Rifle Scopes Mark 5 v Gen II HD

[aslrookie]

I am able to get a lightly used Gen 2 3-18x razor for $1500. The Leupold Mark 5 3-18x is just a little bit more than that for non illumination and TMR reticle.

This will be on my 24” 224 Valkyrie AR and used for PRS, hunting, and range time. Trying to decide which scope would be better. I know the Mk5 is substantially lighter, but I am not rucking with my rifle everywhere all the time.

 

[MOUNTIC]

The Razor gen 2 is much better if weight isn't an issue. The CA on the examples of 3 mk5s I had were pretty bad. No illumination unless you want to pay out the you know what. It was light weight and that is all it really has going.. Turrets were ok after Leupold replaced two of them for me. If your only choosing between the two then the Razor all day. If you can swing a few hundred more, Minox has a blowout sale on the ZP5 3-15 MR2 right now. Have a few of these and are my favorite 3-15. And the best value on the 525 also from my experience. And if you consider a T5Xi there is a really good deal going on over at Steiner-scopes. 1270 shipped for the latest 2018 model that doesn't have the issues some of the early scopes had. They also have that free mount/ring promotion too. So your 1k-1100 into the scope all said and done if you take out ring cost. Comes with TT caps, Sunshade, throw lever. Etc. Some of those early bad reviews really killed that optic, but the new ones are spot on. The Vudu is another good choice with the Midway USA pricing. I think it's a better optic then the mk5. CA was a tiny bit better but still noticeable purple. Rest of the scope I like. The MD3 reticle is pretty useful and not too busy. Turrets we're nice. Elevation turret was locking. Not nearly as stiff as the Razor but you could lightly pull up and twist in a seamless motion. No flip caps on this one. Mine came with a clear bikini cover.

But not to stray too far off topic on other scopes.. the razor is a better option out of the two and you get a better reticle, and illumination too.

 

[aslrookie]

Yeah I considered Steiner, but I was nervous because of the issues they had in the past. I wasn’t sure if they actually fixed them or not. I like the razor because of the 18x power. I’d like to have 18x on the top end instead of 15. Not a fan of the 5-25x because 5x is a little much for close range and I want to eventually use it in conjunction with a PVS30. So the lower power will help with clarity.

 

[oneisnone]

I’m running a Mk5 3-18 on one of my bolt guns and have been pleased with it. Did a tracking test and have repeatedly dialed out to 1400 and back with no issues. Weight is a big factor for me, and illuminated reticles aren’t, so that made the choice easy for me.

 

[bgavin]

How is the mark 5 3-18 at low light?

 

[oneisnone]

I haven’t had a chance to take it out at low light, but my MK5 5-25 does great. I’m sure with the smaller obj, some clarity will be lost, but it’s not an issue for me as I use the MK5’s as match optics, not for hunting.

 

[MOUNTIC]

How is the mark 5 3-18 at low light?

Not bad. Low end to 12x your fine. And it does fairly well. The CCH reticle is too thin in my opinion to use in low light without illumination so I would recommend the TMR in this scope with Illuminated reticle if you were shooting/hunting at dusk/Dawn.

 

[GhostFace]

Illumination alone is a reason to skip the Leupold. I mean asking for your right testicle for something that is included on most scopes is insane....

 

[MarinePMI]

I can see your point, but the other side of that coin is I have illumination on many scopes...that never gets used. If they can lower the price point of one offering, by not amortizing the cost of illumination across all their other offerings, than that is not necessarily a bad thing. It's just a different business model. More options for us, the consumers IMHO.

 

[aslrookie]

I like illuminated reticles for low light shooting and I plan on getting a PVS30 at some point. Probably invest in dual tube goggles before a 30 though, so it will be a while. I just really like the lightweight aspect of the Mk5. I can’t speak for glass clarity because it’s just looking at a fake animal 50yds away inside a Cabelas.

 

[Poorboyr]

I would go with the Leupold. Glass is better (to me) and it is lighter. I personally do not think the Razors are that amazing. Good scope but not as good as some say.

 

[MarinePMI]

If this is for hunting and being put on an AR, then I'd lean towards the Mk 5, mainly because of weight/size. The glass clarity is plenty good for hunting and/or PRS/LR shooting.

As to which is better, that's an unfair comparison IMO, since they really sit in different price/performance classes. The Rzr GII has better glass hands down. Period. If you can't see the difference I would sincerely recommend either getting your eyes checked, or spend more time adjusting the diopter setting on the scopes.

As far as ruggedness, that's really hard to quantify without some 801G Shock & vibe testing. What can be said is that anecdotally, Rzr GII's have been shown to be incredibly robust and tolerant of a lot of abuse. The Mk 5's just haven't been out there that long, so time will tell (to be fair, I have had zero issues with the Mk5's robustness, and I tend to be a little rough on my gear at times).

So, which is better? Well, the Rzr GII has the better record for robustness and glass quality. Which is better for you, since you're installing it on a AR? Probably the Mk 5. Doesn't mean the Rzr is a lesser scope, only that for the intended platform, and your intended purposes (which is quite a spread) the Mk 5 may be a safer option (if you can live without illumination). If illumination is an absolute must, and you can tolerate a top heavy AR, then the 3-18 Rzr would be a solid choice.

For the record, I have both the 3-18 and the 4.5x27 Rzr, as well as a 5-25 Mk-5, and have spent considerable time behind all of them, in both match and hunting situations.

 

[6brshooter]

If this is for hunting and being put on an AR, then I'd lean towards the Mk 5, mainly because of weight/size. The glass clarity is plenty good for hunting and/or PRS/LR shooting.

As to which is better, that's an unfair comparison IMO, since they really sit in different price/performance classes. The Rzr GII has better glass hands down. Period. If you can't see the difference I would sincerely recommend either getting your eyes checked, or spend more time adjusting the diopter setting on the scopes.

As far as ruggedness, that's really hard to quantify without some 801G Shock & vibe testing. What can be said is that anecdotally, Rzr GII's have been shown to be incredibly robust and tolerant of a lot of abuse. The Mk 5's just haven't been out there that long, so time will tell (to be fair, I have had zero issues with the Mk5's robustness, and I tend to be a little rough on my gear at times).

So, which is better? Well, the Rzr GII has the better record for robustness and glass quality. Which is better for you, since you're installing it on a AR? Probably the Mk 5. Doesn't mean the Rzr is a lesser scope, only that for the intended platform, and your intended purposes (which is quite a spread) the Mk 5 may be a safer option (if you can live without illumination). If illumination is an absolute must, and you can tolerate a top heavy AR, then the 3-18 Rzr would be a solid choice.

For the record, I have both the 3-18 and the 4.5x27 Rzr, as well as a 5-25 Mk-5, and have spent considerable time behind all of them, in both match and hunting situations.

 

[6brshooter]

I use a clip on quite a bit. I'm not a fan of mk4 with clip ons, seems they don't allow as much brightness in compared to nf or bushy ers/legs. I figure it's a lense film issue not obj size issue. I have found that a black reticle is preferred with a clip on, an illumination added to reticle seems to cause to much bloom or distraction that overpowers i2 image. Maybe that's me, but I've talked to several knowledgeable guys before I had my clip on with concerns about non illuminated scopes, they all said they prefer running their reticles black with clip ons.