Rifle Scopes What am I missing mark5hd vs ?

[jtbiv01]

Have been happy with a sightron siii moa-h scope, but have a rifle and habit that deserves better glass.

Have a chance to buy a Leupold mark5hd cch for $1700. Ready to move to a mil scope. What am I not considering? Always willing to buy used/not brand new.

Thanks in advance!

 

[-=boone=-]

Curious if Rydah and Nightforce007 have any actual hands on experience with the MK5. As far as the NF Atacr’s glass? It’s ok.

 

[The_Mechanic]

I bought one Mark 5hd and then sold my Razor to buy another Mark 5hd. I dont think Rydah is giving it a fair shot as there are hundreds of reviews raving about the mark5.

I looked through a nightforce and a Mark5 at the local gun shop and (to my eyes) the Nightforce wasn't as bright or clear.

 

[USMC_JA]

Have been happy with a sightron siii moa-h scope, but have a rifle and habit that deserves better glass.

Have a chance to buy a Leupold mark5hd cch for $1700. Ready to move to a mil scope. What am I not considering? Always willing to buy used/not brand new.

Thanks in advance!

What rifle and what use? Which Mk5?

The NF 4-16 is a very good scope. No doubt about that. But it is also longer and heavier than the Mk5 3.6.

The extremity of the anti-Mk5 comments in this thread make me question whether they have ever used one before. The 3.6 is a fine scope in a very, very tight package. Perfect for a gas gun IMO. It also has exceptional low light performance by most reports. If your needs include hunting, it should be on the short list.

 

[just browsing]

I had 2 Mk5s and shot through countless others. 5-25 is a good bit better than the 3.6-18 but in all cases I was pretty let down for as much hype as I heard.

Agree with the above, scour the used market for better deals on optics.

 

[NewsShooter]

Or the Razor deals that are out there due to the new reticle release. Truthfully I'd take another Athlon Cronus BTR over the leo, glass is just as good and I like either reticle better, shop around.

 

[jtbiv01]

Rifle: 6.5 Creed in a chassis. PRS setup.
Looking at 5-25x with CCH reticle.

Had hands on and don’t care for the reticles with an open center. Liked the TMR (illum) reticle but it seemed really heavy...

 

[USMC_JA]

I had 2 Mk5s and shot through countless others. 5-25 is a good bit better than the 3.6-18 but in all cases I was pretty let down for as much hype as I heard.

Agree with the above, scour the used market for better deals on optics.

Obviously, I cannot argue with your first hand experience. They are what they are.

What offers similar performance to the 3.6 with similar dimensions? There will be compromises when you try to build a compact, high mag scope.

 

[just browsing]

Obviously, I cannot argue with your first hand experience. They are what they are.

What offers similar performance to the 3.6 with similar dimensions? There will be compromises when you try to build a compact, high mag scope.

Personally if I wanted a super short/compact optic, I would look at an EOTech Vudu 5-25 or wait for the new XTR3 3-18. Both are similar dimensions and similar price points. All of the are going to give up something in terms of performance as you mentioned, I just think the Mk5s are overhyped for what they offer.

 

[jtbiv01]

I’m looking for something in the 24x -25x top end range.

 

[Dthomas3523]

Here you go. First search result that comes up: https://www.snipershide.com/shootin...ord-34mm-standard-rings-1750-shipped.6932119/

MK5HD glass is pretty average.
Lots of chromatic aberration.
Resolution really suffers above 10-12 magnification.
The locking elevation turret is garbage. The windage is even worse.
Parallax isn’t that good either.

I’d go a used Nightforce ATACR 4-16 all day everyday over it. They are better in every way except a few oz.

Gonna neee to expand on what you consider “garbage.”

I’m not a mk5 fan, but have owned them. The turrets were well within the expectations of the price point.

 

[Dthomas3523]

I don’t know why people get so upset when people dislike the optical performance of the MK5HD.

I’ve had plenty of time behind the MK6 3-18 and the MK5HD 3.6-18.
I think they are both average scopes performance wise. Size and weight wise, impressive. Maybe with the third generation of this scope they will get it right.

Glass is subjective but I don’t think they have great resolution above x10 and too much chromatic aberration for the price point.
Both had M5C2 turrets which I dislike very much. Both had a full .1 mil of slop when the elevation turret was locked and neither matched up markings wise when using them (even when I re-installed the turrets correctly) you could get lost in between clicks. Are you on 3.4 or 3.3 who knows. Not tactile and not deliberate clicks. (I’ve used Burris XTRII turrets that we’re more deliberate. Mushy but deliberate, repeatable and marking lined up perfect).

You can’t compare nightforce turrets to leupold. They are in a totally different league and I don’t believe that’s subjective.

Also the reticles are dated.

A lot of people here seem to like the MK5HD and that’s great but just because you like something doesn’t make it better than it is.

But all of this is irrelevant because the OP is looking at the 5-25 and I have no experience with that one.

Please expand on what you think separates the turrets.

I’m not saying you’re wrong, but this far you’ve just made a bunch of opinionated statements.

Did you perform a tracking test on a mk5 and found it didn’t track as true as the NF?

Did you perform a tension test and find the NF turrets took more or less force to move them?

Thus far your posts smell of NF fanboism. NF is a great optic, but you haven’t produced anything to back up your claims that the mk5 is “garbage.”

 

[patriot07]

At $1700, I think the argument is 100% based on weight and mag range. Lower weight and lower mag range and I’d with with ATACR 4-16. If you want more mag and are ok with the weight, go Razor 4.5-27.

I wouldn’t personally even consider the MK5HD along with those. But I’ve never owned one - only looked through one at the range. Wasn’t that impressed personally.

 

[-=boone=-]

I don’t know why people get so upset when people dislike the optical performance of the MK5HD.

I’ve had plenty of time behind the MK6 3-18 and the MK5HD 3.6-18.
I think they are both average scopes performance wise. Size and weight wise, impressive. Maybe with the third generation of this scope they will get it right.

Glass is subjective but I don’t think they have great resolution above x10 and too much chromatic aberration for the price point.
Both had M5C2 turrets which I dislike very much. Both had a full .1 mil of slop when the elevation turret was locked and neither matched up markings wise when using them (even when I re-installed the turrets correctly) you could get lost in between clicks. Are you on 3.4 or 3.3 who knows. Not tactile and not deliberate clicks. (I’ve used Burris XTRII turrets that we’re more deliberate. Mushy but deliberate, repeatable and marking lined up perfect).

You can’t compare nightforce turrets to leupold. They are in a totally different league and I don’t believe that’s subjective.

Also the reticles are dated.

A lot of people here seem to like the MK5HD and that’s great but just because you like something doesn’t make it better than it is.

But all of this is irrelevant because the OP is looking at the 5-25 and I have no experience with that one.

I don’t have a problem with people posting their opinions, as long as that opinion is backed up by data. To many parrots on here with zero experience regurgitating information that fits their bias is annoying as fuck.
I can tell you like NF, I do as well. I will be honest about NF. Their price has never matched their glass performance. It’s good, not great. I like NF because when I buy them I can pretty much guarantee they’re going to perform and be mechanically solid. They are IMO the “AK” of the optics world. Now as far as reticle choice, until recently with the addition of the Mil-C and PRS reticle NF was the equivalent of a MK4. They failed to innovate.
I do not own a MK5, I plan on doing so in the very short future. I buy one out of the PX and form my own opinions about it. I dare say the posts by actual buyers/users has been more positive than negative on this board.

Optics and rifles are tools. You shouldn’t have any emotional investment in any brand.

 

[jbell]

I have owned and extensively shot both of the Mk5's, 4-16 & 5-25 ATACR, 4.5-27 Gen II Razor just to name a few scopes in this price point and many well above this price point. All of the scopes I mentioned tracked 100%, all were very repeatable, all were plenty serviceable optically, over thousands of rounds none had any failures, all have usable reticles (some I like better than others, but they all work). I have never missed a target due to any of these scopes, not even once. As far as I can tell the only real difference is price, size, and weight. That is why I still have 2 MK5 scopes and some PMII's, all the Vortex and NF are gone. I feel the PMII is worth the price and weight penalty, but I could not honestly say the NF and especially the Gen II Razor is worth the difference.

 

[pitdog85]

Have been happy with a sightron siii moa-h scope, but have a rifle and habit that deserves better glass.

Have a chance to buy a Leupold mark5hd cch for $1700. Ready to move to a mil scope. What am I not considering? Always willing to buy used/not brand new.

Thanks in advance!

If the f class and bench rest crew are right you may have to spend significantly more money than your siii to get a 5% improvement over the sightron. It is widely said that the sightron is very hard to beat dollar for dollar.

 

[cleric]

The mk5 isn’t the end all be all but it’s a good scope imo. It is really designed to be a good blend of features.

I think the brownell optic has a chance to make it less relevant. If the optical quality get close to the performance of the mk5 but at 60% the price there is a serious price to value debate.

When elevating scopes you have to break down features. I wont say a scope is garbage if I don’t like the turret. The mark 5 turret is great for me. I prefer the way it locks over some others but my use/preference is different.

Optical evaluations are very hard to make. If you are a target shooter that shoots under intense sun, than it could be very different as compared to a hunter focusing on dusk or dawn. My advice is to get a particular scope and test it in your conditions. Also there is scope to scope variation.

 

[jtbiv01]

Thank you for all of the replies. I’m learning from each of them. Love my Siii, but the 8-32 is a bit bulky.

 

[Duffman1975]

Here you go. First search result that comes up: https://www.snipershide.com/shootin...ord-34mm-standard-rings-1750-shipped.6932119/

MK5HD glass is pretty average.
Lots of chromatic aberration.
Resolution really suffers above 10-12 magnification.
The locking elevation turret is garbage. The windage is even worse.
Parallax isn’t that good either.

I’d go a used Nightforce ATACR 4-16 all day everyday over it. They are better in every way except a few oz.

Competely disagree, and i will be willing to bet you don't own one.

 

[Yoteski]

Competely disagree, and i will be willing to bet you don't own one.

I concur. I have had a 5-25 mk5 and a 5-25 ATACR side by side, and to my eye, the Mk5 glass was better. I also thought the Mk5 turrets were very well thought out and provided positive clicks with a good zero stop. This isn't a knock on the ATACR at all because I believe it's the gold standard when talking tracking and toughness.

 

[jtbiv01]

Anyone with Leupold CCH reticle experience? I like the Illum tmr, but would prefer the non-illum reticle. If it doesn’t have the open center...

 

[The_Mechanic]

Anyone with Leupold CCH reticle experience? I like the Illum tmr, but would prefer the non-illum reticle. If it doesn’t have the open center...

I have the H59 and absolutely love it but ordered the CCH for my 308 gas gun.

 

[Yoteski]

Anyone with Leupold CCH reticle experience? I like the Illum tmr, but would prefer the non-illum reticle. If it doesn’t have the open center...

I have one. It's a decent reticle, a little too busy for my taste really, but it's a good compromise to a Horus reticle. I really wish leupold would come out with a reticle similar to the NF Mil-C. Essentially the TMR with .2 sub tensions.

 

[jtbiv01]

Yes, seems a little busier than the Moa-H I am running now, but I’m not sure i’d like the heavy tmr...

 

[reich10]

One thing to consider as well when spending that kind of coin on an optic is the warranty. Especially if you are using it in competition. Vortex, Steiner, Burris, Sig all repair or replace if you bang it up against a barricade and affect the mechanics. I like leupold and NF but their warranties, just as far as the verbiage goes, doesn’t cover that. Just a thought that I have started to consider as I am looking for a new optic.

 

[jbell]

Anyone with Leupold CCH reticle experience? I like the Illum tmr, but would prefer the non-illum reticle. If it doesn’t have the open center...

I have the CCH in both my 5-25 and the 3-18. I have shot it on a rimfire from 50 yards to 230 yards and on a centerfire from 100 yards to 1100 yards, so I have a little experience with it. I truly mean a little as I have only owned the scopes for 4-5 months maybe a little more and I don't shoot that much in the winter. So with that disclaimer being said, I do like the reticle well enough. It is not overly complicated, the open center w/ a dot is plenty fine for precise aiming. The tree portion is plenty useable down to around 6-8 power (depending on the conditions, target, and background), below that it is honestly useless. With the given choices from Leupold the CCH is the best all around IMO. I do prefer a more simple non tree mil based retile because I dial elevation and hold wind 99% of the time, so for me the tree basically just clutters the FOV. I shoot by myself often so being able to see impacts is more important to me than having hold off points of a tree.

 

[Duffman1975]

One thing to consider as well when spending that kind of coin on an optic is the warranty. Especially if you are using it in competition. Vortex, Steiner, Burris, Sig all repair or replace if you bang it up against a barricade and affect the mechanics. I like leupold and NF but their warranties, just as far as the verbiage goes, doesn’t cover that. Just a thought that I have started to consider as I am looking for a new optic.

That is simply false. Both Leupold and Nightforce guarantee their products mechanically.


Leupold Full Lifetime Guarantee

If your Leupold riflescope, binocular, or spotting scope doesn’t perform, we will repair or replace it for free - whether you're the original owner or not. You don’t need proof of ownership or a warranty card, and there’s no time limit. We do this because we believe in superior quality and craftsmanship, and we’re confident your Leupold won’t let you down.

Lifetime Guarantee

We’ve been making world-class optics that bear our family name for over 100 years. We honor that legacy every day as we design, machine and assemble…

www.leupold.com

All Nightforce riflescopes are covered by a transferable Limited Lifetime Warranty, which says in simple words, if we did something wrong, we'll fix it. Some manufacturers will tempt you with warranties that will replace your riflescope for any reason. ... A warranty is no substitute for inherent quality.

https://nightforceoptics.com/sites/default/files/NightforceCatalogUSA_2016_V1.pdf

 

[Jonnyb0381]

Here you go. First search result that comes up: https://www.snipershide.com/shootin...ord-34mm-standard-rings-1750-shipped.6932119/

MK5HD glass is pretty average.
Lots of chromatic aberration.
Resolution really suffers above 10-12 magnification.
The locking elevation turret is garbage. The windage is even worse.
Parallax isn’t that good either.

I’d go a used Nightforce ATACR 4-16 all day everyday over it. They are better in every way except a few oz.

You sound like a NF fan boy
Pretty much every comment I've seen about the Mark 5 has been good.

Here you go. First search result that comes up: https://www.snipershide.com/shootin...ord-34mm-standard-rings-1750-shipped.6932119/

MK5HD glass is pretty average.
Lots of chromatic aberration.
Resolution really suffers above 10-12 magnification.
The locking elevation turret is garbage. The windage is even worse.
Parallax isn’t that good either.

I’d go a used Nightforce ATACR 4-16 all day everyday over it. They are better in every way except a few oz.

You sound like a NF fan boy.
Pretty much every comment I've read about the Mark 5 has been good.
I dont expect every shooter to like everything about it but to dislike mostly everything about it, Im surprised to see.

 

[-=boone=-]

I’ve never had a problem out of Leupolds CS. In fact they’ve always been extremely generous. I’ve received new turrets to replace beat up ones at no cost to me. They shipped me new QD rings for free when my son decided to take them apart and lose the spring. I convinced them to turn my MK4 2.5-8 to MIL/MIL which to my knowledge was the first ever done. Changing another MK 4 over to M5 that even came with a spare set of turrets.

 

[reich10]

That is simply false. Both Leupold and Nightforce guarantee their products mechanically.


Leupold Full Lifetime Guarantee

If your Leupold riflescope, binocular, or spotting scope doesn’t perform, we will repair or replace it for free - whether you're the original owner or not. You don’t need proof of ownership or a warranty card, and there’s no time limit. We do this because we believe in superior quality and craftsmanship, and we’re confident your Leupold won’t let you down.

Lifetime Guarantee

We’ve been making world-class optics that bear our family name for over 100 years. We honor that legacy every day as we design, machine and assemble…

www.leupold.com

All Nightforce riflescopes are covered by a transferable Limited Lifetime Warranty, which says in simple words, if we did something wrong, we'll fix it. Some manufacturers will tempt you with warranties that will replace your riflescope for any reason. ... A warranty is no substitute for inherent quality.

https://nightforceoptics.com/sites/default/files/NightforceCatalogUSA_2016_V1.pdf

I am not saying they don’t have Good customer service as I have never dealt with them but below is a quote from leupolds warranty page and it explicitly says it doesn’t cover accidental damage.

“Warranty Exclusions
These warranties do not apply if the product has been modified, misused or has been damaged by accident, abuse, or misapplication. To ensure this doesn’t happen to you, contact Leupold Product Service before having any work or repairs done to your Leupold optics.”

I like leupold and NF and think they make badass products, but vortex and the like have really good warranties for guys who use the crap out of their stuff. Again I’m not 100% on NF and it sounds like they will hook you up but I couldn’t find if accidental damage was covered.

Getting back on track to the OP I will just say that given my little experience with the Mark 5 I think it’s a pretty slick scope but If money is a consideration and you are purchasing a scope you will be runnin and gunnin with consider what might happen if you accidentally bust they damn thing. That’s what you “might” be missing.

 

[lte82]

Ive personally owned a MK5 since they hit the market, along with a handful of other top end scopes, and while I really like the elevation turret and believe the glass is good quality, it (the 5-25) does not perform as well optically as the the Atacr, PMii, Tangent, Minox ZP5, etc. I would put it somewhere just below the Bushnell XRS2 / Vortex Razor 2, but solidly above the Burris XTR2 / Bushnell HDMR2 / PST 2 level. Lack of CA control and resolution is what holds it back. The eye box, field of view, and depth of field is not as forgiving as some of the high end scopes either, though not bad by any means.

But it does offer a really light weight package and a very fast elevation turret, and the optics are plenty good for shooting steel & watching trace. It's a solid option, but it would be misleading to call it an equal to an Atacr, PMii, etc.

 

[Jonnyb0381]

Ive personally owned a MK5 since they hit the market, along with a handful of other top end scopes, and while I really like the elevation turret and believe the glass is good quality, it (the 5-25) does not perform as well optically as the the Atacr, PMii, Tangent, Minox ZP5, etc. I would put it somewhere just below the Bushnell XRS2 / Vortex Razor 2, but solidly above the Burris XTR2 / Bushnell HDMR2 / PST 2 level. Lack of CA control and resolution is what holds it back. The eye box, field of view, and depth of field is not as forgiving as some of the high end scopes either, though not bad by any means.

But it does offer a really light weight package and a very fast elevation turret, and the optics are plenty good for shooting steel & watching trace. It's a solid option, but it would be misleading to call it an equal to an Atacr, PMii, etc.

Below the Razor G 2?
Really? I'm curious as to why?

 

[lte82]

Below the Razor G 2?
Really? I'm curious as to why?

The Razor 2 has a bit better eye box, field of view, resolution, and CA control. They are close enough that even side by side you have to look for small details to really pick it apart, but it's one of those "once you see it you can't unsee it" sort of things. It's the most apparent on bright days with high contrast targets at distance.

I'll also add, I'm not brand loyal. I ran 4 razor 2's last year, and still have an XRS2, a couple HDMR2's, a handful of Schmidts, Tangent, NF, March, etc. I'm an 'ok' shooter that doesn't really practice, barely squeaked into the finale, and I don't think any of the scopes I've mentioned hold me back nearly as much as my lack of practice does. I think our scope discussions go WAY too deep most of the time, but that's almost what it takes to explain why one scope is "better" than another. I think I'd call it splitting hairs.

 

[Jonnyb0381]

The Razor 2 has a bit better eye box, field of view, resolution, and CA control. They are close enough that even side by side you have to look for small details to really pick it apart, but it's one of those "once you see it you can't unsee it" sort of things. It's the most apparent on bright days with high contrast targets at distance.

Gotcha, at least you have looked through them both side by side. I think glass is a really subjective subject and shooters eyes are different. On a FB group it seemed like people were torn 1/2 liked the Razor better and half like the Mark 5 better. I just bought the Mark 5 and I plan on eventually putting the Razor on my other rifle. Both are fine optics in my opinion.

 

[lte82]

Gotcha, at least you have looked through them both side by side. I think glass is a really subjective subject and shooters eyes are different. On a FB group it seemed like people were torn 1/2 liked the Razor better and half like the Mark 5 better. I just bought the Mark 5 and I plan on eventually putting the Razor on my other rifle. Both are fine optics in my opinion.

Doesn't surprise me at all. They are very close performance wise.

 

[jtbiv01]

Well, I found a buyer for my Siii 8-32x (local) and pulled the trigger on a 5-25 Mark5. Looking forward to a side by side. If/When the new scope makes it in.