Rifle Scopes Thoughts on the Leupold Mark 6?

[remington patriot]

This seems like a great scope with a good power range. It seems compact and light and I like the TMR reticle. The downside is no illuminated reticle but not a huge deal. Those that have this scope are you happy with it?

 

[Cold_Bore_88]

I have an illuminated version with the TMR-R and wish I had gone with something else. This is just MY opinion so there will be a lot of people that say differently. I don't think they are worth the money.

I have started changing all my scopes out to S&B.

If I did it over again I would get the S&B 4-16x42 or the Nightforce ATACR 4-16.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[StevethePirate]

Which Mk6 are we talking about?

 

[Cold_Bore_88]

Good question Pirate. I assumed the 3-18.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[FunkyTownScout]

Just what I've read but the 1-6 has some weird flickering issue with the dot when your eye isn't perfectly in the eyebox. On the 3-18 the turrets that are tall, "B", where you have to unlock every time to turn are able to be rotated .1 mils either way due to their mushiness. Apparently the newer lower "c" turrets are better and lock at each full turn only. I'm guessing your not talking 1-6 though since you mentioned illuminated.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Aharm03]

If you were to pay let's say 1300 for the MK6 3-18 would you pick it over a S&B or Nightforce?

 

[Cold_Bore_88]

At that price, yes. However, I am a firm believer in "buy once, cry once." In my opinion the Mark 6 leaves most long range shooter wanting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[plong]

I have a Mk6 1-6 and a 3-18 as well as several Bushy, a Steiner T-series and Nightforce ATACR F1. Price being no object, I'd have all ATACR F1s. That being said I like both my Mk 6 Scopes, the 1-6 is on a 16" 5.56 recce-ish build, the 3-18 is on a 18" .308 gasser. Both have performed as expected, no complaints about either one. The Mk6 glass is definitely not on-par with Nightforce, but I didn't expect it to be. Mine tracks, if you buy it you should definitely check yours as there have been reports of tracking issues. At $1,300.00 I think it's a great buy, I don't think you're going to find another $1300 scope that will match it.

 

[JohnDeereGuy1996]

I've had a mk6 3-18 and I really liked it. Mine had the b turrets and they weren't to bad. On the other hand I had a friend with the same scope and turrets and running the turrets was like turning a radio dial. Absolutely terrible. I also had another friend who had a model with the c turrets. I liked them much better and thought they were excellent.

As far as optical clarity the three I've looked at were all good glass. I'd say probably nightforce level or so. The overall size and versatility is what made it a winner for me. Especially on a gas gun it made for a great package!

 

[Covertnoob5]

I had one with an illuminated Tremor 2 reticle. I love the size, weight, and overall package.
That being said, I MUCH prefer the Nightforce ATACR 4-16. Sold the Leupold for it. The glass to me was very lacking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Fursniper]

Have used the Mark 6 with the B turret, hated it. Friend of mine has one and the tracking is off too, keep telling him to send it in.

 

[BangBangBlatBlat]

There really is nothing that compares to the 3-18x with the M5C2 turrets. The thing is stupid light, and the glass is definitely good when you take into account how small and light it is. I just don't think it's totally fair to expect stellar performance from such a small lense and package that is on par with the 50mm and 56mm scopes with all other things being equal.

 

[Covertnoob5]

I found the glass in the ATACR 4-16 much much much better and that's a 42mm objective. I didn't expect it to be as good. I think the NF is a good comparison as well as a March 3-24x42


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Covertnoob5]

I found the glass in the ATACR 4-16 much much much better and that's a 42mm objective. I didn't expect it to be as good as a 50mm or 56mm. I think the NF is a good comparison as well as a March 3-24x42


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[XOR]

This seems like a great scope with a good power range. It seems compact and light and I like the TMR reticle. The downside is no illuminated reticle but not a huge deal. Those that have this scope are you happy with it?

I just got one to replace a S&B 5-25 on my TRG. I mounted it last night and my impressions are all really early:

It's 1 lb. lighter than the S&B and much shorter. Most of the competing compact scopes are all at least 1/2lb heavier than the Leupold. Most full size tactical scopes are 1lb. heavier like the S&B. So to compare the Leupold against the much bigger and heavier scopes is probably not the best idea. But with that said, for the weight and size my initial feeling is the scope is a good value.

I have the pinch turrets. They feel good to me. They are not as crisp as the S&B, but much better than my Steiner. The are slightly less distinct than the NF F1s I run, but pretty close for being a 10 mil per turn version.

The pinch turrets are new to me. My initial playing with them I don't find them too off putting, but they do take a deliberate grabbing to set the elevation. This is good and bad. Good in that you have to grab them specifically to turn them to your elevation. Bad perhaps in a fast paced PRS style stage where you have a few seconds to dial elevation between targets. It could in theory slow you down if you flub the grip, but I'm not sure this 1% scenario is worth worrying over for most.

I wanted the pinch turrets so I could set the scope on a max point blank elevation when hunting and not worry about knocking the dial off when walking with the rifle. The pinch turrets allow me to set an elevation and know it will stay there when I need it. The lower profile turrets look like a good option though, but only lock at zero. This is probably fine for most people.

The critical eye relief seems good. Not picky at all. My March scope was a similar size and it was extremely picky about where your head was when you used it.

Mag range is good. At 3X the field of view is wide and no serious distortions. At 18 X the same thing. My S&B 5-25 tunnels so bad at 5-7X that I consider it pretty much a 7-25X scope. The March scope had very bad distortion at 3X power and at 24X power the reticle was so large and eye relief so touchy that I didn't find it that useful. The Leupold seems to hit a usable mag range without too much compromise.

Leupold comes with a capped windage. Most scopes still expose the windage and for tactical field shooting and hunting it's completely worthless and just going to cause trouble. I have not dialed wind since the last time I shot F-class almost 7 years ago. I only hold for wind and that is what most shooters I know do. So the windage should be capped unless it's a pure target scope.

Parallax seems OK. The S&B feels better and is more precise. But the Leupold seems Ok so far in initial testing. It just feels cheaper.

I don't have the illumination as I never really use it for any kind of longer range shooting.

I like the TMR reticle. It's clean and easily seen at 3X and 18X without being cluttered.

I'll post a full review once I get out and use it, but for what the scope is and for the price, I'm happy so far.

The big thing is that this scope offers very light weight and compact size with full size features. If that's what you want, then it's something to consider. It will give up optical performance vs. a larger 56mm scope almost certainly. But it is significantly lighter and lower profile. Just pick what is important to you.

For me, I've grown tired of having my most expensive long range rifles also be the most useless to carry because of the excessive weight. They are basically relegated to range use, short hikes, or quad bikes. I wanted to lighten up my long range rifles so they are more usable for hunts and the Leupold helped get me there.

My TRG is in .260 with a carbon barrel. It is about 11.5lbs. with the Leupold scope now. Still not a lightweight, but for a long range hunting rig with magazine and solid accuracy with long strings of fire, it's a much better weight than most.

 

[samnev]

Just what I've read but the 1-6 has some weird flickering issue with the dot when your eye isn't perfectly in the eyebox. On the 3-18 the turrets that are tall, "B", where you have to unlock every time to turn are able to be rotated .1 mils either way due to their mushiness. Apparently the newer lower "c" turrets are better and lock at each full turn only. I'm guessing your not talking 1-6 though since you mentioned illuminated.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I had the same issues with the flickering illuminated reticle on the Mk6 1-6. Eye box very unforgiving. Didn't like the pinch turrets either.

 

[TheMammoth]

Are there any scopes in the same weight, mag range, and feature set of the Mk6?

Ive been considering one of these also, as I want to reduce the weight on a couple of my rifles. The complaints of poor tracking and bad optical quality keep scaring me away though.

 

[bogeybrown]

I have the 3-18 with the pinch turrets and will say that it's "okay" but for the suggested price isn't all that great. I haven't been able to truly check tracking yet, but as mentioned there have been issues. I find the eye box to be pretty fussy, and it's at the ultimate limit trying to correct parallax at 50yds on max power.

As more great scopes copes come out for lower prices, I'm leaning more and more towards selling off my high-end optics. The world has changed and the most expensive scopes just aren't necessarily "the best" anymore.

 

[8up]

I have 3 Mk 6's, two have H-58 with M5B2, one is Tremor 3 with M5C2. I use a M5B2 with Tremor 2 on duty gun. I also own a couple bushy's ERS with Tremor 2 as additional comparison. I am no optics snob, as the only thing that I want to have is something that works. To me, the glass on the Leupolds are good. I have edge to edge clarity, I can focus my reticle, and make accurate shots. M5B2 turrets, well not my favorite, but they work. I only do hold overs, so I am not really cranking on them. Nice features on them. M5C2 turrets, awesome! Smaller, clicks are way better, simple to use. Overall, I like the Mk 6's, smaller, compact, better mounting options, optic quality is good, clarity, and lighter weight compared to other scopes. They work, and quite well! I also like my Bushy's, but more weight, larger in size, and depending on rifle, mounting has to be thought out. Glass is not as good as Leupolds in my opinion, but they work quite well! I have had some higher priced scopes from respected manufactures before with all the bells and whistles, from what I have read. Once I would buy it, look through them, and the clarity was not there (coke bottle effect) and disappointed I spent thousands of dollars on it. To me, the Mk6's with M5C2 is the ticket.

 

[Covertnoob5]

Are there any scopes in the same weight, mag range, and feature set of the Mk6?

Ive been considering one of these also, as I want to reduce the weight on a couple of my rifles. The complaints of poor tracking and bad optical quality keep scaring me away though.

The March 3-24x52 or they have a 42mm version as well. Glass is top notch, much better than Leupold. Nearly same weight and size much better mag range.

There's also the S&B 5-20 Ultra Short. Little heavier but worlds better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[motofrog]

I have the 3-18X44 illuminated TMR M5C2 and really like it, I got it, ran in through the usual function test at the range, then it went to Leupold to get a once over and some debris cleaned off an internal lens. I should get it back next week.

Had a March 3-24X52 come up for the same price I would have gone that route however if the march had issues it would be going to Japan for repair.

The Leupold won't focus to 50 meters at 18x so that could be a downside should you want to use it on a 22LR trainer or something.

The MK6 TMR reticle is heavy so I don't think you will miss the illumination. I bought mine for a hunting build and I probably could have gotten by without it however not having looked through the scope I wanted make sure the reticle would be visible at lower power in low light.

My criteria was lighter weight (25oz or less), mil reticle/turrets and sub 4x low end. I was looking at the MK63-18X44, NSX2.5-10X42 and March3-24X52 and the MK6 won the race. I like the TMR over the MIL-R reticle and the extra magnification is a bonus.

For the other poster asking if a $1300 price tag would swing you to the MK6 over a NF or S&B I say it runs circles around the $1250 NF SHV F1 and don't think you will find a S&B at that price point, if you do snatch it up.