I think the AMG is the better suited scope for hunting. Having said that if Leupold released a reticle at SHOT worth of consideration i'd be heavily leaning towards it for my next 300 PRC build though mainly because of the elevation advantage. The kestrel also throws a wrench in the works for me as well because i'm just now effectively using my 5700 sportsman with AB and it is spot on with my 7 SS like more than i've ever seen a ballistic solution really do. It has been very very accurate and i wouldn't want to hunt without it.
I haven't had them side by side. But my Mark 5 was exceptional resolution wise though there was some CA and the contrast was not quite as poppy as my AMG or ATACRs etc. So kestrel withstanding i like my AMG better than i did my MK5, bar none here's how i felt between the two of them.
Glass: AMG it's gorgeous. No CA, edged to edge clarity is phenomenal, i really like the contrast. The MK5 image is slightly washed in comparison to say my other scopes i've used in the last year (ATACR, K318i, K525i, ZP5). Resolution is very nice and the edge to edge clarity was fine. Overall i prefer the AMG though. I don't think you'd be disappointed with either in this scenario.
FOV: no brainer it's the AMG. The MK5 has a noticeable small FOV and it feels that way. Both with the size of the image and what you can see in it from edge to edge.
DOF: i can't remember having an issue with either, parallax might be a little more finicky on the MK5 but neither are set it and forget it.
Eyebox: AMG Neither is the most forgiving but i'd still give the nod to the AMG for me. I remember having some cheek weld issues during a match with my MK5 where i was just uncomfortable and had to back off magnification, it gets a little tight at 25x
Low light: Tie. Again no direct comparison here so i'm unsure. Both performed incredibly well reaching almost 30min past official sunset when i took them out. That is probably one of the most standout features of the MK5, Leupold isn't joking about their light transmission percentage. The scopes are phenomenal in low light. But the AMG is no slouch either and bested my ATACR when i had it, my ZP5, and ATACR side by side testing them one day.
Reticle: AMG
Turrets: AMG
So subjective really and you'll pay more for the AMG. But i do think the AMG is the better optic all around but the MK5 is not inadequate in another category to the point you would be disappointed with the exception of maybe FOV. You'll just pay much more for illumination and a decent reticle with leupold, when that is standard on the AMG.
Here's a little more detailed explanation i wrote about the MK5 when i had it next to the ATACR for a couple of hours.
