- Thread starter DrDeath
- Start date
Yes, it was just released at Shot Show 2023. It is on their website, I'm guessing you were looking at the VX5 HD 2-10.
Whether its the best optic of the year? Well its hard to say but considering the year is only just a month old its probably premature to call it that.
Paid advertising for $200 please, Alex.
It's right here
Mark 5HD Rifle Scope | Leupold
Leupold's Mark 5HD riflescope delivers superior edge-to-edge clarity and extreme low-light performance, while the versatility of its multiple reticle options will give you an advantage at the range or in the field. With three revolutions of elevation adjustment, the Mark 5HD scope was built to...
www.leupold.com 
Incorrect kind sir.
Already noted in the thread dedicated to the mk5 2-10 by a handsome, brilliant, and delightful fellow that it is in fact, Gayer than AIDS.
What 2-12 are you thinking of?
The only scope that compares to this is the Athlon Helos 2-12x42, this Mark 5 should be a far better scope, and is in a totally different price bracket.
The reason the reviewer is making a big deal about it is due to it being the only high end FFP MVPO on the market.
for $2k I'd rather buy a nightforce NX8 2.5-20 any day. same price, better feature set, better reticle.
if it wasn't competing on price with the NF I could maybe see some arguments.
Dont get me wrong, there are lots of things wrong with the Leupold but as far as FFP MVPOs this new scope is the only game in town.
Check out the tread for it where the pros and cons have been thoroughly discussed.
The high price, reticle, and arguably to much weight do make your argument more valid than it ought to be.
The last several years I’ve seen a lot of people running the MK5HD with good things to say, so that shows there may be some people trying to make a difference at Leupold, at least w/ regard to correcting their tracking woes of days past.
However, I have a really hard time swallowing the fact that they’re S-T-I-L-L trying to push the TMR as the main reticle in several of their optics. It was a decent reticle 15 years ago, compared to a standard mildot. But it’s woefully aged by now, this coming from a guy who loves the MIL-GAP and G2/G3 reticles…
Add in the weight, the weird 10.5mil turrets, and the unbelievably out of touch price for what you’re getting (especially that $500 premium for illumination they still charge), and I don’t see this getting the traction if may have otherwise obtained. I’d love a lightweight 2-10x, but this ain’t it, IMO.
However, I have a really hard time swallowing the fact that they’re S-T-I-L-L trying to push the TMR as the main reticle in several of their optics. It was a decent reticle 15 years ago, compared to a standard mildot. But it’s woefully aged by now, this coming from a guy who loves the MIL-GAP and G2/G3 reticles…
Add in the weight, the weird 10.5mil turrets, and the unbelievably out of touch price for what you’re getting (especially that $500 premium for illumination they still charge), and I don’t see this getting the traction if may have otherwise obtained. I’d love a lightweight 2-10x, but this ain’t it, IMO.
In fairness to the design intent of the Leupold 2-10 vs. the NF NX8 2.5-20 the Leupold should be considerably more forgiving in the eyebox, DOF and parallax department and for some, those features are preferred over the convenience of having the extra magnification, especially for SPR purposes where it's not necessarily needed. I agree that Leupold could have marketed this better and should have offered this with a reticle designed for MPVO purpose (they've hinted something is coming but what and when is the big question).
Too bad trijicon can't sell a Japanese made 2-10 FFP scope with a mil reticle, like, in their Credo line..
That would be the cats ass for around 1000 bucks, maybe less
I would put the Trijicon Credo 2-10 in the mix as well, but the Credo is also hindered by a poorly designed reticle (poorly designed for MPVO work which needs a reticle similar to an LPVO that is usable both at low magnification and at high magnification).
I guess it depends on the definition of "high end", I do not consider the Leupold Mark 5HD lineup to be "high end", I would rank them as "mid market" and somewhat overpriced mid market especially when you weigh in the upcharge for illumination. Mark 5HD glass is challenged by the likes of Burris XTR III which is considerably cheaper, Bushnells ET line (also cheaper), Nightforce NX8 which is in the same ballpark and the new Steiner T6Xi and Burris XTR Pro, just to name a few. Is the Mark 5 on the same level as NF ATACR, I just don't see it, maybe one could argue the merits of the 3.6-18x44 compared to the ATACR 4-16x42, but I don't think anyone would say the Mark 5 7-35 competes at the same level as the ATACR 7-35.
Leupold is an enigma and I think an example of when a company thinks their name will carry them farther than the quality of their product and I'm not sure how much longer that will be sustainable for Leupold. If we did a poll of a bunch of Leupold Mark 5 users it would be interesting to hear what drove their decision: was it a) because they have better features than the competition, b) they have the best glass in the price range, c) they offer the best reticles or d) the name Leupold is printed on the side. If they are being honest, I'd venture to say option "d" has more weight than anything else, but speaking of weight, I think that is the biggest driver behind the Mark 5, if someone's primary goal is to save weight with a scope there are few that come close to the Mark 5 when ounces matter. Even the new 2-10x30 at 24oz, yes, I would have much preferred this scope weigh less, but the Credo 2-10x36 is the only FFP lighter option at 23oz but the Credo is 2 inches longer so if you're looking for "short" the Leupold definitely has the advantage and the Athlon Helos 2-12x42 is 1.5 oz heavier which given the much larger objective makes sense.
You coined the term "doing a Leupold" in a previous thread and I think this is yet another example of that, I also agree that calling this the "best optic of the year" is a bit premature and tells me that TFB is more about advertising dollars than it is about bringing good honest information. That being said, the fact that Leupold is making an attempt at a $2k MPVO is good news as others are sure (hopefully) to follow. Years ago I encouraged a push for more Ultra Shorts and in 2018 many companies delivered, for the past couple years I've been advocating for MPVO scopes that bridge the gap between LPVO and mid mag long range scopes (3-15ish) and it's been fairly quiet so far, but maybe 2024 will be the year of the MPVO with other companies announcing a scope that fills this market niche.
But if those other companies are listening: you have to invest in a workable FFP reticle design, something that works at the low end for CQ (and has daylight bright illumination) and also works at the high end for long range precision.
I do 100% think they've Leupolded this scope (I'm quite pleased how far that term has traveled).
I'm not an avid TFB follower but the guy who made that claim (Hoplite) has been hanging out for a decent MVPO and compared to the competition I guess this is the holy grail of SPR scopes.
As compared to most other MVPO options I do think this is most high end (not high end as compared to TT ZCO etc) and will be the best option (other than the March 1.5-15), which says a lot about the options in this market as the Mark 5 is far from perfect.
I guess I like pushing back at the critism (despite being highly critical myself) as I'd like to know what people actually want in their dream MVPO scope. I'm becoming more and more convinced that this market isn't going to take off as everyone wants something completely different or wants something that cannot be done for the price point.
I liked their older MR/T line with the m2 and m3 knobs. Still have a 3-9 with short eye relief on one of my ARs.
The SWFA 3-9 was one of the first reasonably priced ones that actually worked. The Vortex 2.5-10x32mm was another. The nightforce 2.5-10x24 and 32 were both really neat.
Probably a good start for a new thread, though I think the ZCO 2-16 thread that was started a couple years ago provides most of this information.
I think therein lies the dilemma that most manufacturers face - how to make a scope that appeals to enough of the market to justify ROI. Do you make a 2-10, a 2-12 a 1.5-12 a 1.5-15 and so forth, then do you give it a 30mm objective, a 36mm, a 42mm? Do you make it short, long or in between? Do you make it heavy or light? What reticle do you put in it?
Leica should make a FFP version of their magnus line, oh and better turrets. I had the chance to get behind a 1.8-12 with 4a reticle, the optical performance is flawless.
Hop generally does pretty honest review, at least as honest as guntuber can. He has a personal channel called hoplofheil where he does NV review and stuff. I just don't see there is a lot going on in the mid range "tactical" MPVO market. I would want something FFP, locked turret, lowend 1.5-2.5, highend 10-20 with a 50mm plus objective and reasonable eyebox. March 1.5-15 is the closest so far but they don't have the best track record when it comes to eyebox. With short body and 10x zoom ratio I am a bit doubtful they will excel this time. Leica Magnus is perfect in terms of optical performance but the reticle is no good for my purpose. Probably will end up going for the 3-12, 3-15 or 3-18 route.
March FFP scopes have never been about forgiveness when it comes to eyebox, parallax and DOF (at least not until the 4.5-28), March likes to push the limits on erector and size of scope. There is give and take to every design. I am with you in thinking the 1.5-15 is not going to be the most forgiving scope, it is really short and 10x erector, that is not a combo that will lend itself to being the most forgiving design so I am trying to set my expectations accordingly. If I want extremely forgiving the new Leupold Mark 5 2-10x30 is likely to be just that, but I won’t touch it until they have a usable reticle. If Credo had a reticle that worked at 2x I’d give it serious consideration.
I’d say this is the key right here.
An interesting point is the new Mark 5 2-10 weighs the same as an LRHS 3-12, which plenty of people (myself included) use as an example of what they’d like to see in an MPVO. That said, it still feels like Leupold missed the mark in terms of weight, price, and reticle. Fix any 2 of the 3 and I’d be in for a hunting scope. As it sits, pass.
put push/pull locking turrets, zoom detents and a more forgiving eyebox on the 2.5-200 NX8 and it's pretty close to perfect imo
Im not saying you are wrong but 2.5-20 isn't what many would consider a MVPO, certainly not comparable to the Mark 5hd. Most people are (somewhat rightly) batching about the 24oz weight, so the NX8 at 28.3oz isn't really a contender here.
Curious to know what benefit you see in zoom detents? I'm guessing they'd be for a SFP scope?
either SFP or FFP, mostly so that you know where you are on the magnification dial without having to look. More benefits certainly for an SFP, but I can see it for both. As commented in another thread I made a sort of kind of one for my 1-10 SFP and it's proven very useful.
with the top end of SFP and FFP LVPOs now hitting 10 power, I think a "between 2-3x to 12-20" is a good definition of an MPVO. being in the medium range of optical magnification. the new M5HD might be a good example of a subcategory I would call "lightweight MPVO"
There is already dozens of scopes in that magnification range.
3-15/3-18 scopes basically killed of lower power tactical scopes ( up to 12x) and created this vacuum we are currently discussing.
I can't help but think Leupold built this scope for a potential Government contract as trying to please the general market outside of a few niche groups is looking to be mostly impossible.
Ah yes the one market that wouldn’t care about 35mm tube.
Same weight but LRHS has much larger objective. Leupold Mark 5 2-10x30 really more for the clipon crowd vs the crossover hunting crowd; 30mm doesn’t cut it in low light unless you have help.
You don’t think the improved glass/coatings here can mostly make up for it? I feel like the NXS 2.5-10x32 was pretty well liked amongst hunters.
Depends on the situation but for pure low light performance objective size/exit pupil is king, yes coatings and glass can make a difference but all things being equal and a focus on low light performance I’ll take the larger objective. Now, whether or not it’s needed for someone’s particular type of shooting is up for debate.
