I might have been mistaken if they're not showing 35s they probably don't have em. A friend just mentioned that there was a sell going on.
Rifle Scopes So, what about Leupold Mark 5 ?
- Thread starter longshot2000
- Start date
I might have been mistaken if they're not showing 35s they probably don't have em. A friend just mentioned that there was a sell going on.
Mark 5 was first?
Yes.
This is nice but I like the Mk 4's for basic durability, The standard Military Gear has served us well over the years, I really want a 4-14x44/50 FFP but over here I can't find one So I will try and find the Bushnell Dark Earth model they bought out a couple of years ago, Not the new one.
John.
John.
Marketers are watching all of this. With all of the comments and videos comparing clicks, they know the way to sell a scope is to make the clicks louder. Nothing says louder clicks equate to any other desirable quality.
First time posting here, but a long time lurker especially in this subforum. Like to see the varying opinions on scopes and glass.
I just got in my Mark 5HD 3.6-18. I see this scope as a direct competitor to the ATACR F1 4-16 (which I also own). I bought the Mark 5 to go on my Fierce CT Edge 6.5 Creedmoor. I was looking for a lightweight, long-range hunting scope that I could rapidly dial to range, but wouldn't have to worry about a turret cap or getting bumped off zero. Thanks to the Fierce's delay in arrival, the ATACR F1 found a home on my PWS MK220 (also in 6.5CM). The Mark 5HD looked like a great fit for the Fierce so here I am.
Without mounting and tracking test (which I'll leave to much more qualified people), initial impressions of the Mark 5HD are pretty positive. I like the turrets, but not as much as the Nightforce. Both have positive and audible clicks, but the Nightforce clicks feel more "ball-bearing" driven while the Leupold's feel more like a stiff flipper on a prize wheel (poor analog, but best way I can describe). They have similar amounts of play in my opinion. The Leupold has a couple different indicators to denote what rotation you're on while the ATACR turret rises on additional turns. My Mark 5 elevation turrent is CCW right. I do not like the zero indicator on the windage turret, because it's hard to see exactly what mark it's pointing back to, but again, most will set it and forget it using the subtensions for wind holds. I much prefer the Leupold eyepiece and offset power adjustment to the ATACR's entire eyepiece rotating. Parallax setting is much smoother on the ATACR than the Mark 5HD.
Overall, the ATACR F1 4-16 is the better scope, but it's a lot closer than I expected. Also, I'm in the Leupold TMR (#173296) for $1500, brand new, shrink-wrapped. I could never justify the upcharge for Leupold's illumination, but if you consider my cost of entry for the Leupold it DEFINITELY doesn't feel like $950 less scope than the ATACR (C542 and C552). That makes me a happy customer.
I just got in my Mark 5HD 3.6-18. I see this scope as a direct competitor to the ATACR F1 4-16 (which I also own). I bought the Mark 5 to go on my Fierce CT Edge 6.5 Creedmoor. I was looking for a lightweight, long-range hunting scope that I could rapidly dial to range, but wouldn't have to worry about a turret cap or getting bumped off zero. Thanks to the Fierce's delay in arrival, the ATACR F1 found a home on my PWS MK220 (also in 6.5CM). The Mark 5HD looked like a great fit for the Fierce so here I am.
Without mounting and tracking test (which I'll leave to much more qualified people), initial impressions of the Mark 5HD are pretty positive. I like the turrets, but not as much as the Nightforce. Both have positive and audible clicks, but the Nightforce clicks feel more "ball-bearing" driven while the Leupold's feel more like a stiff flipper on a prize wheel (poor analog, but best way I can describe). They have similar amounts of play in my opinion. The Leupold has a couple different indicators to denote what rotation you're on while the ATACR turret rises on additional turns. My Mark 5 elevation turrent is CCW right. I do not like the zero indicator on the windage turret, because it's hard to see exactly what mark it's pointing back to, but again, most will set it and forget it using the subtensions for wind holds. I much prefer the Leupold eyepiece and offset power adjustment to the ATACR's entire eyepiece rotating. Parallax setting is much smoother on the ATACR than the Mark 5HD.
Overall, the ATACR F1 4-16 is the better scope, but it's a lot closer than I expected. Also, I'm in the Leupold TMR (#173296) for $1500, brand new, shrink-wrapped. I could never justify the upcharge for Leupold's illumination, but if you consider my cost of entry for the Leupold it DEFINITELY doesn't feel like $950 less scope than the ATACR (C542 and C552). That makes me a happy customer.
I like what you have to say here kdub, this is what I was hoping for from the Leupold, that it would provide a viable alternative to the ATACR F1 4-16 if you do not require illumination. I am not as particular as some with turret clicks (I don't get my kicks from fancy clicks
) but want to know they are distinct enough for me to figure out that I clicked without having to look up at the turret. The two biggest questions with the Mark 5 3.6-18x44 are: does it track and how does the glass compare. Since you have both the ATACR F1 and the Mark 5 I would be curious to hear your thoughts as to how both perform in low light at say 12x or so, this is where I find some scopes that do great in daytime light have really struggled and others have really shined.
That’s my point of posting. It’s a good optic for the coin (pending it tracks). But it is not in the same league as the top tier optics.
Audible clicks mean nothing if they are not consistent, repetitive and true. Furthermore, knowing the quality of components, tight tolerances and assembly methods are far more important then “tactical clicks”. I don’t really care for turrets that have any excessive movement in them. Adjustments start there and if “slop” is observed there what other areas internally maybe on the loose side? Maybe none, but the system should give the end user total confidence, unfortunately my standards are much higher (kahles,SB, NF, premier). I’m a snob when it comes to glass. Should fit and function like a Rolex.
Last edited:
So, after reading the few hands on experiences, I still want to make sure the consensus from the owners here: CA seems to be handled well (on par for $1800-2500 scopes), optically it's good to very good (depending on whose eyeballs) and turrets are pretty solid. That only leaves tracking... anyone take the time to run it through a longer tracking test? Videos maybe? Would love to see the reticle/glass in video to get an idea of clarity and CA.
Hope Ilya or some of the other guys here can get some time and photos/videos. Really like the concept and price is nearly spot on for TMR or CCH.
Hope Ilya or some of the other guys here can get some time and photos/videos. Really like the concept and price is nearly spot on for TMR or CCH.
I just took them both out at dusk with a pretty decent rain shower going on. I put them both on 12X (or as near as I could since the NF isn't marked exactly at 12X). The Leupold is much easier for me to get behind. I've never been really good behind the NF getting comfortable. Leupold seems much more forgiving.
Everybody will have a different opinion, but these two scopes optical quality is so close to me. I tried to take a picture, but regular caveats apply here. Even though they were taken with a brand new iPhone X, it is what it is. Here they are.
Nightforce ATACR F1 4-16X42 MOAR (Image IMG_0211.jpg) and Leupold Mark 5 3.6-18X44 TMR (image IMG_0214.jpg)
Attachments
^^^ Thank you kdub, your eyes are a much better judge of performance than a camera taking a through the scope image. Very interesting you said the Mark 5 was much easier to get behind than the NF, that is a bit surprising but it is what it is and that is your experience. How about color, contrast and brightness, did the two scopes seem pretty equal in that regard?
From your photos it seems like the Leppy has a fair amount of CA along the tree limbs in front of the glare from street...did it appear this way to you in person? I cannot see any in the NF photo.
I'll agree that the clarity and color looks very good in the MK5 but I'd have a hard time with it if high contrast white to dark causes CA. Thanks on advance for any extra feedback here!
More a camera issue I think. I chose the last photo because it was a little more in focus. Here's another one attached that still shows a little, but not as much. In person I didn't notice it.
Really, really close, in my opinion. And yeah, the Leupold was even much much easier to take a picture through too...
Attachments
More a camera issue I think. I chose the last photo because it was a little more in focus. Here's another one attached that still shows a little, but not as much. In person I didn't notice it.
Really, really close, in my opinion. And yeah, the Leupold was even much much easier to take a picture through too...
I can see what Subwrx is saying from the images; however, CA is often pronounced when taking through the scope images due to CA in the lenses of the system your taking a picture with, that being said we can get a general idea especially if both images are shot in the same conditions using the same settings. The NF appears to have better contrast in that regard and better CA but have to rely on the impression through the naked eye by the user, the fact that you could not see it or noticeably discern it is a good start.
Regarding eyebox, I was not expecting this result. The fact that you were able to get the through the scope images easier is also a testament to your own personal observations. I might forgive a bit of CA if resolution is on par and the scope is that much easier to get behind. Hmmm, Leupold keeps checking off the right boxes so far with this 3.6-18x44, waiting to hear back from ILya and his experience which hopefully we'll start getting some tidbits soon. Frank also mentioned he could see himself running one of these and with his relationship with Mile High would love to hear a podcast on that experience at https://theeverydaysniper.podbean.com/
Let me know if you have anymore questions or want to see anything else. Going to take the Leupold out and break in the barrel of this Fierce later on this week.
That's what it's all about, have fun and send some pics of the rig when you're out. Will be curious to hear more of your experience after getting some trigger time behind it...
Definitely agree with you on in person test. Cameras don't allow for the dynamic view that in person testing will. The reason I brought it up is I'm specifically in the market for scope that fills the gap between my 5-25 ATACR and an XTR2 3-15. The XTR2 is great EXCEPT for CA when not exactly perfect in the eyebox. A little low or high and CA pops up pretty quickly. My NF does not have this problem and if the Leupold allows some movement without CA, I'd absolutely forgive it as long as I can build position without tension in body to maintain sight picture. More of an issue with AR platform than anything because of the sight height and limited cheek weld adjustment.
Very interested in getting eyes on MK5HD but here in Michigan, not many dealers are stocking 2k+ scopes in any appreciable quantities. Keep the info/pics coming!
Oregon.
Alright. Finally got to my friends to look at the new scope. Good looking optic. Thing is ultralight for it's size, which Leupold has been leading in weight for some time. I was most worried after seeing the video above of the 3.6-18 turret wobble or slack between clicks but am relieved mine is not bad at all. Actually they're quite tight. I assure you if they had wobble as bad as the video i was gearing up to return it and pick up an AMG. Not the nicest turrets i've ever felt, but by no means bad. I went between it and my friend's Gen II the Gen II is more distinct between each click and a little harder to turn for each click. Which i actually prefer. The Leupold is not bad by any means, light years ahead of the M5B2 knobs for sure. Well ahead of the HDMR II i just let go also. Not quite as tactile as my EREK or a Gen II razor but they're by no means mushy. Wobble is a tad more than the Gen II but as my friend showed me he could make the Gen II wobble side to side as well. I mean you really have to purposefully wiggle the knob to actuate any side to side play between clicks. It's not something practically that would every hurt. Windage knob is much tighter, which kind of makes me wish that's what the elevation knob felt like but that's neither here nor there. Completely understand the gripes about the windage hash lol it's bizarre. I see what they were thinking but in reality it's not that practical. Doesn't matter as mentioned most of us don't dial wind. Magnification ring is perfect IMO, not too stiff (gen II razor 1-6) but not too easy. Parallax was extremely easy to turn, little off putting depending on your preference but we shall see if it has any bearing on it working properly (I would think not)
Haven't had the chance to compare glass yet, from the inside it looks phenomenal but i'm looking at a wall. When i get time i will take it out and put it against a Gen II Razor and ATACR.
Haven't had the chance to compare glass yet, from the inside it looks phenomenal but i'm looking at a wall. When i get time i will take it out and put it against a Gen II Razor and ATACR.
Last edited:
How come you didn't get the 3.6-18x44 Will, that's the one I want to hear more about Curious to hear your thoughts in comparison.
PS - Hasn't anyone told you that rifles and liquor don't mix
Curious to hear your thoughts in comparison.PS - Hasn't anyone told you that rifles and liquor don't mix
Nice! What reticle did you go with? Interested to hear glass comparison
Well Bill i was very close to going ahead and getting the 3.6-18 as well due to the tax return ha! Both my ARs are scopeless right now and that would be the perfect 224v SPR optic. Since the florida craze and a missed coyote out of a truck on the farm last weekend though, i think that money is going towards a 8" 300blk. Still given Kdub's impressions on the 3.6-18 i might try to swing one in the summer. ILya is going to review one as well and that will be the tell tail.How come you didn't get the 3.6-18x44 Will, that's the one I want to hear more about
PS - Hasn't anyone told you that rifles and liquor don't mix
With all the studying i'm going to do for the next 9 days i'm going to need a drink
I went with H59 non-illuminated. I will try to get a glass comparison but idk when that will be. I'm pretty much swamped until the 1st. I do plan to shoot an F-class match on the 10th though. So will probably zero and get dope the week of the 1st.
Well Bill i was very close to going ahead and getting the 3.6-18 as well due to the tax return ha! Both my ARs are scopeless right now and that would be the perfect 224v SPR optic. Since the florida craze and a missed coyote out of a truck on the farm last weekend though, i think that money is going towards a 8" 300blk. Still given Kdub's impressions on the 3.6-18 i might try to swing one in the summer. ILya is going to review one as well and that will be the tell tail.
With all the studying i'm going to do for the next 9 days i'm going to need a drink
Sorry, couldn't resist with the stocked cabinet behind the rifle. Drinks are on me (from your cabinet of course)
Ooooh, an 8" 300BLK, now you're talking, here's my 9", it also wears a Vortex AMG UH-1 now too...
Sorry, couldn't resist with the stocked cabinet behind the rifle. Drinks are on me (from your cabinet of course)
Ooooh, an 8" 300BLK, now you're talking, here's my 9", it also wears a Vortex AMG UH-1 now too...
Do you run that with an Ultra 5,7, or 9? Noticed the TBAC CB mount.
That's better, I was going to say that the NF was clearer than the Mk 5 but now you have a better focus I think the Mk 5 is a lot sharper,More a camera issue I think. I chose the last photo because it was a little more in focus. Here's another one attached that still shows a little, but not as much. In person I didn't notice it.
Really, really close, in my opinion. And yeah, the Leupold was even much much easier to take a picture through too...
thanks for posting them.
John.
So at Lanbos armory the 3.6-18x44 TMR is $1450 once added to cart and the 5-25 is $1600. $1850 for the H59 variant..
Leupold has a lot of catching up to do...
Yes, and by most actual reviews it seems the Mark 5 is a pretty decent start.
No bashing at all, that was a solid report. Thank you for your time.
Looking forward to hearing more of your findings Eric seeing as i can't take mine out until likely next weekend. I lol'd at the neighbor running back inside
Good eye Sub, it's the older 30 BA (9"), been thinking about get the guts replaced through TBAC's program to make it an Ultra 9; however, I also want to get an Ultra 5 once the funds come in.
Appreciate the quick and thorough review Eric. Sounds like the Mark 5 is rounding up to be a win for Leupold, they've needed this. Sure it doesn't have all the reticles that many are looking for but the price and weight make it worth considering alone and if you're into Horus rets it almost sounds too good to be true at its price point!
Now, will someone do a similar review with the 3.6-18x44 please
Bu bu bu bu bu but Leupold can't make a scope that tracks! Your mounting device must be off in the perfect amount of error to be in sync with the error of that particular scope.
I like seeing reviews like this. I wish I hadn't hesitated and snagged a 3.6-18x44 Tremor 3 before Euro Optic sold out, now I'm waiting a few more weeks for them to come back in.
Did your two poor tracking mk6’s have the M5B2 or the M5C2 turrets?
It's certainly looking that way. Pretty eager to get mine to the range.
Can someone explain why they offer an illuminated Tremor 3 in the 5-25 but not in the 3.6-18x44? I am not a Horus fan but have considered playing with the Tremor 3 and like illumination; however, I can live without illumination for this application but was just curious why Leupy doesn't offer it in their ultra short?
For those with experience with the Tremor 3 and who shoot with 6.5 Creedmoor, what has your experience been with the windage markers which I believe were designed for military loads like M118LR and 300WM, how are they aligning with 6.5CM loads?
For those with experience with the Tremor 3 and who shoot with 6.5 Creedmoor, what has your experience been with the windage markers which I believe were designed for military loads like M118LR and 300WM, how are they aligning with 6.5CM loads?
Last edited:
The wind dots aren't designed for any particular ammo, they're designed so they can be used with any load out there. It's as simple as running your ballistics and matching up your load to what dot = what MPH. There's a good video on youtube with Todd Hodnett explain the system and how to match it up to your rifle.
This positive feedback is extremely exciting. Here's hoping this optic is the shot of adrenaline Leupold needed. Seems like it is so far!
Thanks bmx, I’ll have to look at that as I thought the Tremor was a blend of mil and ballistics based on military ammo, my bad for not investigating further
Yeah, the T3 should be pretty close all the way down once you figure out your wind dot value for your load and atmosphere, especially considering it’s meant for speed shooting, and any error is going to get lost in the noise of your ability to make an accurate wind call quickly down to 1-2 mph or so over the range of the shot. One of the Hodnett videos shows how the dots can easily be used to bracket a target to intuitively see your margin of error in wind calling to land a hit, which can help you decide if it’s worth taking the shot at that moment or if you need to refine your call or hold your fire. Of course, you can do all this stuff with a mil scale too, but then you have a lot more numbers to remember than just one wind value in mph that corresponds to the dots if you want to work quickly, unless you have the experience and rounds downrange to just know what it’s going to do in a given set of conditions.
It also doesn’t account for spin drift, Coriolis, or crosswind jump, but those vary with your load, rifle, and geographic location, and probably within 400-500 yards or so with a .308, they get lost in the noise as well if you’re just trying to make a quick call and shot. If you want all that stuff (minus Coriolis) you need to get a David Tubb reticle and shoot a load that works with it. But the beauty of the T3 is that it includes the H59 mil grid, so if you really want to drill down and get the most precise possible hold for your conditions, you still have that option. The wind dots are just there so you can make a quick call, a quick shot, and quick correction at the original range (or any other down to 10 mils of elevation) in the same wind condition.
Now, about those Mark 5s, any updates from anyone with one in hand? Mine won’t show up until Monday, and I’m dying here!
It also doesn’t account for spin drift, Coriolis, or crosswind jump, but those vary with your load, rifle, and geographic location, and probably within 400-500 yards or so with a .308, they get lost in the noise as well if you’re just trying to make a quick call and shot. If you want all that stuff (minus Coriolis) you need to get a David Tubb reticle and shoot a load that works with it. But the beauty of the T3 is that it includes the H59 mil grid, so if you really want to drill down and get the most precise possible hold for your conditions, you still have that option. The wind dots are just there so you can make a quick call, a quick shot, and quick correction at the original range (or any other down to 10 mils of elevation) in the same wind condition.
Now, about those Mark 5s, any updates from anyone with one in hand? Mine won’t show up until Monday, and I’m dying here!
