Ok guys, so I’m a bit in a pickle here and need some experienced opinions. I’m on the fence between the two set ups for my Mk12 mod 1. The Leupold I guess is the “clone correct” as a 2.5-8 with the 36mm objective while the Nightforce is a bit beefier and runs 2.5-10 with the 42mm objective. I have a Nightforce NXS for my MK13 build and I really really like the glass, but I’ve heard up and down things about Leupold so I figured I’d raise the question. For continuity sake, regardless to what scope I got with I’ll be using milliradian reticle. So what’s your experience with the two? Is the Nightforce glass superior, did you feel one had better features than the other, hell did one fall apart quick? Anything is solid info. Thanks folks.
Rifle Scopes Thoughts on Leupold MK4 MR/T vs Nightforce NXS for MK12
- Thread starter mallen45
- Start date
The leupold is a piece of shit. Buy the nightforce. Had both on my mod 1 and H
Hahaha bold claim sir. What was the problem or if there was many what were the top 3?
Glass was horrible at higher magnification (esp compared to the NF 2.5-10x24, it was way over priced for what it is, 1/4 MOA turrets with TMR (Mil) reticle (I had mine converted to Mil turrets by Leupold). The NF’s eye box is more generous as well if I recall correctly. I sold that MRT about 4 years ago.
I like most mark 4s, the 3.5-10x40, 4.4-14x50, etc but Leupold missed with this one IMO. Especially considering what you are getting vs why you’re paying. The NF 2.5-10x 24 and 2.5-10x32 are both technically clone correct for the Mk12 mod 1 (the ‘42 may or may not be, I can’t say for certain one way or another with respect to that scope).
makes sense to me. Glass would be a deal breaker for me especially at the price points for the leupold a because they’re clone correct. I do know Nightforce replaced the 32mm objective for the 42. Clone correct isn’t necessarily the top priority here. I’m not scouring the world for a colt lower either. At the end of the day I want to be able to have some fun between 50 ft and 500 yards on the rifle nothing more nothing less.
I hit the broad side of a battleship a few times with the MRT on the rifle but that’s the best I was able to do, lol.
kidding aside, I’m prob going to stick a Mark 6 3-18x44 on my Mod H. If you aren’t hung up on clone correct for the day optic, that might be a good choice for consideration. As is the NF 4-16x42 with your preferred reticle...
+1 on this.
I wouldn't say the glass is horrible, but NXS is definitely better. I really like my 3.5-10 mk4 on my Holland, but yeah, whoever decided on moa turrets with a mil reticle should get throat punched.
If you're not going 2.5-10x24, skip the x32 and go for the 3.5-15x50 with either a badger or Larue mount.
i has no idea they mixed systems like that. I wouldn’t feel too comfortable switching back and forth. As far as the NXS goes I was thinking about the 2.5-10x42 as the 32 is discontinued now. I figure the bigger reticle allows for better light transmission. 50mm may be a little more than I need on the SPR.
That was the norm until relatively recently (last 10 years or so).
Discontinued =/= unobtainium for mass market scopes...post a WTB ad for what you might want in the PX and usually, you won’t have to wait too long.
I’ve used plenty of 30-40mm day optics and didn’t notice a difference in light transmission between the two objective sizes in optics within the same production family (except the Leupold 2.5-8 MRT vs 3.5-10 LRT but that’s another matter). Conversely, the ATACR 4-16x42 transmits more light to my eyes than any 50+mm objective NSX I have owned (superior glass and glass coatings the differentiators).
Similar threads
