• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

Rifle Scopes Leupold Mark 4HD

I have a VX6HD 1-6 which is actually a great lightweight LPVO and the firedot is nuclear bright. That being said, the electric leveling thing is pure gimmick and I never use it so I wouldn’t really care if the MK4 has it or not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: simonp
Any idea when these will be shipping?

FOV specs look great on the 1-4.5x

Glad to see they finally did away with the 1.5 on the low end.

It's also about time we started seeing some more teasers from the optics industry.
The 18oz for the 1-4.5 surprised me given how light the Patrol 6HD is.

But the high power reticle for the 1-4.5 looks like a good option for service rifle competitors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gbaby125
Order is in
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0525.jpeg
    IMG_0525.jpeg
    143.9 KB · Views: 355
Optically you will prefer the longer MK4 with a 4X erector since the MK5 3.6-18 was made more as a DMR style scope with its shorter footprint.
I agree, this is pretty exciting, I feel like it might be a great alternative to the no longer produced Bushnell LRTS 4.5-18 but with a 52mm objective to draw in a bit more light making this a contender for crossover use without the drawbacks of the trendy ultra short scopes.
 
I'm looking at pricing and I'm thinking something must be wrong, Leupold always charges $500 or more for illumination and I'm only seeing a $200 upcharge here??? Did someone in management finally look at the competition...

I’m pretty sure it’s a different design that’s less expensive. I was told by a Leupold guy a while ago that one of the reasons the illumination option is pricey on the MK5’s is because of the waterproofing requirement that they were built with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Glassaholic
I agree, this is pretty exciting, I feel like it might be a great alternative to the no longer produced Bushnell LRTS 4.5-18 but with a 52mm objective to draw in a bit more light making this a contender for crossover use without the drawbacks of the trendy ultra short scopes.
Never liked the LRTS 4.5-18, the 3-12 was always a much better product. Maybe the MK4HD will give us what the LRTS should have been
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chato308
I'm looking at pricing and I'm thinking something must be wrong, Leupold always charges $500 or more for illumination and I'm only seeing a $200 upcharge here??? Did someone in management finally look at the competition...
It's because it's push button like the VX5-VX6, not the same that is on the mk5.
3:35
 
Last edited:
An interesting note on the 4.5-18…

The guns America video says the windage is capped on the 4.5-18 but all the product photos I’m seeing except for one of the in use one where you can make out “4.5” on the dial in a blur show it expose and locking. That photo clearly shows a cover without markings and it has to be a 4.5-18 because of the markings and parallax knob. The Leupold video just posted also says capped windage is available, so they may be able to be swapped out and either ran which would be a nice option to have.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0526.jpeg
    IMG_0526.jpeg
    181.5 KB · Views: 140
  • Like
Reactions: Renomd
I agree, this is pretty exciting, I feel like it might be a great alternative to the no longer produced Bushnell LRTS 4.5-18 but with a 52mm objective to draw in a bit more light making this a contender for crossover use without the drawbacks of the trendy ultra short scopes.
My thoughts exact, that bushnell is a highly sought after hunting scope and Leopold did right. I’m just hoping glass will be similar to the mk5
 
Going the right direction but only a 4x erector isn't very exciting.

My favorite feature of the line, you actually get a reticle that’s usable through the mag range that way and the lower zoom ratio generally has more forgiving image qualities. High zoom ratios that are only useful for part of the range are stupid.
 
FFP is practically pointless in a 2.5-10 optic. Combine that with the shitty TMR reticle and no parallax, hard no for me.

The NXS has parallax, the Mil-R reticle is mildly better, has illumination standard, has a similar form factor, and even weighs a hair less.
Agreed. The 2.5-10 was the scope I'd be interest in, but the reticle choices aren't great.
 
The 4.5-18 and 6-24 are the same weight and dimensions. I am tempted to go 6-24 considering Leup VX5HD-VX6HD handle max mag really great without darkening of the sight pic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: levi8599
I want the 6-24 but am stuck going with the 4.5-18 because they didn’t stick with the same reticle across the board that I have in my mark5’s. I may just have to stick with nx8’s for my new build. These scopes look intriguing if they actually are durable for once. But I feel they really screwed themseleves on reticle choices.
 
Great to see leupold listening! Same glass as the MK5 but substantially cheaper is pretty incredible if so.
 
My thoughts exact, that bushnell is a highly sought after hunting scope and Leopold did right. I’m just hoping glass will be similar to the mk5
Leupy says same glass formula as Mark 5 so should be really good. Scope is likely to be very forgiving but where it’s not forgiving is FOV, numbers (if correct) at 23.5’ at 4.5x and 5.2’ at 18x are among the most narrow of modern scopes. The old Bushy was known to be a bit tight but this one even tighter so we’ll see. I have my suspicions as to why but let’s give it a few weeks to iron out typos and details.
 
Or do you mean you shoot 6 times better with a ZCO?
 
Leupy says same glass formula as Mark 5 so should be really good. Scope is likely to be very forgiving but where it’s not forgiving is FOV, numbers (if correct) at 23.5’ at 4.5x and 5.2’ at 18x are among the most narrow of modern scopes. The old Bushy was known to be a bit tight but this one even tighter so we’ll see. I have my suspicions as to why but let’s give it a few weeks to iron out typos and details.
Yea the FOV numbers are pretty disappointing, possibly the worst on the market.
 
FOV’s are tight but they’re not the worst. The 6-24 has the same FOV on the top end as the LHT 4.5-22 and it’s a little wider than the march 3-24. The 4.5-18 is within .5’ of a lot 3-18’s on the top end. FOV’s could certainly be much better but for what these are it’s not a complaint of mine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PappyM3 and Stan73
FOV’s are tight but they’re not the worst. The 6-24 has the same FOV on the top end as the LHT 4.5-22 and it’s a little wider than the march 3-24. The 4.5-18 is within .5’ of a lot 3-18’s on the top end. FOV’s could certainly be much better but for what these are it’s not a complaint of mine.
Both the March and the LHT have comparatively narrow FOVs also though.

This is only my opinion but anything less than 38ft on 3x is considered narrow, quite a few designs are around the 40ft on 3x mark which I find makes a world of difference in how immersive the image is, which translates to being more comfortable behind the scope, easier to find targets, less zooming out to find targets, and generally a more pleasant experience.

I know it sounds like a silly thing to make a deal out of but for me the FOV and reticle are the two things you can never get away from in a scope. No matter the environmental conditions, light levels, etc, if you have a narrow FOV you forever feel like you are looking through a cardboard tube and if that also comes with a bad reticle, then it bugs the crap out of me and there is no escaping it.

YMMV
 
Absolute fuckin yawn.

Fix all the moronic issues w the otherwise excellent mk5 before releasing this shit.

Cant wait for a duplex reticle where the windage line is on the back so my spotter can see it in a mirror or some dumb shit.

GD I wish everyone over the age of 50 at Leupold would take a dirt nap and so they'd stop fucking up their products.
 
I know it sounds like a silly thing to make a deal out of but for me the FOV and reticle are the two things you can never get away from in a scope. No matter the environmental conditions, light levels, etc, if you have a narrow FOV you forever feel like you are looking through a cardboard tube and if that also comes with a bad reticle, then it bugs the crap out of me and there is no escaping it.

YMMV
As long as the image is "filling" up the ocular from edge to edge withouth any black edges they can get away with a narrow FOV.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JakeM
Both the March and the LHT have comparatively narrow FOVs also though.

This is only my opinion but anything less than 38ft on 3x is considered narrow, quite a few designs are around the 40ft on 3x mark which I find makes a world of difference in how immersive the image is, which translates to being more comfortable behind the scope, easier to find targets, less zooming out to find targets, and generally a more pleasant experience.

I know it sounds like a silly thing to make a deal out of but for me the FOV and reticle are the two things you can never get away from in a scope. No matter the environmental conditions, light levels, etc, if you have a narrow FOV you forever feel like you are looking through a cardboard tube and if that also comes with a bad reticle, then it bugs the crap out of me and there is no escaping it.

YMMV

I’d always rather have a huge FOV but for a mostly target scope it bothers me less. My biggest complaint is the reticles but I can make do with the PR2. FOV is far more of a priority for me on a hunting option though, that’s not what I’ll be using this optic for and if I do it will be longer ranges.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FredHammer
The numbers between the mk5 3.6-18 and the mk4HD 4.5-18 are kinda odd. Looks to me like the Mk5 is 2.5" shorter and has a better mag range.

I circled some of the things that matter to me. You'd think some of these numbers would be swapped and that the Mk5 3.6-18 would be a lot cheaper than it is. I'm curious to hear what people say when they start getting in shooters hands.

MK4 HD 4.5-18

Screenshot_20240112_072745_Chrome.jpg
Screenshot_20240112_072809_Chrome.png


Mk5 3.6-18

Screenshot_20240112_072857_Chrome.jpg
Screenshot_20240112_072925_Chrome.png
 
The numbers between the mk5 3.6-18 and the mk4HD 4.5-18 are kinda odd.
They are totally different animals starting with the different mag ratios that dictate different internals.

Looks to me like the Mk5 is 2.5" shorter and has a better mag range.
Better mag range?
Are you referring to the mag zoom ratio between bottom X and top X?
 
They are totally different animals starting with the different mag ratios that dictate different internals.


Better mag range?
Are you referring to the mag zoom ratio between bottom X and top X?
Yeah, I guess it seems like they are covering the same space but with the Mk4 in kinda an odd spot for practical use. I get the whole 4x and 5x mag ratio but a 5-20 mk4 or a 4-16 mk4 would make more sense to me.

If I'm shopping for a "cross over" scope, I'm willing to compromise on one end or the other but 4.5-18 seems like both. Just my opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: beetroot
How did you reach the conclusion that the MK5 should be cheaper than it is based on what you circled. I am having a super hard time making sense of your post.
 
Yeah, I guess it seems like they are covering the same space but with the Mk4 in kinda an odd spot for practical use. I get the whole 4x and 5x mag ratio but a 5-20 mk4 or a 4-16 mk4 would make more sense to me.

If I'm shopping for a "cross over" scope, I'm willing to compromise on one end or the other but 4.5-18 seems like both. Just my opinion.

They literally split them down the middle...
 
Yeah, I guess it seems like they are covering the same space but with the Mk4 in kinda an odd spot for practical use. I get the whole 4x and 5x mag ratio but a 5-20 mk4 or a 4-16 mk4 would make more sense to me.

If I'm shopping for a "cross over" scope, I'm willing to compromise on one end or the other but 4.5-18 seems like both. Just my opinion.
Are you really splitting hairs between a 4x and a 4.5x bottom end???
 
How did you reach the conclusion that the MK5 should be cheaper than it is based on what you circled. I am having a super hard time making sense of your post.
It's probably just an early morning poorly formed thought.

But at first glance, they are very similar scopes with very similar spec sheets. I think that the mk4 will give a lot of people pause before they spend the extra on a Mk5.

With that said, the 4.5-18 doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
 
It's probably just an early morning poorly formed thought.

But at first glance, they are very similar scopes with very similar spec sheets. I think that the mk4 will give a lot of people pause before they spend the extra on a Mk5.

With that said, the 4.5-18 doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
I suspect the 18x mk4 will have a better eye box, eye relief, DOF and CA control than the much shorter 18x mk5. I'd also think the mk4 is a bit brighter due to the larger bell

The CA control on the little mk5 is really bad in my experience. A common theme for ultra short designs.
 
Last edited: