because everyone is so different.

I mean I shoot out West in the open terrain in high elevation with colors that run in browns and light greens. I am certain that some place like Georgia's environment would be a different result for a comparison test of the same scopes. That doesn't even touch on personal differences in how people see colors and how our eyes are different.

I have been asking @koshkin to come up with a good methodology, so maybe some day I will have a fair and objective methodology to compare high end optics. Until then I think he is a good person to listen to, you can read a lot if you signup for his locals channel: https://darklordofoptics.locals.com/

I did a search, but I don't currently see any articles on the Mark 5HD, but maybe he will comment since I pinged him in this post?

I have been working on something that would make for a good evaluation guideline, but then switched gears to something else as I was getting ready for an elk hunt. I am setting it up as a differential comparison, where you are looking at scopes side-by-side, rather than one standalone design. Given that a human eye is involved it is never fully objective, but it should be repeatable.

As far as Mark 5 3.6-18x44 goes, I rather like the design. I spent some time with one about three years ago and aside from the reticle selection, like the scope quite a bit:


I think illuminated PR-1 really helps, although I would probably prefer PR-2 in this scope.

ILya

 

[D_TROS]

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

 

[Fred @ Bison Tactical]

Thanks @koshkin your thoughts were super similar to my experiences. Oddly I had a TT315M that I was going to use, but at the Steel Safari needed more elevation range and couldn't find a 20 MOA single piece mount for my AR in 30mm (supply chain disruptions). So I went with the greater elevation of the Mark 5 HD even though the glass is better IMO as well in the TT315M. For me the bigger loss is the detail - I find detail is super important in our scopes - the ability to see impacts on steel, and misses in shrubbery when you can't see dirt fly up for example.

But all decisions are compromises, so it ends up being how your order your particular needs for a particular "mission", if your mission is a match or a hunting trip, or just a trip to the range.

 

[koshkin]

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

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

 

[nick338]

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

Any chance you would be willing to rank them as you see it?

 

[koshkin]

Any chance you would be willing to rank them as you see it?

I'll give it some thought.

ILya