How did you arrive at the 100 yard distance measurement? If it’s not 100 exactly then your scope will show error.
Mark 4hd tracking issue
- Thread starter Ragin_cajun
- Start date
Reee….reeeee…reeee…your rangefinders have an error rate of at least 1.38% (the standard of all known lrf manufacturers) that if unaccounted for could cause an unknown error in your measurement. You need to use a certified tape, measuring from the exact center of your turrets to the target. You don’t even know what your problem is…..reeeeeeee.
Just trying to fit in here. /
Short answer...Yes. It also seems to be a built-in feature for pretty much all Leupold scopes. That's why I'd get them to replace it with a new one, then sell the NIB one when it comes back, and get something better.
Range finders are plus/minus. If the distance is off by a couple yards then your group will shift an inch.
Are you telling me that a +/- 6' diffrence at 100yds will move the impact an inch?
I ran the ballistics on that, and I'm not seeing anything close (unless you're shooting a Red Ryder). Since I've screwed things up before...you mind showing a link where 9 feet equals a trajectory change by an inch? I'd like to apply the math to what I do (if it can be validated).
Running a simple test on it on JBM shows that from 91 - 110 yards... a 105gr Hybrid at 2900 FPS has a 0.0 change in drop in inches with a 100 yard zero. I ran it again with a 97 yard zero (to show what a 9' difference would do), and the only thing that changed was that the 0.0 drop changed to 89-110 yards (I stopped the testing at 110 yards). *This is just to the tenth of an inch*, and it would not affect click value of your scope during zeroing.
I'm not discounting the need to accurately measure one's zero range. However the math (at least this simple test) shows that there isn't a whole lot of error that you're going to see in either your bullet trajectory, or your click value, if you're off 9 feet at ~100 yards.
I will hold onto this sentence here for if I need to make a correctional statement if I am proven wrong.
It’s not. the. freaking. ballistics.
The only thing changing is the turret on the scope, the rest is the same.
If at 100 yards 3.6”=1mil, he dialed 5mils=18” and got a bit more at 19”, that’s 19”/18”dialed=1.055 factor
100yards*1.055=105.5 yards where that paper would have to have been at for his tracking error to have been from poor distance. Not out of the realm of possibility in a bad range. His range finder should be closer than that though if it hasn’t been dropped one too many times.
The only thing changing is the turret on the scope, the rest is the same.
If at 100 yards 3.6”=1mil, he dialed 5mils=18” and got a bit more at 19”, that’s 19”/18”dialed=1.055 factor
100yards*1.055=105.5 yards where that paper would have to have been at for his tracking error to have been from poor distance. Not out of the realm of possibility in a bad range. His range finder should be closer than that though if it hasn’t been dropped one too many times.
Last edited:
100% agree it isn't the ballistics.
I like it, thanks!
That does require a 30 MOA dial though (and is closer to 10')...so the amount of discrepancy is dependent on the amount dialed.
If you cut it in half (15MOA dial and 3 yards off) ... you're less than a half inch in discrepancy...which makes sense.
Tested 3 mark 4 hd in the last couple weeks, they all tracked better than the 9-10 mark 5s we tested
Target measured out to 100 yards with a tape measure, 10 mil dot Target perfectly vertical
Target measured out to 100 yards with a tape measure, 10 mil dot Target perfectly vertical
In mils it works out to 100 yards x 10 mils x .03599 for a 36” POI shift or 103 yards x 10 mils x .03599 for a 37” POI shift.
You’re putting a lot of effort into not sending the scope back. Save money and send them back. Retest when Leupold gives them a clean bill of health or replaces them.
Cajun.... listen to the advice given here, but satisfy your curiosity as well. It's called the learning process.
I've explored many dead end rabbit holes before getting to the quick answer given on the Hide, but what I learned was priceless.
It helps you better understand WHY... and your thread is another good example.
Crow shouldn't taste bad.
I've explored many dead end rabbit holes before getting to the quick answer given on the Hide, but what I learned was priceless.
It helps you better understand WHY... and your thread is another good example.
Crow shouldn't taste bad.
My issue is I honestly really like these scopes (other than the tracking issue). So I want to test them both tomorrow to verify that they need to go back because I have two nfl hunter matches coming up and I really don’t need another headache
So this is what I found after having time to actually test them against each other and other scopes. On the two mark 4hd 6-24s that I have Leupolds “mil” is not accurate. Both track identical and have used the same data on both scopes which leads me to think that it could be a larger issue. I drew out a correct tall target test and the results are that 1 mil is roughly 3.78” instead of 3.6”. Doesn’t seem like much until you get further out and then it compounds quickly. The only way to fix it was to raise my bc in the kestrel from .273 to .301 which is pretty damn far off. Shooting Berger 105s at 2880fps with the bc set @.301 I’m on the vertical line on targets out to 1025. This is an issue that could possibly be worked around but should it be? For that price I think not. If you have a mark 4hd 6-24 in pr2 or pr3 then perform a tall target test and see what you get.
OP,
that is seriously fucked for such an expensive scope and I hope they make it right with the quickness as I am also interested in a mk4hd, mainly for the pr2 reticle.
in the short term for your upcoming matches, whatever ballistic calc you use should have a setting to account for the error. for example in strelok I have a section "vertical click, mrad" and in your case I would change it from . 1 to around .105 mils.
that is seriously fucked for such an expensive scope and I hope they make it right with the quickness as I am also interested in a mk4hd, mainly for the pr2 reticle.
in the short term for your upcoming matches, whatever ballistic calc you use should have a setting to account for the error. for example in strelok I have a section "vertical click, mrad" and in your case I would change it from . 1 to around .105 mils.
The fact that he arrived at same “error” gives me pause. It is possible that the Leupold calibration jig is off, the fact that it was on two scopes likely bought at different times by a company known for decent scopes and a government supplier (subject to audits). These things makes me doubt the Cajun’s test measuring accuracy. A .12” error at 100 yards is easy to explain between the measurements of the 100yrds and the actual point of aim difference ( actual vs predicted). It would be interesting to if the OP tried it with know entity scope that they know is correct.
Even though the Kestrel doesn’t have a way to correct the scope values, you can do it in the AB app (assuming your Kesrel is the Elite version). There are other apps that have a scope correction as well. This would assist in comparing true dope against both the app and Kestrel to get everything dialed in.
Yea…if I read it correctly it’s like a 3.3% error cumulative from all sources.
Yea I would have just sent both back and have Leupold fix it. Not my circus, not my monkeys. I'm gonna go back and read the entire thread on a computer though... I definitely don't have this issue with my MK5HDs as I've confirmed DOPE out to 1015 yards already.
EDIT: Christ this thread was a painful read, and its clear too many don't know how a scope works.
This is still the correct answer. OP has already done tracking testing. He could do more if he so wished with the recommendations made here. Using a ruler, marker and paper isn't fxcking hard to do, and I have confidence OP will do the tests he needs to feel satisfied. So, yes: send them back, and let Leupold fix them. Clearly whoever made this batch of MK4HDs had a bad day, or some machine tolerance was off. This is an easy fix... it isn't like other scopes regardless of make or model haven't had a single fault before.
Husky is still traumatized from his issued Leupold M3 it seems... thanks for the tag you muppet.
Last edited:
Started off with the sig6k but then after being told how wrong I was I pulled out the 300’ tape measure
I took my time and tested it against others (Burris xtr3, razor hd gen3, razor hd gen2)
Excellent, if this still freaks you out , send them in for repair.
Now, just because I’m curious, what was the difference between your tape and your rangefinder?
Similar threads
