looked at a Mark4 over weekend, and was disappointed. The glass wasnt bad but it wasnt really good either. Granted it was indoors but the Swaro Z6 looked unreal indoors. Did the Leupold Mark4 glass go down hill? Did it ever have awesome lenses?
Rifle Scopes looked at Mark4 over weekend, disappointed.
- Thread starter enkry
- Start date
Re: looked at Mark4 over weekend, disappointed.
Well, when compared to Swaro side by side........
Leupold is still a quality optic. Today there are many optics manufacturers that are producing extremely high quality scopes, the bar has risen and many manufacturers need to follow suit.
Every Leupold I have owned in the past has been great, glass and function, and service from Leupold & Stevens has been outstanding. It has been a few years since I switched to USO and S&B, an as the price notes, it is not a fair comparison.
Kirk R
Well, when compared to Swaro side by side........
Leupold is still a quality optic. Today there are many optics manufacturers that are producing extremely high quality scopes, the bar has risen and many manufacturers need to follow suit.
Every Leupold I have owned in the past has been great, glass and function, and service from Leupold & Stevens has been outstanding. It has been a few years since I switched to USO and S&B, an as the price notes, it is not a fair comparison.
Kirk R
Re: looked at Mark4 over weekend, disappointed.
Leupy is a good value. Nothing wrong with them at all. I prefer them in their price range.
ETA- and your thread title is bullshit. Playing into the bandwagon mentality. Bashing Leupold only makes you look cool to people who are as ill informed as you are. Sorry, just irks me. Leupold serves a lot of people very well who cant/wont drop 2-3K on glass or are ISSUED the optic. And belittling their glass to get on a bandwagon is just tacky. My 2 cents.
Leupy is a good value. Nothing wrong with them at all. I prefer them in their price range.
ETA- and your thread title is bullshit. Playing into the bandwagon mentality. Bashing Leupold only makes you look cool to people who are as ill informed as you are. Sorry, just irks me. Leupold serves a lot of people very well who cant/wont drop 2-3K on glass or are ISSUED the optic. And belittling their glass to get on a bandwagon is just tacky. My 2 cents.
Re: looked at Mark4 over weekend, disappointed.
Ouch, it is almost scary to follow up with a comment after hydro556's comment.
My .02 is that you are right about the quality of the glass. However, if I didnt have a great scope, I would not hesitate to buy a Leuopold Mark 4. The customer service is great and they are a great company. A local long range school here in AZ encourages people to buy those scopes because of their great reputation.
I feel that Zeiss Conquest, Swarovski, and Night Force are all great alternatives for that price range. When you are looking to spend 1000 to 1400 for a scope go get what you like best.
As a positive, Leupold is supposed to be coming out with a new scope. I have not seen or handled one, but I have heard it is a great improvement and may put it back on top in that class.
Good Luck
Ouch, it is almost scary to follow up with a comment after hydro556's comment.
My .02 is that you are right about the quality of the glass. However, if I didnt have a great scope, I would not hesitate to buy a Leuopold Mark 4. The customer service is great and they are a great company. A local long range school here in AZ encourages people to buy those scopes because of their great reputation.
I feel that Zeiss Conquest, Swarovski, and Night Force are all great alternatives for that price range. When you are looking to spend 1000 to 1400 for a scope go get what you like best.
As a positive, Leupold is supposed to be coming out with a new scope. I have not seen or handled one, but I have heard it is a great improvement and may put it back on top in that class.
Good Luck
Re: looked at Mark4 over weekend, disappointed.
FYI, as someone who tries to handle a lot of glass to make my own informed opinions, I think it's funny you brought up Swaro, since they are the *only* glass I've seen to date that trumps the Leupolds as far as I'm concerned.
My "handle" list so far:
Leupold
Swarovski
USO
Nightforce
Vortex
SS
Nikon
Bushnell
Leatherwood
And a bunch of other lower priced ones
I've approached it objectively each time, and I genuinely find Leupold glass to have crisper lines, a sharper reticle, more faithful color, and a brighter overall image than either USO or Nightforce. The Swaro was the only one that ever made me go "holy shit" - it was like staring into a flashlight. Amazing. So my point being, Leupold may be behind Swaro, but in my book that's second to the top of the top.
I'm very, very eager to get my hands on the real pricey ones - SB, Hensoldt, and Premier - to see how they stack up.
FYI, as someone who tries to handle a lot of glass to make my own informed opinions, I think it's funny you brought up Swaro, since they are the *only* glass I've seen to date that trumps the Leupolds as far as I'm concerned.
My "handle" list so far:
Leupold
Swarovski
USO
Nightforce
Vortex
SS
Nikon
Bushnell
Leatherwood
And a bunch of other lower priced ones
I've approached it objectively each time, and I genuinely find Leupold glass to have crisper lines, a sharper reticle, more faithful color, and a brighter overall image than either USO or Nightforce. The Swaro was the only one that ever made me go "holy shit" - it was like staring into a flashlight. Amazing. So my point being, Leupold may be behind Swaro, but in my book that's second to the top of the top.
I'm very, very eager to get my hands on the real pricey ones - SB, Hensoldt, and Premier - to see how they stack up.
Re: looked at Mark4 over weekend, disappointed.
hydro has a point......
My MK4 4.5-14 Illuminated TMR LR for $900 brand new was hard to beat.....
I have shot through NF and Premier scopes and yes they are of a higher caliber, but with that comes a price tag.
hydro has a point......
My MK4 4.5-14 Illuminated TMR LR for $900 brand new was hard to beat.....
I have shot through NF and Premier scopes and yes they are of a higher caliber, but with that comes a price tag.
Re: looked at Mark4 over weekend, disappointed.
Its not all about the glass...
Its not all about the glass...
Re: looked at Mark4 over weekend, disappointed.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: gugubica</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Its not all about the glass... </div></div>
Actually, in the case of this thread, it is:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Did the Leupold Mark4 glass go down hill? Did it ever have awesome lenses?</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: gugubica</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Its not all about the glass... </div></div>
Actually, in the case of this thread, it is:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Did the Leupold Mark4 glass go down hill? Did it ever have awesome lenses?</div></div>
Re: looked at Mark4 over weekend, disappointed.
In the case of the Leupy Mark 4 - I would not pay their asking price for what's in their box. I have shot with a ton of scopes, I believe you get what you pay for. But not with Leupold. To spend $1500 on a scope is a large investment, I don't think Leupold stacks up in glass, function, and customer service. They have really slipped, now 5 or 10 years ago they were awesome, that is no longer the case in my opinion.
For that kind of coin give me a nightforce nxs. I think they are excellent quality for the asking price and they have proven themselves in the field and with us shooters.
Just my opinions though. I do own Leupold scopes on hunting rifles but thats because if I dropped it I wouldn't be mad at myself, cause I know when I go to send it in Leupy will just tell me its not covered and Ill take the loss. A good buddy of mine got a Prismatic scope for his turkey shotgun, it broke within the first couple days of him having it, he sent it in and Leupold told him that instead of fixing it they would send him something different or send him some money because it would take so long to have it fixed. He still has nothing in hand and its been 6 months +
thumbs down to Leupold.
In the case of the Leupy Mark 4 - I would not pay their asking price for what's in their box. I have shot with a ton of scopes, I believe you get what you pay for. But not with Leupold. To spend $1500 on a scope is a large investment, I don't think Leupold stacks up in glass, function, and customer service. They have really slipped, now 5 or 10 years ago they were awesome, that is no longer the case in my opinion.
For that kind of coin give me a nightforce nxs. I think they are excellent quality for the asking price and they have proven themselves in the field and with us shooters.
Just my opinions though. I do own Leupold scopes on hunting rifles but thats because if I dropped it I wouldn't be mad at myself, cause I know when I go to send it in Leupy will just tell me its not covered and Ill take the loss. A good buddy of mine got a Prismatic scope for his turkey shotgun, it broke within the first couple days of him having it, he sent it in and Leupold told him that instead of fixing it they would send him something different or send him some money because it would take so long to have it fixed. He still has nothing in hand and its been 6 months +
thumbs down to Leupold.
Re: looked at Mark4 over weekend, disappointed.
In Leupold's defense their glass isn't really that bad, as stated by BigBrother. I've compared most major brands side by side and I would say that Leupold glass is a little bit better than USO and NF but still on the same general level.
S&B, Zeiss and Swarovski glass is on noticeably higher level.
In Leupold's defense their glass isn't really that bad, as stated by BigBrother. I've compared most major brands side by side and I would say that Leupold glass is a little bit better than USO and NF but still on the same general level.
S&B, Zeiss and Swarovski glass is on noticeably higher level.
Re: looked at Mark4 over weekend, disappointed.
Ach, ze Germans!
On another note, I do wish swaro would make more tactical scopes - they could be a serious contender.
Ach, ze Germans!
On another note, I do wish swaro would make more tactical scopes - they could be a serious contender.
Re: looked at Mark4 over weekend, disappointed.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sickeness</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In Leupold's defense their glass isn't really that bad, as stated by BigBrother. I've compared most major brands side by side and I would say that Leupold glass is a little bit better than USO and NF but still on the same general level.
S&B, Zeiss and Swarovski glass is on noticeably higher level. </div></div>
What a surprise, here you are again mentioning USO, and how their glass is not as good as Leupold..... Either you need to get your eyes checked or your head. I have looked through both, and there is no way Leupold glass is better than either USO or NF, no way in hell! You just have some kind of stick up your ass when it comes to USO, maybe even NF. Tell you what, Ill trade you any leupold you want for either a USO or NF any day of the week.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sickeness</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In Leupold's defense their glass isn't really that bad, as stated by BigBrother. I've compared most major brands side by side and I would say that Leupold glass is a little bit better than USO and NF but still on the same general level.
S&B, Zeiss and Swarovski glass is on noticeably higher level. </div></div>
What a surprise, here you are again mentioning USO, and how their glass is not as good as Leupold..... Either you need to get your eyes checked or your head. I have looked through both, and there is no way Leupold glass is better than either USO or NF, no way in hell! You just have some kind of stick up your ass when it comes to USO, maybe even NF. Tell you what, Ill trade you any leupold you want for either a USO or NF any day of the week.
Re: looked at Mark4 over weekend, disappointed.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Its not all about the glass...</div></div>
Well, it's not for me, either.
I've looked through a lot of scopes. I've rarely seen one where the optical quality made a difference to the shooter's ability to see the target well enough to shoot it, except in low-light conditions.
The primary items of interest to me in a scope are, with the highest preference first:
1. Reticle - is it one suitable for all lighting conditions, and can I use it easily for holdovers, holdunders, moving target leads, and wind holds? (That pretty much means a FFP reticle.)
2. Reliability. That means the scope must be rugged <span style="font-style: italic">and</span> the adjustment system must be repeatable and reliable.
3. Power Range. I'd like at least a 4-1 zoom ratio. For tactical shooting, I like a power range of 4-16. If I can get a 5-1 zoom ratio, I'd prefer 4-20.
4. Eye relief. Generous eye relief, and one which changes little with power changes.
5. Optical quality.
6. Price.
For a tactical shooter rather than a birdwatcher, getting wrapped around the axle about optical quality is, IMO, not useful.
Yeah, a pretty picture is nice, and high magnifications are good at long distance - until the mirage kicks up, which pretty well moots optical quality.
Your mileage may vary.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Its not all about the glass...</div></div>
Well, it's not for me, either.
I've looked through a lot of scopes. I've rarely seen one where the optical quality made a difference to the shooter's ability to see the target well enough to shoot it, except in low-light conditions.
The primary items of interest to me in a scope are, with the highest preference first:
1. Reticle - is it one suitable for all lighting conditions, and can I use it easily for holdovers, holdunders, moving target leads, and wind holds? (That pretty much means a FFP reticle.)
2. Reliability. That means the scope must be rugged <span style="font-style: italic">and</span> the adjustment system must be repeatable and reliable.
3. Power Range. I'd like at least a 4-1 zoom ratio. For tactical shooting, I like a power range of 4-16. If I can get a 5-1 zoom ratio, I'd prefer 4-20.
4. Eye relief. Generous eye relief, and one which changes little with power changes.
5. Optical quality.
6. Price.
For a tactical shooter rather than a birdwatcher, getting wrapped around the axle about optical quality is, IMO, not useful.
Yeah, a pretty picture is nice, and high magnifications are good at long distance - until the mirage kicks up, which pretty well moots optical quality.
Your mileage may vary.
Re: looked at Mark4 over weekend, disappointed.
For a tactical shooter picture is important. It's not about bird watching as you say it is about aquiring a target and ensuring that you have properly PID'd aka positively identified your target which is critical these days, you screw this up and the consequences in this politicaly correct day and age are terrible. Maybe for a tactical shooting match where lives are not at stake this is acceptable.
For a tactical shooter picture is important. It's not about bird watching as you say it is about aquiring a target and ensuring that you have properly PID'd aka positively identified your target which is critical these days, you screw this up and the consequences in this politicaly correct day and age are terrible. Maybe for a tactical shooting match where lives are not at stake this is acceptable.
Re: looked at Mark4 over weekend, disappointed.
Thirty years ago Leupold used to be the only affordable option for a serious tactical scope apart from the European wonder-glass. Back then the top-of-the-line Leupy's were OK. Things have changed. The quality, and quality control, have reached record low levels and the price continues to go up.
With respect to glass, I think you will see good and bad examples when comparing even NF to NF and SB to SB. I know that I have.
Some common problems, like chromatic aberration and edge distortion, are a function not of design but of the individual lenses, which can't be corrected and don't appear until late in the process. Some scopes hide these problems better than others; and some manufacturers choose not to spend money to make the image appear to the user as if the distortion isn't there. That doesn't mean that the optic itself isn't of high quality.
Stefan, if you can't see people through your scope get another scope.
I'll take a tactical scope with blurry edges but no reticle jump any day of the week.
Thirty years ago Leupold used to be the only affordable option for a serious tactical scope apart from the European wonder-glass. Back then the top-of-the-line Leupy's were OK. Things have changed. The quality, and quality control, have reached record low levels and the price continues to go up.
With respect to glass, I think you will see good and bad examples when comparing even NF to NF and SB to SB. I know that I have.
Some common problems, like chromatic aberration and edge distortion, are a function not of design but of the individual lenses, which can't be corrected and don't appear until late in the process. Some scopes hide these problems better than others; and some manufacturers choose not to spend money to make the image appear to the user as if the distortion isn't there. That doesn't mean that the optic itself isn't of high quality.
Stefan, if you can't see people through your scope get another scope.
I'll take a tactical scope with blurry edges but no reticle jump any day of the week.
Re: looked at Mark4 over weekend, disappointed.
Leupold remains to be one of the big players in the quality optic game. They have been battle tested in the military and on the streets for LE. You wouldn't see a Leupold on so many Barrett 50's if they were junk. For what they have to offer Leupold is great, but you simply cannot stack them against a S&B, Premier, or USO because it just isn't fair. For the money Leupold is good quality glass.
Leupold remains to be one of the big players in the quality optic game. They have been battle tested in the military and on the streets for LE. You wouldn't see a Leupold on so many Barrett 50's if they were junk. For what they have to offer Leupold is great, but you simply cannot stack them against a S&B, Premier, or USO because it just isn't fair. For the money Leupold is good quality glass.
Re: looked at Mark4 over weekend, disappointed.
hydro556, chill. I'm being objective. I'm asking because I dont have much experience with Leupold. I know they are great scopes but I just expected better glass. I looked at a $600 conquest right next to it and the zeiss had better glass. Did i say it was a better scope? no but it had better glass. I'm a grown man, I dont give a fuck about internet reputations or "bandwagons" as you put it. CaptainKirk, good point I guess it is stupid for me to make that comparison considering the price points.
hydro556, chill. I'm being objective. I'm asking because I dont have much experience with Leupold. I know they are great scopes but I just expected better glass. I looked at a $600 conquest right next to it and the zeiss had better glass. Did i say it was a better scope? no but it had better glass. I'm a grown man, I dont give a fuck about internet reputations or "bandwagons" as you put it. CaptainKirk, good point I guess it is stupid for me to make that comparison considering the price points.
Re: looked at Mark4 over weekend, disappointed.
Bigbrother, I've handled every scope I can think of expect the old UNERTL or green redfields. The one scope none of my friends have is the Mark4 so. I will agree that I didnt see any obvious chromatic abberation but the crispness wasnt there. I'm far from an expert but I know what good glass is. Also, to the guy that said Leupold has better glass that USO or NF??? I strongly disagree!!
Bigbrother, I've handled every scope I can think of expect the old UNERTL or green redfields. The one scope none of my friends have is the Mark4 so. I will agree that I didnt see any obvious chromatic abberation but the crispness wasnt there. I'm far from an expert but I know what good glass is. Also, to the guy that said Leupold has better glass that USO or NF??? I strongly disagree!!
Re: looked at Mark4 over weekend, disappointed.
Lindy, I agree. The only time optical quality really matters to me is when target shooting and referencing corrections.(im not an operator). I can see my shot placement better with my buddy's Minox HG 10x42 than I can with my cheap $160 spotting scope (lessen learned, thats all I'll say) Its not about the magnification if you have the quality and definition.
Lindy, I agree. The only time optical quality really matters to me is when target shooting and referencing corrections.(im not an operator). I can see my shot placement better with my buddy's Minox HG 10x42 than I can with my cheap $160 spotting scope (lessen learned, thats all I'll say) Its not about the magnification if you have the quality and definition.
Re: looked at Mark4 over weekend, disappointed.
I have no dog in this fight having both Leupold Vari-X III 6.5-20x40 EFR's and NF NXS 8-32x56 scopes. To my eyes the leupy's are just as bright, sharp and resolve as well as the NF NXS. OK both Leupy's are 15+ years old maybe things have changed. I not sure it's fair to paint all Leupy's with the same brush.
I have no dog in this fight having both Leupold Vari-X III 6.5-20x40 EFR's and NF NXS 8-32x56 scopes. To my eyes the leupy's are just as bright, sharp and resolve as well as the NF NXS. OK both Leupy's are 15+ years old maybe things have changed. I not sure it's fair to paint all Leupy's with the same brush.
Re: looked at Mark4 over weekend, disappointed.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Enkry</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Did it ever have awesome lenses?</div></div>
I have two Mark 4s with "awesome" lenses. One is a fixed power model that was boosted to 32x by Premier. It sees use on a F-TR rig and occasionally gets dragged to a .22 bench match. I really don't like being stuck with high power fixed magnification, but it is a better scope (glass and repeatability)than any NXS I have ever owned, so I fight through the mirage when I have too.
The other is a variable Mark 4 with excellent glass. Both scopes track perfectly and have yet to let me down. If they had matching adjustments/reticles, they would be tough to beat in the SFP scope market, IMHO.
Now, will a Mark 4 replace my primary scopes on my "tactical" rifles? I don't think so. With their new offerings with matching turrets/reticles and FFP, I believe they will be overpriced when compared to some of the other scopes with broader power ranges and improved features.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Enkry</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Did it ever have awesome lenses?</div></div>
I have two Mark 4s with "awesome" lenses. One is a fixed power model that was boosted to 32x by Premier. It sees use on a F-TR rig and occasionally gets dragged to a .22 bench match. I really don't like being stuck with high power fixed magnification, but it is a better scope (glass and repeatability)than any NXS I have ever owned, so I fight through the mirage when I have too.
The other is a variable Mark 4 with excellent glass. Both scopes track perfectly and have yet to let me down. If they had matching adjustments/reticles, they would be tough to beat in the SFP scope market, IMHO.
Now, will a Mark 4 replace my primary scopes on my "tactical" rifles? I don't think so. With their new offerings with matching turrets/reticles and FFP, I believe they will be overpriced when compared to some of the other scopes with broader power ranges and improved features.
Re: looked at Mark4 over weekend, disappointed.
I've been to two shoots recently. The Leupold scopes on the line all worked without a hitch. A S&B scope and Premier scope both broke. The Leupold shooters were all able to see and hit any target put in front of them. We could argue that higher end scopes could maybe see the targets more clearly because of the glass (debatable), but because they broke they couldn't hit them any more.
There's a lot more to a rifle scope than perfect glass.
Also, the market is really getting flooded with fake Mark 4's from China. The fakes look very real externally to include packaging. So the more stories I hear about Mark 4's breaking or having bad glass the more I'm starting to think that there is a chance people are buying fakes without knowing it.
Finally, consider Leupold sells more scopes than just about anyone. So just by sheer numbers they are going to have more that may malfunction because they could easily have 10:1 out in the market vs. smaller players (for example - I don't know what the ratio is). So it in fact may appear that Leupold is having quality issues but it could simply be the market saturation they have making failures appear to be larger than they really are.
FWIW. I have never had a problem with a Leupold scope and the glass in my comparable 3.5-10X Leupold long range tactical is just as good as my NightForce. Also I recently had a chance to look through three different Leupold spotters with mildot reticle and the glass, field of view, and operation of the scope was excellent.
I've been to two shoots recently. The Leupold scopes on the line all worked without a hitch. A S&B scope and Premier scope both broke. The Leupold shooters were all able to see and hit any target put in front of them. We could argue that higher end scopes could maybe see the targets more clearly because of the glass (debatable), but because they broke they couldn't hit them any more.
There's a lot more to a rifle scope than perfect glass.
Also, the market is really getting flooded with fake Mark 4's from China. The fakes look very real externally to include packaging. So the more stories I hear about Mark 4's breaking or having bad glass the more I'm starting to think that there is a chance people are buying fakes without knowing it.
Finally, consider Leupold sells more scopes than just about anyone. So just by sheer numbers they are going to have more that may malfunction because they could easily have 10:1 out in the market vs. smaller players (for example - I don't know what the ratio is). So it in fact may appear that Leupold is having quality issues but it could simply be the market saturation they have making failures appear to be larger than they really are.
FWIW. I have never had a problem with a Leupold scope and the glass in my comparable 3.5-10X Leupold long range tactical is just as good as my NightForce. Also I recently had a chance to look through three different Leupold spotters with mildot reticle and the glass, field of view, and operation of the scope was excellent.
Re: looked at Mark4 over weekend, disappointed.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Enkry</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bigbrother, I've handled every scope I can think of expect the old UNERTL or green redfields. The one scope none of my friends have is the Mark4 so. I will agree that I didnt see any obvious chromatic abberation but the crispness wasnt there. I'm far from an expert but I know what good glass is. Also, to the guy that said Leupold has better glass that USO or NF??? I strongly disagree!! </div></div>
Enkry, I forgot to specify a couple of important variables (I really did do a *lot* of testing here!) Two things I found were important to getting a Leupold with the world-class glass and reticle to which I was referring:
1. Must be an FFP. For whatever reason, the SFP models' reticles aren't nearly as nice. They suffer quite a bit from the brown-out effect where they pick up the color of the scene under them. They are almost never black, and can lighten to an almost caramel color. Ick. The FFP models, on the other hand, are razor sharp and crisp.
2. Variable as opposed to fixed. This was a big surprise. The commonly held wisdom is that the fixed 10X and 16X Mark 4s are somehow secretly different models - the "true military Mark 4" models that are somehow sturdier or clearer, and that the variables are just Vari-Xs without the gold ring, spruced up for marketing purposes. Well, curious about this (and not willing to go just on speculative opinions), I bought a fixed Mark 4 10X to compare to my 3.5-10X. Guess what? Murkier image, less resolution. I did a lot of tests at long distance (at my local golf course - plenty of good things to focus on at distance
) - there were no two ways about it. The variable was a superior optic across the board - reading signs, making out shapes, general clarity - everything was better with the 3.5-10X.
So, in summary, make sure you're trying a variable FFP Mark 4, and then you'll see what I'm talking about. Lastly, to give you a sense for my testbase, the following have been through my hands and across my eyes:
Three Mark 4 3.5-10X FFPs
One Mark 4 8.5-25X FFP
One Mark 4 10X
One Mark 4 4.5-14X SFP
One or two other SFP models that weren't mine
And everything in that base aligned with my findings above - no variation.
Oh, and I was one of the ones that claimed better glass than NF and USO . I have my opinion - my eyes see what they see - no "are you mads?!" are going to change that . I find NFs decent and USOs downright crap. And I really, really wanted a USO. I've handled them on the line, and I went to their factory in Anaheim and handled more than I can count. Dark and murky. Period.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Enkry</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bigbrother, I've handled every scope I can think of expect the old UNERTL or green redfields. The one scope none of my friends have is the Mark4 so. I will agree that I didnt see any obvious chromatic abberation but the crispness wasnt there. I'm far from an expert but I know what good glass is. Also, to the guy that said Leupold has better glass that USO or NF??? I strongly disagree!! </div></div>
Enkry, I forgot to specify a couple of important variables (I really did do a *lot* of testing here!) Two things I found were important to getting a Leupold with the world-class glass and reticle to which I was referring:
1. Must be an FFP. For whatever reason, the SFP models' reticles aren't nearly as nice. They suffer quite a bit from the brown-out effect where they pick up the color of the scene under them. They are almost never black, and can lighten to an almost caramel color. Ick. The FFP models, on the other hand, are razor sharp and crisp.
2. Variable as opposed to fixed. This was a big surprise. The commonly held wisdom is that the fixed 10X and 16X Mark 4s are somehow secretly different models - the "true military Mark 4" models that are somehow sturdier or clearer, and that the variables are just Vari-Xs without the gold ring, spruced up for marketing purposes. Well, curious about this (and not willing to go just on speculative opinions), I bought a fixed Mark 4 10X to compare to my 3.5-10X. Guess what? Murkier image, less resolution. I did a lot of tests at long distance (at my local golf course - plenty of good things to focus on at distance
So, in summary, make sure you're trying a variable FFP Mark 4, and then you'll see what I'm talking about. Lastly, to give you a sense for my testbase, the following have been through my hands and across my eyes:
Three Mark 4 3.5-10X FFPs
One Mark 4 8.5-25X FFP
One Mark 4 10X
One Mark 4 4.5-14X SFP
One or two other SFP models that weren't mine
And everything in that base aligned with my findings above - no variation.
Oh, and I was one of the ones that claimed better glass than NF and USO
Re: looked at Mark4 over weekend, disappointed.
They are okay, not great. Personally I think they are about 30% overpriced. Used leupolds make good buys though, especially if you just want a good hunting scope for not a lot of money (older vari-x models have decent glass).
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hydro556</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
ETA- and your thread title is bullshit.</div></div>
BAWWWWW
They are okay, not great. Personally I think they are about 30% overpriced. Used leupolds make good buys though, especially if you just want a good hunting scope for not a lot of money (older vari-x models have decent glass).
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hydro556</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
ETA- and your thread title is bullshit.</div></div>
BAWWWWW
Re: looked at Mark4 over weekend, disappointed.
leupolds still very much win matches i go to....
my three vari-3's all got premier mildot....which lend itself to consistant rangings......and they all track consistant
like a good boot...they perform when needed.
leupolds still very much win matches i go to....
my three vari-3's all got premier mildot....which lend itself to consistant rangings......and they all track consistant
like a good boot...they perform when needed.
Re: looked at Mark4 over weekend, disappointed.
Leupold isn't the company they used to be. I've owned there products in the past, but now, in every category, there is something better. IMHO they are over priced and milk the name too much. it isn't just the glass but the scopes themselves. 5 years ago i never heard a complaint about Leupold, but lately i have, with more and more frequency. the illumination system is terrible, so much so it's being revamped now. nightforce is a a much better scope that the lupy mk4 according to most guys I've talked to who shoot both. On the range, i compared the two, the nightforce was far better than the lupy, not only in clarity, but also in tracking. have any of you seen the new vx7? it's not even close to being worth what they are asking for it, terrible scope. the vxI and VXII lines i wouldn't ever consider now, and pricing for the vx3 line is too high, there are better scopes out there for way less.
I've hunted Leupold for years on some of my rifles, and i will continue to, but if nothing changes, I'll never buy another Leupold. just my honest opinion
Leupold isn't the company they used to be. I've owned there products in the past, but now, in every category, there is something better. IMHO they are over priced and milk the name too much. it isn't just the glass but the scopes themselves. 5 years ago i never heard a complaint about Leupold, but lately i have, with more and more frequency. the illumination system is terrible, so much so it's being revamped now. nightforce is a a much better scope that the lupy mk4 according to most guys I've talked to who shoot both. On the range, i compared the two, the nightforce was far better than the lupy, not only in clarity, but also in tracking. have any of you seen the new vx7? it's not even close to being worth what they are asking for it, terrible scope. the vxI and VXII lines i wouldn't ever consider now, and pricing for the vx3 line is too high, there are better scopes out there for way less.
I've hunted Leupold for years on some of my rifles, and i will continue to, but if nothing changes, I'll never buy another Leupold. just my honest opinion
Re: looked at Mark4 over weekend, disappointed.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BigBrother</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Three Mark 4 3.5-10X FFPs
One Mark 4 8.5-25X FFP
One Mark 4 10X
One Mark 4 4.5-14X SFP
One or two other SFP models that weren't mine
</div></div>
I've done similar tests and found the opposite. The older M3 had the best glass out of all the tactical leupolds I've used. 4.5-14 I have on my 300win is really disappointing, murky at more than 12X. I thought something was wrong with it but others I've used were the same. The 8.5-25 I used had decent glass, but not as good as the M3. It was very good for a high power variable though, for some reason a lot of 20+ power variables just aren't clear at max power.
As far as USO goes, they seemed okay to me. I thought the glass was decent and 1100 for a straight 10X custom ordered sounded like a good deal to me. I have never used the variable power USO's though.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BigBrother</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Three Mark 4 3.5-10X FFPs
One Mark 4 8.5-25X FFP
One Mark 4 10X
One Mark 4 4.5-14X SFP
One or two other SFP models that weren't mine
</div></div>
I've done similar tests and found the opposite. The older M3 had the best glass out of all the tactical leupolds I've used. 4.5-14 I have on my 300win is really disappointing, murky at more than 12X. I thought something was wrong with it but others I've used were the same. The 8.5-25 I used had decent glass, but not as good as the M3. It was very good for a high power variable though, for some reason a lot of 20+ power variables just aren't clear at max power.
As far as USO goes, they seemed okay to me. I thought the glass was decent and 1100 for a straight 10X custom ordered sounded like a good deal to me. I have never used the variable power USO's though.
Re: looked at Mark4 over weekend, disappointed.
BCP, have you used a new FFP variable? What was the 8.5-25?
BCP, have you used a new FFP variable? What was the 8.5-25?
Re: looked at Mark4 over weekend, disappointed.
i would definitely like to look at the FFPs. I saw an old M3 that had a Premier job done to it a while back and I thought it was awesome!!! I guess its subjective. As far as Leupold being tanks.....no argument here.
i would definitely like to look at the FFPs. I saw an old M3 that had a Premier job done to it a while back and I thought it was awesome!!! I guess its subjective. As far as Leupold being tanks.....no argument here.
Re: looked at Mark4 over weekend, disappointed.
Keep in mind too that USO's stellar rep for durability isn't so unanimous - some on here, and Zak Smith in particular - don't use them, as they've seen defect rates of 25% or higher.
When all is said and done, I'd recommend shelling out the coin for all the contenders you're considering with a vendor that will graciously accept returns, like Midway. Then take them all out to a field (just don't mount them!!), decide for yourself, and return the rest
Keep in mind too that USO's stellar rep for durability isn't so unanimous - some on here, and Zak Smith in particular - don't use them, as they've seen defect rates of 25% or higher.
When all is said and done, I'd recommend shelling out the coin for all the contenders you're considering with a vendor that will graciously accept returns, like Midway. Then take them all out to a field (just don't mount them!!), decide for yourself, and return the rest
Re: looked at Mark4 over weekend, disappointed.
haha, Bigbrother I think you just let your research procedure out of the bag!! Thats not a bad idea! Oh and %25 return on USO, thats horrible!! I've come to somewhat respect Zak Smith's opinion so thats definitly something to keep in mind.
haha, Bigbrother I think you just let your research procedure out of the bag!! Thats not a bad idea! Oh and %25 return on USO, thats horrible!! I've come to somewhat respect Zak Smith's opinion so thats definitly something to keep in mind.
Re: looked at Mark4 over weekend, disappointed.
.....i've seen every brand fail.....all of them...
but i like the makers and vendors that support us here on the Hide.....USO glass has been the number one item snagged off prize tables by champions....for years.....
.....i've seen every brand fail.....all of them...
but i like the makers and vendors that support us here on the Hide.....USO glass has been the number one item snagged off prize tables by champions....for years.....
Re: looked at Mark4 over weekend, disappointed.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BigBrother</div><div class="ubbcode-body">BCP, have you used a new FFP variable? What was the 8.5-25? </div></div>
I used a FFP 4.5-14, it was okay I just think that if you're going to spend 1400-1500 you're better off getting a SFP nightforce which has a better reticle and glass. The 8.5-25 SFP had m1 knobs and tmr reticle, my neighbor got it off ebay for 950 which I thought was a decent deal.
FWIW I'm not saying that leupie are bad scopes, they just cost too much new. Just my opinion. So if you can get a good deal on a used one I say go for it, but new ones at retail price? pass.
Also as far as defect rates go I've had to return more leupolds than anything else, but they've always fixed them for free. So if USO has always stood behind their product I don't see why anyone would hesitate to buy them based on failure rate. 25% sounds like an exaggeration as well.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BigBrother</div><div class="ubbcode-body">BCP, have you used a new FFP variable? What was the 8.5-25? </div></div>
I used a FFP 4.5-14, it was okay I just think that if you're going to spend 1400-1500 you're better off getting a SFP nightforce which has a better reticle and glass. The 8.5-25 SFP had m1 knobs and tmr reticle, my neighbor got it off ebay for 950 which I thought was a decent deal.
FWIW I'm not saying that leupie are bad scopes, they just cost too much new. Just my opinion. So if you can get a good deal on a used one I say go for it, but new ones at retail price? pass.
Also as far as defect rates go I've had to return more leupolds than anything else, but they've always fixed them for free. So if USO has always stood behind their product I don't see why anyone would hesitate to buy them based on failure rate. 25% sounds like an exaggeration as well.
Re: looked at Mark4 over weekend, disappointed.
BCP, not to call you out here, but are you *certain* it was an FFP 4.5-14X? Those were just released by Leupold very recently - 2009. If you check out the 08 calendar, they weren't around yet:
http://www2.leupold.com/resources/downloads/2008_Tactical_catalog.pdf
I only ask because, again, it makes a big difference - the FFPs are the bee's knees, and if both the ones you saw were SFP, that wouldn't really compare to the ones I've seen!
BCP, not to call you out here, but are you *certain* it was an FFP 4.5-14X? Those were just released by Leupold very recently - 2009. If you check out the 08 calendar, they weren't around yet:
http://www2.leupold.com/resources/downloads/2008_Tactical_catalog.pdf
I only ask because, again, it makes a big difference - the FFPs are the bee's knees, and if both the ones you saw were SFP, that wouldn't really compare to the ones I've seen!
Re: looked at Mark4 over weekend, disappointed.
FFP in the 4-14 & 8-25's been out since about Aug./sept. 08 . I been shooting the ffp 8-25 since before sept. 08 .
as far as the Bee's Knee's they got there faults in design like all the rest. (the best got way less faults) They are 'good glass' if we stick to the main topic point. I really like the Lower Mag. variables in FFP in the Leu's. But the design in high magnification variables is a hard design and. Leu. is pushing 'there envelope' in the 8-25x FFP TMR. they got some work to do with there High-x variables.
ya the 25% failier sounds high even with the huge volume Leu. does .
Also (imho) I got to go with Zeiss and then Swaro. for top 2 ' Glass ' . having played with the zeiss Hensoldt the other day. That tac. variable-x, Hensoldt has the best Ocular end that I have ever looked threw. Wow talk about edge to edge visability on there Ocular end .
.
FFP in the 4-14 & 8-25's been out since about Aug./sept. 08 . I been shooting the ffp 8-25 since before sept. 08 .
as far as the Bee's Knee's they got there faults in design like all the rest. (the best got way less faults) They are 'good glass' if we stick to the main topic point. I really like the Lower Mag. variables in FFP in the Leu's. But the design in high magnification variables is a hard design and. Leu. is pushing 'there envelope' in the 8-25x FFP TMR. they got some work to do with there High-x variables.
ya the 25% failier sounds high even with the huge volume Leu. does .
Also (imho) I got to go with Zeiss and then Swaro. for top 2 ' Glass ' . having played with the zeiss Hensoldt the other day. That tac. variable-x, Hensoldt has the best Ocular end that I have ever looked threw. Wow talk about edge to edge visability on there Ocular end .
.
Re: looked at Mark4 over weekend, disappointed.
That's fine, you're probably right, I saw it at Cabelas. I don't even think I dialed the magnification around but I did look through it for a little while.
My basic opinion of Leupie tactical stuff has always been that it is too costly in comparison with it's competition. If you think about it the Mark 4 scopes are competing with Monarch and Bushnell 4200 (both mil dot, 1/4 MOA turrets resettable) and they aren't really "better". The glass isn't better, leupie turrets feel a bit better to me but you get the same use out of all of them, and they all have what is essentially the same reticle. That's why I say they make great used buys - because then you get it for the price of a bushnell or nikon tactical, but you have the piece of mind of a leupold warranty. Just my 2 cents on the subject.
Also, feel free to mail me an FFP Leupold so I can see if it really is the bee's knees
That's fine, you're probably right, I saw it at Cabelas. I don't even think I dialed the magnification around but I did look through it for a little while.
My basic opinion of Leupie tactical stuff has always been that it is too costly in comparison with it's competition. If you think about it the Mark 4 scopes are competing with Monarch and Bushnell 4200 (both mil dot, 1/4 MOA turrets resettable) and they aren't really "better". The glass isn't better, leupie turrets feel a bit better to me but you get the same use out of all of them, and they all have what is essentially the same reticle. That's why I say they make great used buys - because then you get it for the price of a bushnell or nikon tactical, but you have the piece of mind of a leupold warranty. Just my 2 cents on the subject.
Also, feel free to mail me an FFP Leupold so I can see if it really is the bee's knees
Re: looked at Mark4 over weekend, disappointed.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: USMCj</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sickeness</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In Leupold's defense their glass isn't really that bad, as stated by BigBrother. I've compared most major brands side by side and I would say that Leupold glass is a little bit better than USO and NF but still on the same general level.
S&B, Zeiss and Swarovski glass is on noticeably higher level. </div></div>
What a surprise, here you are again mentioning USO, and how their glass is not as good as Leupold..... Either you need to get your eyes checked or your head. I have looked through both, and there is no way Leupold glass is better than either USO or NF, no way in hell! You just have some kind of stick up your ass when it comes to USO, maybe even NF. Tell you what, Ill trade you any leupold you want for either a USO or NF any day of the week. </div></div>
Wow dude, you really need to chill out on the attitude. I'm posting this based on my own experiences having owned Leupold, USO, NF and Schmidt. Since you don't seem to believe me, I will explain further: I went from Leupold to USO expecting better glass, holding a SN3 side by side with a Leupold 8.5-25 (made around 2000/2001), the Leupold had noticeably better contrast, the USO to me looked washed-out and dull color-wise. I currently own S&B and Nightforce. The S&B has way better image quality but the NF is very well made nonetheless, I find that the contrast in the NF isn't as good as Leupold due to the bluish/purplish tint that they have, I would still take the NF over the USO because I have yet to see someone break a NF.
I'm sorry if I don't agree with your choice of optic, but you need to stop taking my criticisms so personally. I have already stated that I have had problems with USO in the past and I would never buy another USO scope but I am not bringing any of that other stuff up, I am only making an objective comparison on glass quality. I'm not just making shit up here either, go look in the optics section of the CAPRC forum, it is pretty well established on there that USOs have problems. If you are happy with your USO scope, more power to you. My negative opinion of the company should not detract from your satisfaction.
Having met you before in person, I find it hard to believe you are the kind of person who would take such a negative attitude towards someone for having a dissimilar opinion. If you don't know when we met, send me a PM and I will tell you.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: USMCj</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sickeness</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In Leupold's defense their glass isn't really that bad, as stated by BigBrother. I've compared most major brands side by side and I would say that Leupold glass is a little bit better than USO and NF but still on the same general level.
S&B, Zeiss and Swarovski glass is on noticeably higher level. </div></div>
What a surprise, here you are again mentioning USO, and how their glass is not as good as Leupold..... Either you need to get your eyes checked or your head. I have looked through both, and there is no way Leupold glass is better than either USO or NF, no way in hell! You just have some kind of stick up your ass when it comes to USO, maybe even NF. Tell you what, Ill trade you any leupold you want for either a USO or NF any day of the week. </div></div>
Wow dude, you really need to chill out on the attitude. I'm posting this based on my own experiences having owned Leupold, USO, NF and Schmidt. Since you don't seem to believe me, I will explain further: I went from Leupold to USO expecting better glass, holding a SN3 side by side with a Leupold 8.5-25 (made around 2000/2001), the Leupold had noticeably better contrast, the USO to me looked washed-out and dull color-wise. I currently own S&B and Nightforce. The S&B has way better image quality but the NF is very well made nonetheless, I find that the contrast in the NF isn't as good as Leupold due to the bluish/purplish tint that they have, I would still take the NF over the USO because I have yet to see someone break a NF.
I'm sorry if I don't agree with your choice of optic, but you need to stop taking my criticisms so personally. I have already stated that I have had problems with USO in the past and I would never buy another USO scope but I am not bringing any of that other stuff up, I am only making an objective comparison on glass quality. I'm not just making shit up here either, go look in the optics section of the CAPRC forum, it is pretty well established on there that USOs have problems. If you are happy with your USO scope, more power to you. My negative opinion of the company should not detract from your satisfaction.
Having met you before in person, I find it hard to believe you are the kind of person who would take such a negative attitude towards someone for having a dissimilar opinion. If you don't know when we met, send me a PM and I will tell you.
Re: looked at Mark4 over weekend, disappointed.
sickeness, your summation is spot on with what I found, especially regarding color - that's something I didn't elaborate on. The Leupolds that I've used have what I'd call "real world" color reproduction. Whether or not that's a *valuable* trait in a tactical scope is another matter entirely. Hell, maybe a deep yellow optic is the clearest for insurgent hunting, who knows?
But I have found that many brands have telltale tints. USOs I've found to skew maroon or brown, NFs slightly yellow. Russian glass (the SVD scopes, whatever model they are) tend to skew blue/green if I remember correctly.
So again, probably not a primary concern, but it sure is nice on the eyes when looking through a faithful color reproducing scope.
sickeness, your summation is spot on with what I found, especially regarding color - that's something I didn't elaborate on. The Leupolds that I've used have what I'd call "real world" color reproduction. Whether or not that's a *valuable* trait in a tactical scope is another matter entirely. Hell, maybe a deep yellow optic is the clearest for insurgent hunting, who knows?
But I have found that many brands have telltale tints. USOs I've found to skew maroon or brown, NFs slightly yellow. Russian glass (the SVD scopes, whatever model they are) tend to skew blue/green if I remember correctly.
So again, probably not a primary concern, but it sure is nice on the eyes when looking through a faithful color reproducing scope.
Re: looked at Mark4 over weekend, disappointed.
I never had an issue with my MK4's till I started shooting past 1400 yds. Then I went to nightforce (260), The 6-20 and 8-25 mk 4's only have 70/75min elevation where the nightforce has 100min. Other than that the MK 4's have been great scopes. I get a chuckle out of gear queers at the range knocking my mk4's on my 308's yet they never move off the 100yd line while I normally push my 308's to 1200
Now I just ordered another surgeon for a 338laupa build. That will get the nightforce as well just becaue I need the internal elevation. Right tool for the job.
I never had an issue with my MK4's till I started shooting past 1400 yds. Then I went to nightforce (260), The 6-20 and 8-25 mk 4's only have 70/75min elevation where the nightforce has 100min. Other than that the MK 4's have been great scopes. I get a chuckle out of gear queers at the range knocking my mk4's on my 308's yet they never move off the 100yd line while I normally push my 308's to 1200
Now I just ordered another surgeon for a 338laupa build. That will get the nightforce as well just becaue I need the internal elevation. Right tool for the job.
Re: looked at Mark4 over weekend, disappointed.
I have a few thoughts on this and not all if any are unique. A gunsite is not a piece of high grade CSI lab equipment. As Lindy says and I'm paraphrasing here its a gunsite. If you need to switch out your Leupold for a SWaro in the field to ID a a target as hostile and you aren't sure with your LEO.....YOU ARE NOT TAKING THAT SHOT........period.
I am a former operator and most guys I here bitching about LEO's are guys who shoot paper or steel strictly from stationary firing lines. Tactical/practical shooters who have to run a course, drop a weapon here or there and bang some rocks as well as guys shooting at true evil most for the most part think LEO's are good gunsites............the kind to bet your life on.
I mean some guys have S&B's or whatever on their custom guns but when they go hunting they pull out a 700 PSS with a LEO on top!!! They don't want to scratch their custom or shake or rattle their $3000 microscope. Holy hell if you can't hunt with a rifle scope combo I could give a rats ass about how it looks on my mantle at home. If I want to hang something I'm proud of it will pics of my wife or daughter or my fallen comrades not a rifle and scope........I'll prop it up in the corner...ready to USE.
Plus you have to understand.........made by humans out of nuts and bolts..........it will brake....car, truck, scope. Leupold will replace your scope for life!!!! As one poster said he got a BRAND NEW 4-14 TMR Ill for $900...............he can have and shoot that scope for LIFE...............$900 lifetime scope. Depending where he lives if he brakes it he will have a new one in ONE day...........not a month or two and he won't get grilled about maybe its his fault etc etc.......who cares.
Personally Leupold doesn't look as clear or bright to me as S&B or Premeir..........but again twice the money. And also LEO has MAP pricing as far as I know so what you see advertised can generally be had for less.
Here is a super deal-On this site someone has LEO 8.5 x 25 TMR FFP! This model didn't come with ill. he sent it to the custom shop and had it illuminated(how many scope makers could/would do that?) He is selling this scope for $1400...........high mag FFP, ill LIFETIME warranty.....$1400.
And not to knock any brand but Leupold is a scope MAKER.....not assembler..........the MArk $'s are made in house as are ALL the parts. They make every part except the glass which comes from Europes top glass maker...........not the same grade as S&B but some building.
Congrats to Bushnell on improving their scopes as well as others but to say Leupold is competing with them.......seriously.
Leupold is competing with S&B, Premeir, Zeiss, US Optics, Bushell, Swaro etc.......those brands including Nightforce and IOR don't combined sell 1/2 as much product as Leupold does...not even close.
I don't know about US Optics, Nightforce, Premeir or other US scopes but if you are ever around Portland Or drop by Leupold and tell you are a shooter and heard they sometimes give factory tours............chances are you will get one.
There won't be any black curtains or products from Nunyah....you can talk to the worker who has been making the Mark 4 turrets on his machine 5 days a week for 25 years and then ask him who else makes them.......Nobody does.
I like other brands of scopes and don't work for Leupold. I frankly just emailed Scott regarding IOR's they have been teasing me with features for some time..........and Scott says their CS is up and replacement time is 1 week verus 6-8 as prior. I just can't handle high rates of failure.
Something about opening a Leupold box and having the correct caps as standard issue in the box and know its a LIFETIME scope.
My 2 cents(maybe 4 cents) Thanks-Derek
I have a few thoughts on this and not all if any are unique. A gunsite is not a piece of high grade CSI lab equipment. As Lindy says and I'm paraphrasing here its a gunsite. If you need to switch out your Leupold for a SWaro in the field to ID a a target as hostile and you aren't sure with your LEO.....YOU ARE NOT TAKING THAT SHOT........period.
I am a former operator and most guys I here bitching about LEO's are guys who shoot paper or steel strictly from stationary firing lines. Tactical/practical shooters who have to run a course, drop a weapon here or there and bang some rocks as well as guys shooting at true evil most for the most part think LEO's are good gunsites............the kind to bet your life on.
I mean some guys have S&B's or whatever on their custom guns but when they go hunting they pull out a 700 PSS with a LEO on top!!! They don't want to scratch their custom or shake or rattle their $3000 microscope. Holy hell if you can't hunt with a rifle scope combo I could give a rats ass about how it looks on my mantle at home. If I want to hang something I'm proud of it will pics of my wife or daughter or my fallen comrades not a rifle and scope........I'll prop it up in the corner...ready to USE.
Plus you have to understand.........made by humans out of nuts and bolts..........it will brake....car, truck, scope. Leupold will replace your scope for life!!!! As one poster said he got a BRAND NEW 4-14 TMR Ill for $900...............he can have and shoot that scope for LIFE...............$900 lifetime scope. Depending where he lives if he brakes it he will have a new one in ONE day...........not a month or two and he won't get grilled about maybe its his fault etc etc.......who cares.
Personally Leupold doesn't look as clear or bright to me as S&B or Premeir..........but again twice the money. And also LEO has MAP pricing as far as I know so what you see advertised can generally be had for less.
Here is a super deal-On this site someone has LEO 8.5 x 25 TMR FFP! This model didn't come with ill. he sent it to the custom shop and had it illuminated(how many scope makers could/would do that?) He is selling this scope for $1400...........high mag FFP, ill LIFETIME warranty.....$1400.
And not to knock any brand but Leupold is a scope MAKER.....not assembler..........the MArk $'s are made in house as are ALL the parts. They make every part except the glass which comes from Europes top glass maker...........not the same grade as S&B but some building.
Congrats to Bushnell on improving their scopes as well as others but to say Leupold is competing with them.......seriously.
Leupold is competing with S&B, Premeir, Zeiss, US Optics, Bushell, Swaro etc.......those brands including Nightforce and IOR don't combined sell 1/2 as much product as Leupold does...not even close.
I don't know about US Optics, Nightforce, Premeir or other US scopes but if you are ever around Portland Or drop by Leupold and tell you are a shooter and heard they sometimes give factory tours............chances are you will get one.
There won't be any black curtains or products from Nunyah....you can talk to the worker who has been making the Mark 4 turrets on his machine 5 days a week for 25 years and then ask him who else makes them.......Nobody does.
I like other brands of scopes and don't work for Leupold. I frankly just emailed Scott regarding IOR's they have been teasing me with features for some time..........and Scott says their CS is up and replacement time is 1 week verus 6-8 as prior. I just can't handle high rates of failure.
Something about opening a Leupold box and having the correct caps as standard issue in the box and know its a LIFETIME scope.
My 2 cents(maybe 4 cents) Thanks-Derek
Re: looked at Mark4 over weekend, disappointed.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BigBrother</div><div class="ubbcode-body">sickeness, your summation is spot on with what I found, especially regarding color - that's something I didn't elaborate on. The Leupolds that I've used have what I'd call "real world" color reproduction. Whether or not it's a *valuable* trait in a tactical scope is another matter entirely. Hell, maybe a deep yellow optic is the clearest for insurgent hunting, who knows .
But I have found that many brands have telltale tints. USOs I've found to skew maroon or brown, NFs slightly yellow. Russian glass (the SVD scopes, whatever model they are) tend to skew blue/green if I remember correctly.
So again, probably not a primary concern, but it sure is nice on the eyes when looking through a faithful color reproducing scope. </div></div>
Agreed, although I think you have it flipped a little bit. I my experience all Russian scopes (based on looking through POSP scopes and Russian binocs) tend to be yellowish and all Japanese scopes tend to be green/bluish. I admit I am far from an expert on this topic but I believe it is in the coatings. Western European coatings tend to have the best real-world color rendition although Leupold isn't too bad either.
IMO, its retarded to deride Leupold based on their glass quality because from what I've seen, it really isn't that bad.
Personally I would love to have a NF scope with Leupold glass. My main issues with Leupold are the annoying eye relief shift on their variable models, lack of matching knobs/reticles and their mushy ass clicks.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BigBrother</div><div class="ubbcode-body">sickeness, your summation is spot on with what I found, especially regarding color - that's something I didn't elaborate on. The Leupolds that I've used have what I'd call "real world" color reproduction. Whether or not it's a *valuable* trait in a tactical scope is another matter entirely. Hell, maybe a deep yellow optic is the clearest for insurgent hunting, who knows
But I have found that many brands have telltale tints. USOs I've found to skew maroon or brown, NFs slightly yellow. Russian glass (the SVD scopes, whatever model they are) tend to skew blue/green if I remember correctly.
So again, probably not a primary concern, but it sure is nice on the eyes when looking through a faithful color reproducing scope. </div></div>
Agreed, although I think you have it flipped a little bit. I my experience all Russian scopes (based on looking through POSP scopes and Russian binocs) tend to be yellowish and all Japanese scopes tend to be green/bluish. I admit I am far from an expert on this topic but I believe it is in the coatings. Western European coatings tend to have the best real-world color rendition although Leupold isn't too bad either.
IMO, its retarded to deride Leupold based on their glass quality because from what I've seen, it really isn't that bad.
Personally I would love to have a NF scope with Leupold glass. My main issues with Leupold are the annoying eye relief shift on their variable models, lack of matching knobs/reticles and their mushy ass clicks.
Re: looked at Mark4 over weekend, disappointed.
I could definitely use sharper clicks, to be sure, though I tend to think now the mushiness is more of a psychological distraction than a real problem, since they always *end* in a sharp tactile click. I ran my Mark 4's adjustment through its entire range (up 45, down 36, left 40 something, etc. etc. etc.) and back to zero for a tracking test, pulled the trigger - same hole as the original shot. To the point where I thought I missed paper or had a misfire. After looking and analyzing, I was astounded it went through the exact same spot.
Oh, and for what it's worth, a shot of an SVD optic:
I could definitely use sharper clicks, to be sure, though I tend to think now the mushiness is more of a psychological distraction than a real problem, since they always *end* in a sharp tactile click. I ran my Mark 4's adjustment through its entire range (up 45, down 36, left 40 something, etc. etc. etc.) and back to zero for a tracking test, pulled the trigger - same hole as the original shot. To the point where I thought I missed paper or had a misfire. After looking and analyzing, I was astounded it went through the exact same spot.
Oh, and for what it's worth, a shot of an SVD optic:
Re: looked at Mark4 over weekend, disappointed.
Deleted in protest!
Deleted in protest!
Re: looked at Mark4 over weekend, disappointed.
have had a luepy fog over on my dangerous game gun and i called customer service had it back in my hands in 10 days imo ill take alittle piece of mind over alittle quality any day of the week
my 4.5x14 tmr is great and as much as i would love to get a U.S. Optics scope i cant justify the outlay of cash right now
just my .02 cents worth..
have had a luepy fog over on my dangerous game gun and i called customer service had it back in my hands in 10 days imo ill take alittle piece of mind over alittle quality any day of the week
my 4.5x14 tmr is great and as much as i would love to get a U.S. Optics scope i cant justify the outlay of cash right now
just my .02 cents worth..
Re: looked at Mark4 over weekend, disappointed.
I hate when guys say stuff like "your talking about a gunsite not a microscope" like we're being pussies for wanting the best glass possible. We know the difference between utility and luxury. This is just a conversation. I personally like using my spotting scope as least as possible!
I found these pics on the net.
Mark4
Zeiss Conquest
and Swarovski for reference
I hate when guys say stuff like "your talking about a gunsite not a microscope" like we're being pussies for wanting the best glass possible. We know the difference between utility and luxury. This is just a conversation. I personally like using my spotting scope as least as possible!
I found these pics on the net.
Mark4
Zeiss Conquest
and Swarovski for reference
Re: looked at Mark4 over weekend, disappointed.
Eastern optics having a "yellowish" tint is something I haven't figured out for sure. One person told me it was a "radiation resistant" tint, another said it was done to increase resolution/clarity. I do know that one of my IOR scopes has that tint, and it still has great clarity although the colors are ever so slightly off.
"I am a former operator and most guys I here bitching about LEO's are guys who shoot paper or steel strictly from stationary firing lines. Tactical/practical shooters who have to run a course, drop a weapon here or there and bang some rocks as well as guys shooting at true evil most for the most part think LEO's are good gunsites............the kind to bet your life on."
Funny, most of the ones I talk to say Schmidt and Bender, and a coworker of mine who got back from Iraq two years ago is the one who turned me on to Valdada.
They also hated the new Leupold M2 scopes they have and fight over the older M3 ones
As for bushnell...they are fine too. 4200 glass is good, and the turrets work - only thing they seem to lack is adjustment range.
Everyone has an opinion, I just figure buy whatever you can afford with the reticle and turrets you want and worry about brand name last.
Eastern optics having a "yellowish" tint is something I haven't figured out for sure. One person told me it was a "radiation resistant" tint, another said it was done to increase resolution/clarity. I do know that one of my IOR scopes has that tint, and it still has great clarity although the colors are ever so slightly off.
"I am a former operator and most guys I here bitching about LEO's are guys who shoot paper or steel strictly from stationary firing lines. Tactical/practical shooters who have to run a course, drop a weapon here or there and bang some rocks as well as guys shooting at true evil most for the most part think LEO's are good gunsites............the kind to bet your life on."
Funny, most of the ones I talk to say Schmidt and Bender, and a coworker of mine who got back from Iraq two years ago is the one who turned me on to Valdada.
They also hated the new Leupold M2 scopes they have and fight over the older M3 ones
As for bushnell...they are fine too. 4200 glass is good, and the turrets work - only thing they seem to lack is adjustment range.
Everyone has an opinion, I just figure buy whatever you can afford with the reticle and turrets you want and worry about brand name last.
Re: looked at Mark4 over weekend, disappointed.
BTW Enkry, that Leupy shot appears to be through either an FFP or a fixed power, NOT an SFP. As I was mentioning, the former are the nice, crisp ones, while the SFPs tend to look like this (had a whole thread on it):
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1246254
BTW Enkry, that Leupy shot appears to be through either an FFP or a fixed power, NOT an SFP. As I was mentioning, the former are the nice, crisp ones, while the SFPs tend to look like this (had a whole thread on it):
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1246254
Re: looked at Mark4 over weekend, disappointed.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Enkry</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I hate when guys say stuff like "your talking about a gunsite not a microscope" like we're being pussies for wanting the best glass possible.</div></div>
That's one thing I noticed the first time I used a Swarovski scope on a range. I could really tell a difference from the Super Sniper and Leupold VarixIII scopes I had with me at the time. I could really make out the details of smaller objects - rocks, clay pigeons, whatever - much better. It really blew me away being able to see the texture of the bark on a tree at 300 yards, being able to pick out small rocks, the colors etc vs. just "seeing" them if you know what I mean.
Also for really particular or technical questions the opticstalk.com forum has great info.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Enkry</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I hate when guys say stuff like "your talking about a gunsite not a microscope" like we're being pussies for wanting the best glass possible.</div></div>
That's one thing I noticed the first time I used a Swarovski scope on a range. I could really tell a difference from the Super Sniper and Leupold VarixIII scopes I had with me at the time. I could really make out the details of smaller objects - rocks, clay pigeons, whatever - much better. It really blew me away being able to see the texture of the bark on a tree at 300 yards, being able to pick out small rocks, the colors etc vs. just "seeing" them if you know what I mean.
Also for really particular or technical questions the opticstalk.com forum has great info.
Re: looked at Mark4 over weekend, disappointed.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BCP</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Enkry</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I hate when guys say stuff like "your talking about a gunsite not a microscope" like we're being pussies for wanting the best glass possible.</div></div>
That's one thing I noticed the first time I used a Swarovski scope on a range. I could really tell a difference from the Super Sniper and Leupold VarixIII scopes I had with me at the time. I could really make out the details of smaller objects - rocks, clay pigeons, whatever - much better. It really blew me away being able to see the texture of the bark on a tree at 300 yards, being able to pick out small rocks, the colors etc vs. just "seeing" them if you know what I mean. </div></div>
Absolutely. Swaros still remain the only scope I've looked through that gave me as much "Wow" over the common bunch (Leupold, USO, NF) as the common bunch give me over the lower tiers. I'll say again, I *wish* Swaro made ones with more tactical turret and reticle options.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BCP</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Enkry</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I hate when guys say stuff like "your talking about a gunsite not a microscope" like we're being pussies for wanting the best glass possible.</div></div>
That's one thing I noticed the first time I used a Swarovski scope on a range. I could really tell a difference from the Super Sniper and Leupold VarixIII scopes I had with me at the time. I could really make out the details of smaller objects - rocks, clay pigeons, whatever - much better. It really blew me away being able to see the texture of the bark on a tree at 300 yards, being able to pick out small rocks, the colors etc vs. just "seeing" them if you know what I mean. </div></div>
Absolutely. Swaros still remain the only scope I've looked through that gave me as much "Wow" over the common bunch (Leupold, USO, NF) as the common bunch give me over the lower tiers. I'll say again, I *wish* Swaro made ones with more tactical turret and reticle options.
Similar threads
