Rifle Scopes Leupold Mark 4HD
- Thread starter ChrisAU
- Start date
Well that just sucks. Luckily the 4 I have are solid.
Their current TMR reticle on some models seems to be a lot thicker than what I had on my two Mk4 4.5 - 14s back in the day (that reticle was the bomb diggity at the time). Now it looks a lot like the one I had in the VX-R Patrol that I had and quickly moved on from.
I got interested in the new SFP 2.5 - 10 for a moment for my 18" daytime .308, but the lack of illumination and Lizzo thick reticle are going to keep me looking elsewhere.
Regardless, I think that the new MK4 HD will probably sell pretty well. At least Leupold is looking ahead instead of just sitting on the MK5 HD for a decade like they did with their lineup 20 years ago.
I got interested in the new SFP 2.5 - 10 for a moment for my 18" daytime .308, but the lack of illumination and Lizzo thick reticle are going to keep me looking elsewhere.
Regardless, I think that the new MK4 HD will probably sell pretty well. At least Leupold is looking ahead instead of just sitting on the MK5 HD for a decade like they did with their lineup 20 years ago.
If you are hunting in dark timber where shots are 10-40 yards you should be getting the 2.5-10x42.....
The 4.5-18x52 is the perfect scope for 100 yards +, if it functions properly.
Everyone wants a huge fov on the low end with high mag in a short body until it's time to pay the price, with an unforgiving eye box, bad DOF making you have to use the side focus all the time, image that gets dark quickly as you turn up the mag, optical distortions that strain your eyes or just make you not like the glass, edge distortions, the list goes on.
Then combine all of that with high prices because of the parts needed for the extreme mag range that just make the scope even more prone to failure because of said complex and expensive assemblies.
There are lots of scopes that have a wider FOV that don't suffer from all those side effects, many that are cheaper than the Mark 4hd.
I didn't think this would turn into such a controversy....
It’s the internet! If you said the sky was blue, someone would argue, “Not at night!”
you never know what shot will present itself out here in Colorado. Dark timber and long shots are normal for any hunter. A "cross over" is really ideal out here. Unless you go with an RDS like others have said.
Can you name them please?
It’s not a controversy, it’s just that it’s hard to talk through text without someone assuming that what’s being said is being said in a mean way.
I don’t in any way mean any disrespect so don’t take it that way. I’m just being very direct.
And the “perfect crossover” scopes everyone wants because they aren’t willing to slightly compromise in one area have all the drawbacks I originally pointed out. It is up to you if those drawbacks are ok with you are not.
Unless of course you are ready to drop 4K+ on a 5-20 ultra short.
Or just get the RDS
5-20 US is a great optic, but even spending $4K don’t think it doesn’t come with side effects from being stuffed in that US design. The image is slightly more forgiving than the 3-20 though but that’s because it’s a 4x erector vs basically 7x.
The perfect optic doesn’t exist and I’m not even sure if it can.
The perfect optic doesn’t exist and I’m not even sure if it can.
Interesting note. At the Dallas Safari Club show today the Leupold rep I asked said that the class is not the same as the Mark 5.
I'm interested in the 4.5-18, I noticed the narrow field of view, but I'm looking to replace a Bushnell 4.5-18 LRTSi.
It too, has a narrow field of view.
This will likely be an upgrade in glass and a bit lighter as well.
I am quite fond of the Bushy, it will go on a different rifle.
The Bushnell has a minimum focus distance of 50 yards, the Luepy 25 yards. Another win for leupold
It too, has a narrow field of view.
This will likely be an upgrade in glass and a bit lighter as well.
I am quite fond of the Bushy, it will go on a different rifle.
The Bushnell has a minimum focus distance of 50 yards, the Luepy 25 yards. Another win for leupold
Did they give any basis for that statement? Someone that’s just a marketing BS person could say so just because the erector ratio is different and not in the same “class”. Is it built to less of a standard or something.
That’s a very open ended statement that could mean a lot of different things or basically nothing at all.
I haven't updated my spread sheet for a while, but off the top of my head the scopes in a price bracket lower or similar to the Mark 4/5 with a better FOV are:
VX5/6, PST Gen 2, Strike Eagle, Razor Gen 2, Bushnell DMR/XRS & Match Pro, Burris XTR3, NF NXS & NX8, Athlon Ares BTR/ETR/Cronus, Delta Javelin & Stryker, All the other 4.5-30 LOW scopes (Tract, Maven etc).
The PST Gen2 and XTR3i stand out the most as offering excellent value for money glass wise and especially FOV.
If Burris put a decent cross over reticle in the 3.3-18x50 it's almost be the perfect crossover scope.
(standing by for flaming from bicycle boy).
From what I have read it is the same glass as Mark 5 hd.
Out of all that like two of those scopes are actually comparable to the MK4 when it comes to much better FOV.
The Burris is the only one I can find that actually have a much larger fov than the Mk4hd.
Everything else is within 2 ft at the same mag, or are not comparable and shouldn't have been brought up.
Vortex PST2s are junk and shouldn't be mentioned, and the GEN II razor has only 2 more ft of FOV at 4.5x while weighing a ton and not being able to see anything in less than good light.
Strike eagle shouldn't be in this conversation it's like a whole teir down. Same with Athlon, and some of the Athlons you posted had worse FOV than the mk4hd.
The VX5-6 shouldn't be in this conversation, they are SFP hunting scopes.
If you just want FOV then sure, get a hunting scope or a march.
The FOV on these isn't the best, and that's a fact.
Last edited:
The 3-24 march has a tighter FOV on 24x than the 6-24 MK4 assuming the specs on both are correct so I wouldn’t say they have a better FOV, just more on the bottom end because it’s a 8x erector that comes with all of the cons of high ratio erectors and a reticle you probably can’t do shit with on 3x.
Correct, I meant the new wide angle eyepiece scopes they have.
Which are still huge mag ranges crammed into a tiny body that suffer from the things I already talked about.
I’m not familiar with those I was only comparing it to the 3-24’s I came across.
Regardless though, these aren’t crossover scopes. They’re long range precision scopes and that’s what Leupold markets them for. The LHT 4.5-22 however is a crossover scope and designed and marketed as such and comparing them to it the LHT only has a .4ft (so like 5”?) better FOV on 4.5x than the 4.5-18 and on 22x it has the same FOV as the 6-24 does on 24x… sooo they’re not bad when comparing it to that actual crossover scope which isn’t even what they are.
I think the FOV thing is being blown out of proportion.
I decided I wanted a scope with a huge FOV too and a reticle that would work low so I ordered one of those Leica 2.5-15’s that has a huge FOV on the bottom end, a great FOV on top and a reticle that will actually work on 2.5x since it’s SFP. That’s a scope that’s actually intended for hunting use instead of complaining that this LR precision scope isn’t perfectly suited for hunting.
Regardless though, these aren’t crossover scopes. They’re long range precision scopes and that’s what Leupold markets them for. The LHT 4.5-22 however is a crossover scope and designed and marketed as such and comparing them to it the LHT only has a .4ft (so like 5”?) better FOV on 4.5x than the 4.5-18 and on 22x it has the same FOV as the 6-24 does on 24x… sooo they’re not bad when comparing it to that actual crossover scope which isn’t even what they are.
I think the FOV thing is being blown out of proportion.
I decided I wanted a scope with a huge FOV too and a reticle that would work low so I ordered one of those Leica 2.5-15’s that has a huge FOV on the bottom end, a great FOV on top and a reticle that will actually work on 2.5x since it’s SFP. That’s a scope that’s actually intended for hunting use instead of complaining that this LR precision scope isn’t perfectly suited for hunting.
By association lesser FOV doesn’t suite long range precision shooting either lol. Don’t get me wrong it’s not a deal breaker to me either, but it does stand out as small comparatively speaking to other 4x designs. The AMG comes to mind. It’s somewhat expected the MK5 isn’t exactly boasting the largest FOV either. I’d be lying if i didn’t want a 4.5-18 but I’d need it to save considerable weight to consider letting go of my AMG to make up the difference in mag for me.
Tract, Delta, Maven and Athlon all do a version of the LOW 4.5-30, so there are a lot of scopes with wider FOVs than the Mark 4/5hd. The Mark 6 actually has/had a reasonable FOV.
It's fine if you don't care about FOV but some people do.
Narrow FOV is a down side of these scopes and is a fair criticism to be levelled.
Whether there is a better scopes on the market for one's intended use is a whole different matter.
Some people’s kids 
Forget it guys, you’ll never convince some guys with mere words. They have to see it for themselves.
I for the life of me can not find where there are all these 4.5 power scopes with way more field of view. I think the tract is 27' and is the best I could find. If you think the difference between 27 and 24, 1.5' on each side is like looking through a straw or not.....Hell I remember when the Razor GenII 4.5-27 was all the rave...it is 25' field of view. The Razor LT 4.5 is 23.5'.
Are we talking about 4.5 power scopes or just any mid range mag scope? Like 4x, 3x or 2.5x.
Maybe I am over looking some scopes but it seems this is right about were the majority are if we are looking at the same magnification.
Are we talking about 4.5 power scopes or just any mid range mag scope? Like 4x, 3x or 2.5x.
Maybe I am over looking some scopes but it seems this is right about were the majority are if we are looking at the same magnification.
I took a look at a few, you're right. Hell, the Bushy tactical 3.5-21 has a 25 foot fov at 3.5.
Most are unaware of this but several years ago Frank signed a contract with several of the major optics manufactures in an agreement he would continue to provide advertising space here on the Hide in exchange for the promise that they would never build the perfect rifle scope. His fear was if a perfect rifle scope was ever built, the forum would lose all its viewership very quickly. Personally, I think it's one of the smarter business moves in our lifetime.
I have been through a few upper / top tier scopes, but the only scope I haven't sold or traded is my Gen II Razor. I have had it for about 7ish years now. Longest scope I have held onto sofar.
Yesterday I think tract's website said 27' at 4.5, now it says 24' at 4.5x.
The only one he mentioned that actually has much better fov is the burris XTR3.
This whole thing is a made up non issue.
If you want a huge fov scope for 20 yard shots in dark timber get something that goes down to 2.5 ( which the mk4hd literally has )
Or even better, an aimpoint t2.
There is a very distinct advantage to having a scope with a wider FOV; however, if the FOV is compromised by edge distortion it somewhat negates this advantage. Leupold clearly made the Mark 4HD to meet a certain price point and FOV undoubtedly came under the scrutiny of the price point (because to correct it would be costly) and so they decided to limit it for various reasons. Magnification does not make up for lack of FOV, given the option between lower magnification or greater FOV (as long as the FOV is not compromised) I will almost always choose the scope that has greater FOV. This is a difficult one to explain with words, experiencing it and "seeing" it will help shed the light. I have hope that the Leupold Mark 4HD series will be excellent performers for the price but we have to realize that in order to meet that price certain compromises had to be made. Our decisions in the sports optics world are often a give and take and usually require us to compromise something, each of us must decide what is important and make the best decision we can; however, understanding the limitations of the different options will help us better make those decisions.
At some point I will attempt to do a video explaining the benefits of increased FOV at different magnifications, I have an upcoming review of the Delta Stryker 3.5-21x44 and am wondering if I should try to grab the Bushnell ET DMR3 3.5-21x50 for comparison, I think this would make for a good conversation on how FOV can affect the overall performance of one scope vs. another. Sadly I have sold off all my LRHS/LRTS 4.5-18x44's but I still have the Vortex LHT 4.5-22x50 to compare with a Leupold Mark 4 4.5-18 at some point but should be pretty easy to source another LRTS if need be. It's not so much the FOV feet that matter above (thought that is a factor) as it doesn't sound like much - 23' vs. 24' vs. 25' etc. it is more about the perception vs. the reality of what you're seeing and the effect it has on real world performance. Nightforce (and Leupold to an extent) have been getting by with rather underwhelming AFOV values at low magnification for a while because they understand their market and realize most of their user base isn't using these FFP scopes at bottom magnification, rather they are using these scopes at mid to max magnification; however, the growing crossover market has presented somewhat of an enigma to these companies as they attempt to understand the needs of this community, NF has addressed this somewhat with the NX8 line which offers some of the widest AFOV values on the market, but these scopes come with compromises that 8x erectors in short body scopes often present, compromises that I am assuming these Leupold Mark 4HD scopes will not suffer from being 4x erector and long body designs and [the Mark 4HD] will be praised by and large for their forgiving nature and excellent glass for the price point.
At some point I will attempt to do a video explaining the benefits of increased FOV at different magnifications, I have an upcoming review of the Delta Stryker 3.5-21x44 and am wondering if I should try to grab the Bushnell ET DMR3 3.5-21x50 for comparison, I think this would make for a good conversation on how FOV can affect the overall performance of one scope vs. another. Sadly I have sold off all my LRHS/LRTS 4.5-18x44's but I still have the Vortex LHT 4.5-22x50 to compare with a Leupold Mark 4 4.5-18 at some point but should be pretty easy to source another LRTS if need be. It's not so much the FOV feet that matter above (thought that is a factor) as it doesn't sound like much - 23' vs. 24' vs. 25' etc. it is more about the perception vs. the reality of what you're seeing and the effect it has on real world performance. Nightforce (and Leupold to an extent) have been getting by with rather underwhelming AFOV values at low magnification for a while because they understand their market and realize most of their user base isn't using these FFP scopes at bottom magnification, rather they are using these scopes at mid to max magnification; however, the growing crossover market has presented somewhat of an enigma to these companies as they attempt to understand the needs of this community, NF has addressed this somewhat with the NX8 line which offers some of the widest AFOV values on the market, but these scopes come with compromises that 8x erectors in short body scopes often present, compromises that I am assuming these Leupold Mark 4HD scopes will not suffer from being 4x erector and long body designs and [the Mark 4HD] will be praised by and large for their forgiving nature and excellent glass for the price point.
By no means was I trying to say FOV should not be taken in to account, I too like a larger FOV. I was just pointing out that it seems the 4.5x scopes out are all really close to one another where as some people were saying they had horrible fov...
I really would of like to see a Mark 4HD 3x12 but understand why they did not do this.
I really would of like to see a Mark 4HD 3x12 but understand why they did not do this.
Leupold is smart to offer this line of optics. Zero compromise changed the game for the top tier optic offering. So rather than try and compete with that you do something similar but in the mid tier price offerings. This offering if it stands up to the standards we all expect a rifle scope to it will sell so many the offset will still be as much of a financial gain. Definitely purchasing a 6-24 here in the near future as my next hunting optic. Glad I didn’t buy vortex lrht a few months ago I knew shot show would produce something worth waiting for.
I guess my comments got lost in translation a bit, so I'll clarify them then leave it alone.
While the FOV is similar to other scopes on the market or only a few feet less (23.5 vs 25.5 is 9% more which isn't a small amount), it'd be nice to see them push the boundary a little bit (on the other hand TMR...).
So objectively the FOVion this design is on the lower end of what is possible, and is much narrower than I'd like to see if I were designing my dream scope.
All that being said the 2.5-10x42 looks like a much better package than the 2-10x30 Mark 5hd, while I'd prefer a 25° FOV a better reticle and SF, this might just be the best MVPO on the market.
Considering a MSRP of $1200 if street price is under $1000 it could prove to be very popular.
I'll probably buy a 2.5-10x42 as an MVPO but the other options I'm more on the fence.
The 4.5-18x52 in particular is very very similar (weight, size, FOV) to the Bushnell LRHS/LRTS which Bushnell has said repeatedly didn't sell very well. So whether it outsells the LRHS2 sold by GAP it'll be interesting to see.
I'll just wait for y'all to beta test them......and after the feedback, make my decision then.
This is a $1000-$1500 price point scope, you’re not pushing boundaries AND getting good build quality at this price point. It’s not happening and that’s not what this is intended to be.
Manufacturers have been pushing boundaries for years with high erector ratios and you end up with optics that suck to use for a huge part of the magnification range.
I applaud Leupold for taking a step back to a very usable mag range for a FFP optic and if these things offer great image characteristics like I think they will and the same level of reliability of the MK5’s I don’t care that they don’t have a higher FOV than other similar optics. The price point is also incredibly attractive, they hit right in a window where there’s not a ton of great options.
Great range.
Shot my first long range steel there (950 I think, to the left and further back of the buffalo) with an LTR and then a custom Rem 700 .308 that I was the 3rd owner of that had been built for Mike Miller.
Used an old mk 4 6.5-20…..
Wow, impressive you recognized it from the steel and landscape. It is a great setup for a public range @canezach and I went there for an AI Shoot and had fun, outside of all the yahoos on the lineGreat range.
Shot my first long range steel there (950 I think, to the left and further back of the buffalo) with an LTR and then a custom Rem 700 .308 that I was the 3rd owner of that had been built for Mike Miller.
Used an old mk 4 6.5-20…..
I guess that remains to be seen, I think you'd be surprised how good and durable a $1k class scope can be if you're not pushing the erector. I've got to think these will likely hold up just as well as the Mark 5 series but could be wrong.
Wow, impressive you recognized it from the steel and landscape. It is a great setup for a public range @canezach and I went there for an AI Shoot and had fun, outside of all the yahoos on the line
Its how my brain works.
I can drive to a campsite I used 30 yrs ago 8 hrs from home never looking at a map, but making a power point makes my head explode.
I have only been there with 1-2 guys I know as the only shooters.
I dont like crowds.
I don't think the Bushnell sold as well as they hoped due to the price point for a 4x erector scope with a long body at the time, those of us who weren't put off by the 4.5x low mag or the long design were rewarded with impressive IQ and a forgiving scope with an innovative reticle that worked at low mag (G2H). The fact that this scope bears the name Leupold on it will almost certainly ensure it's success over the Bushnell. I have been pretty critical of Leupold in the past but I think this line will do well for them even if the scopes don't appeal much to me due to the limited FOV. I actually really like the M5C3 turrets and the locking button and love that Leupy fixed the full rev from 10.5 to 10 and the weird windage offset and added locking windage to boot. If they offer a viable MPVO reticle in the 2.5-10 I would seriously consider it, the TMR is serviceable but not exciting, heck, even the Firedot BDC reticle in the 2.5-10 would be more exciting.
I'm hoping the leupold is a step up in light transmission and that the increase in exit pupil makes a difference. I have a 4.5-18 LRTSi, which I like quite a bit, but the focus distance of 50 yards is a bit of a let down. I really do like the reticle, one of the best cross over reticles there is. Price wise, pretty much a wash.
Isn't this 4.5-18 pretty much the same price as the Bushnell was at it's high price? I recall around $1200-$1400.
It was only at $800 they started flying off the shelf. Maybe the Leupold name is all it'll take for this to sell.
While I'm not over the moon about the TMR reticle it could be worse, at least the thick outer stadia should hopefully make it useful on low mag.
Firedot TMR would be a nice option to have in the SFP 2.5-10 but they haven't offered it (they have in the 1-4.5 though).
A firedot TMR/PR2 would be real nice in the FFP scopes but alas not possible (well not done with fibreoptics atleast.
I don't have any issues at all with a 4x erector scope (even with an "arguably" lower FOV) but it better be bloody amazing in the glass department, not quite S&B/K624 level glass but it should be better than the XTR3/NX8/March in depth of field, resolution, contrast etc.
If the glass doesn't blow away the "standard" LOW designs (4.5-30, 2.5-15, 4-25) then the only thing you are getting for the price is the Leupold name.
That said if the street price comes in closer to $1000 that $1500 for the 6-24/8-32, then that's a different story.
I think the street prices are just what’s advertised by euro optic, CLNY, CS tactical etc - $1000-$1600. So figure $800-1400 used or discounted.
I suspect they will take over from the XTR3 (previously the Cronus) as the best “value” optic for what most of us are doing.
Last edited:
That is my recollection too, around $1200-$1400 ish, given Bidenflation that's now about $2k or more so these Leupy's are priced really well.
That would be interesting, but again this is Leupold so I'm not holding my breath for an amazing reticle from them anytime soon.
This is exactly where this scope should excel.
I agree, and the Leupold name is enough to help sales even if it struggles against the competition.
I know what you mean, but did you look at the Athlon's reticle? That center aiming point is .3 mils. The MOA version would work better at longer ranges but... MOA. Ugh.
I saw the Mark 4 announcement and was very excited and I'd live with a marginal reticle but the lack of parallax is really irritating. I have a Nighforce SHV 3-10X42 and at 350, I can't get a good crisp image. It isn't out of focus so much as just not really sharp. It is just as bad at 600 and 1000 but it starts getting dull looking. I worry that this Leupold will have the exact same issue.
Euro optic hopes to have the 6-24x and 8-32x in by the end of the month. I didn’t ask about the others.
Similar threads
