Looking for advice and opinions on a scope purchase with a budget up to around 1500 bucks. I've never paid that much for a scope so ie..I've never had a "good" scope before. I'm looking for something that the glass is good enough to see mirage at distances no further than 1000 yards. The most distance I usually shoot is under 800 yards. A little more capability wouldn't hurt. Not looking for anything with more than 25x. I've drove myself nuts looking through reviews, reading, and trying to decipher what the best options are. Seems like a 34 mm tube is preferred and 56mm objectives seem to be the latest and greatest. Tracking seems to be important but with some of the fancier reticles with elevation in the reticle then Idk if it matters so much anymore. Please feel free to share some knowledge to help a fellow make an informed decision. Thanks all in advance.
Updated advice on optics at or under $1500
- Thread starter Enjoystoshoot
- Start date
I'm currently running the new Leupold Mark4HD 8-32x56, and for ~$1500 or less, IMO it's the best thing out there today for the money.
I also have/run a Razor Gen3 (which costs around twice as much) and have looked through my friend's scopes (everything under the sun: NF, Tangent Theta, ZCO, Kahles, etc) and the Mk4HD hangs pretty well up against all/any of them.
That said, a used Razor Gen2 is usually ~$1500 and is still a quality, bombproof option.
I also have/run a Razor Gen3 (which costs around twice as much) and have looked through my friend's scopes (everything under the sun: NF, Tangent Theta, ZCO, Kahles, etc) and the Mk4HD hangs pretty well up against all/any of them.
That said, a used Razor Gen2 is usually ~$1500 and is still a quality, bombproof option.
Thank you for info. Watched a review on those earlier today. Along with zeiss, steiner, nf nx8, athlon, arken, bushnell, and I don't even remember how many more at this point. I just want to buy once, cry once of course within that budget limitation but as usual with any spoiled American, i want all that i can get for the $$$
The Mark4HD is a couple of notches above the ones you mentioned as it has the same glass as the Mark5HDs (honestly/arguably the Mk4HD is what the Mk5HD should have been and fixes most of its faults). A Razor Gen2 (and its warranty) is still a staple for a reason.
Whatever you do, don't get tricked into buying an MOA scope (it's an MRAD world), I've seen a couple of newbies get duped, don't be that guy lol.
Good luck!
Lol yea I think mils are my choice. I played with some long range stuff prior to 2015 and then I got hooked on uspsa pistol competitions. I sold most of my long range stuff and shot pistol matches a bunch up until that thing that happened to the world in 2019 and then i just kinda quit shooting altogether. Now the distance bug has caught me again slightly. I think i kinda still remember how to pull a trigger properly but the equipment is lackin.
The best advice I can give you is that if it's a choice between something that will hold its value or something cheaper, get the better piece of kit. This sport isn't cheap by any means, but you don't have to go broke to do it either. If you're somewhat careful and buy quality stuff you can use it for a year or two and then flip it and only lose a couple/few hundred bucks... but if you buy something like an Arken/Bushnell/Athlon, you're pretty much stuck with it or will have to accept taking a bath, since anyone who's looking at that type of thing can probably just afford to buy a new one versus taking a chance on some used one...
Man, for $1500 you have so many choices of seriously awesome glass. 10 years ago different story. Free market is a hell of a thing.
I've been in your boat, it wasn't easy. If weight is no issue, Vortex Razor Gen2. They're great optics even in the 3-15 range. If weight is an issue, Leupold Mk4 or Mk4HD is very hard to beat. I only have the Mk4's, and have looked through the Mk4HD's.... noticeable improvements in resolution.
If you can find used... Nightforce, Steiner T6, Swarovski? Swarovski had the best fucking glass I'd ever looked through at SHOT (controlled conditions, yes, but still looking through all the top tier optics back to back....)
Refers your requirements of max 800-1000y. No big deal, broski. For me, I shoot different competitions and I don't even look at my magnification ring. I just find my target and adjust magnification until it "looks good". After I shoot on that stage I look at my magnification... I've rarely gone above 12x even out to 800+. The only time I go to full power is of I'm trying to spot my own hits on steel.
I've found if you go to 20+ mag at the top of the range of ALMOST ANY scope... a couple/few things happen:
1. The image starts to dim
2. Your eye-box becomes much more precise.
3. Every single movement of yours is magnified that much more.
My point is:
Don't be so hung up on 56mm objective, larger tube, or top-end magnification. My "old" Vtx Viper PST II 3-15x44 on my 7mm RemMag as killed a lot of 1.5-2moa steel from 300-1500y. Oh. And that scop has been on that rifle the last 1000-ish rounds... never lost zero ever.
I'm rambling, but I hope I made things as clear as mud for you
I've been in your boat, it wasn't easy. If weight is no issue, Vortex Razor Gen2. They're great optics even in the 3-15 range. If weight is an issue, Leupold Mk4 or Mk4HD is very hard to beat. I only have the Mk4's, and have looked through the Mk4HD's.... noticeable improvements in resolution.
If you can find used... Nightforce, Steiner T6, Swarovski? Swarovski had the best fucking glass I'd ever looked through at SHOT (controlled conditions, yes, but still looking through all the top tier optics back to back....)
Refers your requirements of max 800-1000y. No big deal, broski. For me, I shoot different competitions and I don't even look at my magnification ring. I just find my target and adjust magnification until it "looks good". After I shoot on that stage I look at my magnification... I've rarely gone above 12x even out to 800+. The only time I go to full power is of I'm trying to spot my own hits on steel.
I've found if you go to 20+ mag at the top of the range of ALMOST ANY scope... a couple/few things happen:
1. The image starts to dim
2. Your eye-box becomes much more precise.
3. Every single movement of yours is magnified that much more.
My point is:
Don't be so hung up on 56mm objective, larger tube, or top-end magnification. My "old" Vtx Viper PST II 3-15x44 on my 7mm RemMag as killed a lot of 1.5-2moa steel from 300-1500y. Oh. And that scop has been on that rifle the last 1000-ish rounds... never lost zero ever.
I'm rambling, but I hope I made things as clear as mud for you
I have to agree with what's been said. I just got a Mark 4HD with the PR3 reticle and it definitely punches above its weight class.
I have had many of the top tier scops, S&B, Zeiss, Steiner, Nightforce, but the only scope that I haven't traded or sold is my Raz Gen 2 I don't have enough time behind my new Mark 4HD to say I like it better than my Raz Gen 2, but it's a close race so far. IMO to get a better scope than either of them you would have to spend 2.5K plus.
I have had many of the top tier scops, S&B, Zeiss, Steiner, Nightforce, but the only scope that I haven't traded or sold is my Raz Gen 2 I don't have enough time behind my new Mark 4HD to say I like it better than my Raz Gen 2, but it's a close race so far. IMO to get a better scope than either of them you would have to spend 2.5K plus.
Absolutely clear as mudMan, for $1500 you have so many choices of seriously awesome glass. 10 years ago different story. Free market is a hell of a thing.
I've been in your boat, it wasn't easy. If weight is no issue, Vortex Razor Gen2. They're great optics even in the 3-15 range. If weight is an issue, Leupold Mk4 or Mk4HD is very hard to beat. I only have the Mk4's, and have looked through the Mk4HD's.... noticeable improvements in resolution.
If you can find used... Nightforce, Steiner T6, Swarovski? Swarovski had the best fucking glass I'd ever looked through at SHOT (controlled conditions, yes, but still looking through all the top tier optics back to back....)
Refers your requirements of max 800-1000y. No big deal, broski. For me, I shoot different competitions and I don't even look at my magnification ring. I just find my target and adjust magnification until it "looks good". After I shoot on that stage I look at my magnification... I've rarely gone above 12x even out to 800+. The only time I go to full power is of I'm trying to spot my own hits on steel.
I've found if you go to 20+ mag at the top of the range of ALMOST ANY scope... a couple/few things happen:
1. The image starts to dim
2. Your eye-box becomes much more precise.
3. Every single movement of yours is magnified that much more.
My point is:
Don't be so hung up on 56mm objective, larger tube, or top-end magnification. My "old" Vtx Viper PST II 3-15x44 on my 7mm RemMag as killed a lot of 1.5-2moa steel from 300-1500y. Oh. And that scop has been on that rifle the last 1000-ish rounds... never lost zero ever.
I'm rambling, but I hope I made things as clear as mud for you
. The only leupold I've ever owned is a delta point pro and it's been pretty good once i got through the slight battery issue that some of them had but there seems to be quite a few people who are really bragging on them.
The Tract Toric ELR 4-25x50 is worth a hard look in that price range. It will be less if you are LE/Mil/Vet and contact them.
tractoptics.com
TORIC UHD 4-25X50 34mm MRAD ELR FFP Rifle Scope
This long range rifle scope is specifically designed for the shooter looking to maximize the performance of his cartridge.
tractoptics.com
Best scope for under $1,500 would be these options...
Burris Xtreme Tactical XTR III 5.5-30x56mm 34mm SCR 2 Mil Riflescope 201214
FREE SHIPPING on Burris Xtreme Tactical XTR III 5.5-30x56mm 34mm SCR 2 Mil Riflescope 201214
Vortex Viper HD 5-25x50mm FFP VMR-4 MRAD Riflescope VPR-52502
FREE SHIPPING on Vortex Viper HD 5-25x50mm FFP VMR-4 MRAD Riflescope VPR-52502
You're not missing anything, Leupold is far from the top dog in any category these days. Lots of better options out there than anything with a "L" already on it.Absolutely clear as mud
Mirrors my interests, currently stuck on xtr3, xrs3, and Cronus btr they’re roughly equal in price. I had an old mark 4 that I really liked and I have that old mentality that leupold is a great scope haha. Tempted to jump up to a mark5. I can start my own thread but since we have similar wants, I figured I’d help move this thread along. Thank you for the input.
The biggest one is/was the Mark5HD's windage turret. It's capped (and then non-locking when you uncap it to use it), and its zero indicator line's odd, off-center placement makes it sort of a PITA to use compared to just about anything else. The newer Mark4HD has a button lock turret like the elevation turrets and a normal zero line placement, so it’s much better.
The other weird one was/is the Mark5's elevation turret design, it's wonky in that the first rev goes to 10.5 (not simply 10, like more logical designs including the Mark 4HD), so rimfire guys or people familiar with the metric system have to be more careful lol.
Both the Mark5HDs and the Mark4HDs feature some of the tiniest itty bitty tenth mil indicator lines in the scope world, so an aftermarket turret tape or magnifier is nearly mandatory unless you want to have to constantly second-guess yourself when you dial with anything less than awesome eyesight.
Last edited:
Burris XTR 3 beats MK5 and XRS3 to my eyes. I own a XRS3 and it's every bit as good as a MK5.
Leupold MK4 doesn't compete with the mark 5, and how could it for $800 less? It does fix several of my personal issues that the mk5 had as mentioned by CK1.0.
I avoid Athlon and Arken. I would rather get a vortex at the same money and have a warrenty that I know will be there in 10 years.
Leupold MK4 doesn't compete with the mark 5, and how could it for $800 less? It does fix several of my personal issues that the mk5 had as mentioned by CK1.0.
I avoid Athlon and Arken. I would rather get a vortex at the same money and have a warrenty that I know will be there in 10 years.
Have both the XTRIII and MK5 and it's not close the MK5 is better. With the XTRIII i have a hard time seeing the targets with the sun behind the targets. Also i can adjust the magnification without losing my cheek weld. As far as the elevation turrets the MK5 is much better, my favorite turrets by far. And for the folks getting all upset with turret lash the MK5 has half as much, not that i think it matters much.
Overall i am happy with both but anybody that says the XTRIII is better Overall is obviously biased. Plenty of Leupold hatters on the hide.
Overall i am happy with both but anybody that says the XTRIII is better Overall is obviously biased. Plenty of Leupold hatters on the hide.
I'm not trying to argue because I've never looked through one, but are you talking about the old Mark 4?
The new one (2024 release Mark 4HD) is the same glass and looks just like the Mark5HD (I looked through them both side by side out to 1250 yards and can confirm this is the case, at least with the Mark 4HD 8-32x56 vs the Mark5HD 7-35x56).
It is kind of a head-scratcher though? Lots of guys are still going to probably buy the Mark5HD because that's what all the PRS cool kids run, but the Mark4HD looks the same, is arguably a better design, and is a good chunk cheaper, so it's surely going to cannibalize some Mark5HD sales.
I'm wondering if there's an updated Mark 5 coming in the not-too-distant future..? ...and if Leupold's plan is just to move a bunch of the lower price-point Mark4HDs for a while before they release a newer design..? IDK.
For the money (if one wants to buy new), having shot one, the Mark4HD is a winner if ~$1500 is one's budget (as it's basically an improved Mark5HD with a more ubiquitous 34mm tube).
The new MK4HD has the same glass as the MK5. Its just cheaper to manufacture and has a smaller erector, as well as being 34 instead of 35mm.
With that being said, MK5 glass is nothing special, with some examples being pretty bad. To compare it to a Razor 3, Tangent or ZCO is laughable from glass to turrets to FOV. Its a solid scope but its not comparable to alpha glass.
I heard a rumor about a MK5 gen 2 in development, but who knows. Would not be surprised to see an updated MK5 with better glass and turrets come out at the next shotshow.
I would buy a MK4HD WAY before I bought a MK5. Its a much better value, has better mounting options and will hold its value better long term IMO. The 6-24x52 would be the one to snag for a match/LR gun.
With that being said, MK5 glass is nothing special, with some examples being pretty bad. To compare it to a Razor 3, Tangent or ZCO is laughable from glass to turrets to FOV. Its a solid scope but its not comparable to alpha glass.
I heard a rumor about a MK5 gen 2 in development, but who knows. Would not be surprised to see an updated MK5 with better glass and turrets come out at the next shotshow.
I would buy a MK4HD WAY before I bought a MK5. Its a much better value, has better mounting options and will hold its value better long term IMO. The 6-24x52 would be the one to snag for a match/LR gun.
I agree with most of this, but for the same money I'd go with the 8-32x56 over the 6-24x52, but that's just like my opinion man lol.
TBH, apparently I'm a turret-snob, and I decided I couldn't live with the Leupold's turrets, so I sold mine.
But I may regret it... because IMO the PR-3 reticle is the best reticle out there right now (for my eyes anyway).
Shooting the PR-3 helped me decide to move on from the Razor Gen3 (great glass, but I don't care for the Razor Gen3's EBR-7D reticle, feels cluttered/busy with too many little lines that dazzle/confuse my eyes). I was looking at moving to either a Tangent Theta with JTAC reticle (which is now a nope for me, looked through one, too thin for me) or a ZCO with their MPCT1x reticle, but I think the ZCO is also a nope, as it looks like it might have the same too-many-little-lines thing the Razor G3 has for me, and I don't think its glass is good enough to be worth paying near double what a Razor G3 costs.
So after playing "musical scopes" for a while, and willing to pay whatever it'd cost, I'm back to shooting a Razor Gen2 with a renewed appreciation for its relatively uncluttered, tastefully semi-thick EBR-7C reticle.
I can echo what everyone else here is saying. If I had to buy a new scope with a $1500 budget, it would be a mk4. The PR1 and PR2 reticles are perfect in my opinion. While my G3 razor has better glass and FOV, my MK5's don't hold me back any. If it's going on a rifle that I have to carry any distance, I'm definitely not taking my G3. lol
The XTR3 is another good choice. It has a wide FOV similar to the G3, but the mk4/5 glass is better, and the turrets on the mk4 are better too.
The XTR3 is another good choice. It has a wide FOV similar to the G3, but the mk4/5 glass is better, and the turrets on the mk4 are better too.
I was sold on the Athlon Cronus BTR gen 2. Got it from camerland bundled with sunshade and rings for I think 1400.
I’ve heard really good things about the toric and PST gen2
I’ve heard really good things about the toric and PST gen2
What would make you go with the 6-24? Weight savings, elevation adjustment, or other features?
I am looking to buy one soon but I’m leaning toward the 8-32x but I’m trying to convince myself why the 6-24
Almost twice the elevation, Size, weight, mag range, reticle. Its the best MK4HD IMO. Perfect balance for a gas gun, hunting gun or light PRS scope.
Because only geriatrics and smooth brains run MOA. Its not 1995 anymore.
Its like showing up to a meeting and only speaking Chinese when everyone else speaks English.
So basically what you’re saying is you don’t like it therefore everybody else is an idiot if they use it OK I got you now.
If you aren't smart enough to figure out ( or listen to people telling you why) it's superior in this day and age, then you aren't going to hit shit anyway. I suggest a new hobby something like bird watching or gardening.
I see your point nobody’s ever done any real shooting MOA for the last I don’t know hundred years. I guess that’s why the gun manufacturers always advertised her guns to be less than one minute of an angle or half MOA guarantee. Maybe you should reach out to them and tell them they need to start advertising in mills seeing as how you’re the expert. While you’re at it, you probably should reach out to all the scope manufacturers and tell them how stupid they are too for still building MOA scopes.
Euro Optic has the Burris XTR Pro on sale for $1,499.00. Hard to imagine how you could beat that deal.
link to sale
link to sale
Mrad is more efficient in mental math because it's base 10 system. Mils have been a thing for decades in the military.
MOA, due to its finer nature, usually requires more physical turns of the knobs to achieve the desired setting. If you aren’t setting elevation or windage on the clock in competition, or if you aren’t concerned about getting lost in elevation turret rotations, this may not matter to you.
At some types of competitions, the majority of shooters use MRAD, so if you use MOA communication with other shooters will be a challenge. If you shoot by yourself or don’t care to talk to other shooters at a competition this may not matter to you.
Some types of competitions find MRAD to be too coarse of a system, thus why the majority of shooters in those competitions use MOA.
For some shooters the math is easier with MOA than MRAD. This may or may not be you.
For my purposes, PRS dabbling plus general shooting, MRAD with its easier math and less physical turns of the knobs works well.
-Stan
At some types of competitions, the majority of shooters use MRAD, so if you use MOA communication with other shooters will be a challenge. If you shoot by yourself or don’t care to talk to other shooters at a competition this may not matter to you.
Some types of competitions find MRAD to be too coarse of a system, thus why the majority of shooters in those competitions use MOA.
For some shooters the math is easier with MOA than MRAD. This may or may not be you.
For my purposes, PRS dabbling plus general shooting, MRAD with its easier math and less physical turns of the knobs works well.
-Stan
The difference between 1/4 moa and .1 mil at 1000 yards is literally 1” so being “finer” is literally true but in actual use is not seen.
It’s the BR guys using 1/8 moa adjustments that actually go to it being finer but there are also .05 mil adjustable scopes also.
Math? Lol
It’s the BR guys using 1/8 moa adjustments that actually go to it being finer but there are also .05 mil adjustable scopes also.
Math? Lol
I’ve got both Mil and MOA scopes in my VX5HDs that I have to me the math is easier on MOA when everything’s broken into 100 yard increments I know in inches a minute and that minute has four increments inside of it to me that don’t get much easier. I’ve never been a fan of the metric system so a 10 base system is a little confusing at times.
I will say this at least you guys are a little more open minded than that other guy telling me that I’m an idiot because I don’t use MIL lol that’s why they make Ford, Dodge and Chevy because everybody wants something a little different. What kind of world would this be if we all had to drive Fords and they all break down all the time? Yes, that’s a shot at Ford. 
If you are using inches then you are doing it wrong. No need for any linear in either system.
bought this VX5HD last night. I am not a Burris fan.
Leupold Factory Blemished VX-5HD T-ZL3 Rifle Scope 34mm Tube 4-20x
These units are factory refurbished and may have small cosmetic blemishes but have been inspected and serviced by Leupold. They are guaranteed to...
www.midwayusa.com
I guess you lost me there if I’m gonna shoot 200 yard and my scope is shot in at 100 and my dope sheet says that I’m gonna be a half inch low then I know I need to raise my scope a half inch which is gonna be two clicks on the knob to me that is super simple whereas in mill it would be something different because a Mil is like .3 of an inch. Maybe I just need to take some scope dope classes.
See you are doing a it wrong. Your scope adjusts in moa and your reticle is in moa. You run your data in moa. Not inches. Then you use the reticle to hold whatever your 100 yard zero is to 200 or 400 or 500 etc. No inches. Or dial it in moa. Again no inches. You only make your life harder going back and forth to linear from angular.
Also you don’t have to worry about being at exact ranges. If you needed to make an adjustment of 4.5 moa at 468 yards you just dial or hold it. No inches. If you are off then you use your reticle like a ruler and hold or dial the correction. No inches.
I’d get a used NF NX8 or a Trijicon Tenmile, a good pair of rings and be done with it.
Point me in the direction of a class because I’ve read that book that Kleckner wrote. I’ve read the books that Lowlight has written gosh I’m confused now laughing as I’m talking to my phone to make this reply holy crap anyway how about me a MOA scope from Midway last night and it’s got a very simple reticle in it. That’s where we’re at. Oh my gosh, I’ve opened up Pandora’s box.
I don’t know how I made it through two years of paramedic school and pharmacology and I can’t figure out how to dope a damn scope!Point me in the direction of a class because I’ve read that book that Kleckner wrote. I’ve read the books that Lowlight has written gosh I’m confused now laughing as I’m talking to my phone to make this reply holy crap anyway how about me a MOA scope from Midway last night and it’s got a very simple radical in it. That’s where we’re at. Oh my gosh, I’ve opened up Pandora’s box.
The reticle does not need to be super technical. It has moa marks. Use them. Forget inches.
This is something I used to teach to students when I taught precision rifle and you can almost see the lightbulb go off over their head when they realize how hard they were making their life.
Similar threads
