• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

Rifle Scopes Mk4 outdated?

Sh33pdog

Sh33pdog

Private
Full Member
Minuteman
Jul 12, 2013
38
0
So I'm a new guy posting here. But long time troller. ;)

Quick about me: Former Marine, now I make AR receivers and parts for a living. I have started getting into some Long Range Precision Courses/competitions...

My gun: Out of the Box Remington 700 SPS TACT (20" 1/12 heavy barrel) in a B&C Carlson Medalist A3 stock and 20moa weaver base, TPS TSR Low rings, and a SWFA SS 10x42 Side focus scope..

I recently had an informal competition amongst some other guys in the desert, and it was instructed by a couple of guys "in the know". I did pretty well, considering I was the only guy that had a gun/scope combo that was under $2k.. I placed 4th overall out of probably 30 guys. So now I think its time to get a nicer scope to be a little bit more competitive. I have a pretty good discount through leupold mil/leo... and I've been eyeballing a mark 4 er/t 4.5-14x50 with the tmr reticle ffp. I can't discuss the price, but I'm sure a good amount of you guys know how much that is going for. So, I've had guys tell me the Mark 4's are a good design, for the 1980's... And I'm thinking to myself, wtf am I missing then? I though Mark 4's were real fancy this whole time.

So my question is a Mark 4 a descent scope or are there better scopes under $1300ish? I don't need illumination. And someday I want to rebarrel to 260 remington.
 
In short, yes for the most part. The issue comes to this - the vast majority of MK4 scopes have non-matching reticles and turrets, and many are SFP as well. Now if you have one with the M5 turret and FFP, you're good, or the new MOA reticle options they're coming out with now. The Mark 6 and 8 lines are surpassing the MK4 line for sure, albeit at a higher premium.

In that price range, for a tactical type scope, there are a few options that suit the bill. SWFA HD 5-20x50 comes to mind, and they pop up used quite often as well for a good price. Vortex PST in FFP is another good option with a warranty that can't be beat. Bushnell HDMR/DMR is another quality scope that can be found for a good price right now as well if you're good with 5 mil/revolution turrets, and they also back their scopes wholly.
 
Well that's the thing... I only want mil/mil FFP. I had a PST 4-16 in mrad and ffp. I wasn't too impressed with it. It seemed to get dark near the 16 power (which is the small exit pupil at 16x) but you couldn't see the reticle too well if you went down to 8x, where the image was real bright. So FFP in that scenario is probably not for me. Granted, if it was SFP I would have to do some conversions, which is easy enough for Vortex scopes, because on the the other side of the mag power indicator was the 1x 2x 4x conversion ratios.. and the new PST 2.5-10 SFP I've seen and played with had some sort of spring/detent that would click into the 3.3x, 5x, and etc... so it made converting pretty easy. But the concept of adding more complication into dialing or holding by introducing conversions in addition to all the other factors you're accounting for has me sticking to FFP. Just trying to keep stuff simple, which is why I like the SS 10x... pretty much Marine Proof. Easy to grasp the concept, and something I can do under stress. Observe POI 2 mils low, dial or hold (depending on scenario) and next shot is on target. Easy.

The thing that I keep debating is how heavy some of these new scopes are getting... I'm not taking this rifle to and from the range, its a get dirty, shoot in odd positions type of gun. So the additional 10oz to 12oz of weight compared to a Mark 4 is not too desirable to me. I do like the Mark 6, its a tad more but the only thing that is stopping me is the 44obj. As it is my 42obj with 10x can get hard to sometimes (4.4mm exit pupil). So if I was to use the Mark6 at 18X, in order to see the reticle subtensions, and the sun was starting to go down, my exit pupil would be 2.75mm, which is less than what I have now. I would have to go down to around 9x (50% less mag) to get the exit pupil to around 5mm. And I don't think I would be able to see the subtensions as easily that way.

This is why the Mark4 is appealing to me, with 14x and 50obj, I just have to drop it down to 10x (only 70% less than max mag) which might make the subtensions easier to see in the reticle.

Is there something I'm missing??

I'm all about clearer glass, but if I can't clearly distinguish a mil or half mil has mark looks like, then I'm not going to be able to accurately range a target or judge my poi.
 
Yeah, I gotta stay with mils. I've used them for the past 6 years as a Forward Observer, and now all the guys I shoot with spot in mils. So I'm going to be there.

But back to the question at hand... Mark 4 worth it given the options out there?

I looked at the Bushnell ERS 3-21, and I like it, but given the same scenario I spelled out earlier... Too heavy, magnification is too high, nice reticle though. I'm trying to stay closer to 20z than 30oz. I like the Mark 6, but I think 18x with a 44obj stinks. I don't need anything higher than 10 power... the smallest targets I shot at the event I participated at were 1" targets at 100 yards. That is harder to do than 4" targets at 300 yards. OR 10" targets at 800 yards, in terms of actually seeing the target. But with the future of a possible .260 re-barrel, I need to get a scope that will work well as I grow as a long distance shooter. I feel like I'm riding a 250cc bike all over again using the swfa 10x. Its working, but I know there's better tools out there.
 
If you qualify for the fed/mil/le pricing like you say you do, pony up just a little more and get the MK6 3-18 and don't look back. The MK 6 replaced a Viper PST 6-24 that while decent, just left me annoyed with the glass when I'd get behind the S&B 5-25x I have. The MK 6 glass is not as good as the S&B, but it looks really good, the scope tracks true, it is very compact, and very light compared to most other scopes you will find in it's price range. The MK 6 on that pricing plan is a great value in my mind.
 
Yeah, if you are still AD, call for the Leupold .mil discount on a Mark 6. Just because you have 18x doesn't mean you have to use 18x in limited illumination. With your weight requirement, it would certainly be the way to go. Pair it up with a good set of Seekins 34mm rings and you're set.
 
Redmanss said:
Yeah, if you are still AD, call for the Leupold .mil discount on a Mark 6. Just because you have 18x doesn't mean you have to use 18x in limited illumination. With your weight requirement, it would certainly be the way to go. Pair it up with a good set of Seekins 34mm rings and you're set.
Click to expand...

Can't argue with that, but if you DO want a MK4, just get M5 turrets fitted by the Leupold custom shop. I paid something like $120 for the privilege. mil/mil, good to go!
 
I've seen several leupolds fail including mine. I switched the the bushnell hdmr with the tmr2 retcile and I would do it again 100 times over.
 
I've got a 34mm Mk4 with the ma5 turrets and a TMR reticle.
It's nice on my eye that the older 30mm tube Mk4 and the turrets are a huge improvement.
That said, without the .mil discount, I'd suggest a Vortex or Bushnell in a heartbeat.
 
Mk4 outdated?

I would not hesitate to pick up a MK4 at your price point. Mil/Mil FFP M5 side focus. Plus all of the coating are modern also with diamondcoat 2 for scratch resistance. Also mk 4 is not an 80's design, late 90'a for military contract and mid 2000's for the civilians Lr/t. What else is needed? IMHO the swfa and vortex may be good for entry level but a step back compared to that specific MK4.

It will be a good match with your sps-t
 
I have a vortex 2.5-10x32 on one rifle and a leupold 3.5-10 M3 on another, side by side the Mark 4 is not leaps and bounds better than the vortex. The 6-24 PST FFP has better glass quality than the 4-16, at least I thought, and the HDMR is a solid choice as well with many more usable features over a 4.5-14 mk4. Now if he can get a 3-18 Mark 6 on a deal then that changes things but otherwise I would not go Leupold at that price range. And yes I have had a couple leupold 4-14 mk4 scopes and have used a 3-18 m6 too.
 
Just buy the SS 3-15 ffp mil/mil and call it good, unless you have some need for illum.
 
I have 2 Mark 4's with M5 (mil) turrets and mildot reticle. both are 6.5-20 and FFP. One is brand new and not used but the other has served me fine. for the ammount I paid for it, it's right up there with most NF's and simular scopes. Very clear glass and Leupy's customer service is godd too.

Like Redmanss said, if you get matching turrets and reticle and get them in FFP they really are great scopes.

Plus, with that Mil/Leo discount you really can't get a better deal.
 
I say go mk6 3-18. If you get a discount I know you can get them for not too much more than 1300 and they are well worth the money, but yes the standatd mk4 is quite outdated.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk
 
ZombieMonkey said:
If you qualify for the fed/mil/le pricing like you say you do, pony up just a little more and get the MK6 3-18 and don't look back. The MK 6 replaced a Viper PST 6-24 that while decent, just left me annoyed with the glass when I'd get behind the S&B 5-25x I have. The MK 6 glass is not as good as the S&B, but it looks really good, the scope tracks true, it is very compact, and very light compared to most other scopes you will find in it's price range. The MK 6 on that pricing plan is a great value in my mind.
Click to expand...

So does exit pupil have nothing to do with low light performance? Its my understanding that its the size of the light coming from the ocular lens, but I suppose I never accounted for the fact that every scope gathers light differently than others. I would like illumination, but its not a huge deal, seeing how illumination just adds weight and complexity to the system.. and if I truely need to shoot in low light, nothing beats NV or IR.

So a Mark 6 could theoretically be brighter to the shooter at max magnification (18x 44obj= 2.44mm exit pupil) over a Mark 4 at max (14.60s w. 50obj = 3.42mm exit pupil). This would really mean than the Mark 6 has a smaller area in which the light is coming in, meaning its more critical that I position my head in exactly the right position, but the light that is coming through is brighter because of the coatings or??

And yes, the Mark 6 is only about $400 more than the Mark 4, which isn't too bad. I'm just concerned that with such a high magnification and smaller objective than the Mark 4, that the low light performance would be worse. And FWIW, I can't say I'm a fan of the turrets on the Mark 6, I don't understand why they are so huge and I don't like the squeezing you have to do to adjust elevation.

I have the SWFA SS 3-9x42 FFP, and it actually has clearer glass than my 10x, but I would like more magnification than 9x. The SS 3-15FFP's 42obj doesn't seem like 15x would be usable during low light. Which would mean I'd have to drop the mag down to 10x and then the reticle's subtensions would be hard to read. So that's the only reason why I've steered away from the 3-15. My SS 3-9FFP fits perfectly on my 18" 5.56 AR. It will also double on my AR-10 16" .308 build. Seeing how its sitting in a Larue LT104. It would make for a good SAPR or Pig Hunting rifle.

Nightforce just sent me an email back for their Mil program, but I haven't gotten the pricing sheet back. I like the NXS F1 3-15x50, more so than the Mark 6, base on magnification and objective size alone. Weight is more, but it might be worth 9oz if its that much better than a Mark 4, in terms of glass clarity. I do like the reticle, turrets, and their track record.
 
If you had no trouble reading the sub-tensions on the SS 3-9 at 9x, you won't have any trouble at 10X (reticle will be slightly larger)
There is also the Weaver 3-15 tactical with the illuminated emdr. It has always been known to have superior glass when compared to the PST.

Burris is releasing a new series of XTR II scopes, they offer a generous mil/le discount as does sightron.
 
If you can find one used take a look at the 3-15 premier LT. Better glass than the leupy, matching reticle/turrets, illuminated if for some reason you find you need it and still light.
 
Yeah that stuff is hard for me to understand. But that's why I'm here.

So we have come the the general consensus that the Mark 6 would be a better scope than the mark 4 given that its 400 more, plus 34mm rings, so all that for something that I don't like the turrets. So I'm back to Mark 4. NF NXS F1 is the next scope I've been looking at. Not sure what the mil pricing is yet. But street price is around 2300. So that makes it in the Mark 6 price range, and its 30mm which means I can use my rings. But I think the NF scopes come with rings. So I was going to build a .243 for the wife, and that SS 10x with the low tps rings would be perfect for that. Seeing how it would be her long range plinking gun, and if she liked it, she could always upgrade the scope if she wanted to get into the sport more. The only downside I see to the NF F1 is the fact that its 7oz heavier than a Mark 4, and the side focus is weird, and I have to use bikini covers. So stuff that's pretty insignificant, and if its much clearer glass than a mark 4 ert then, its probably worth it.
 
Sh33pdog said:
Yeah that stuff is hard for me to understand. But that's why I'm here.

So we have come the the general consensus that the Mark 6 would be a better scope than the mark 4 given that its 400 more, plus 34mm rings, so all that for something that I don't like the turrets. So I'm back to Mark 4. NF NXS F1 is the next scope I've been looking at. Not sure what the mil pricing is yet. But street price is around 2300. So that makes it in the Mark 6 price range, and its 30mm which means I can use my rings. But I think the NF scopes come with rings. So I was going to build a .243 for the wife, and that SS 10x with the low tps rings would be perfect for that. Seeing how it would be her long range plinking gun, and if she liked it, she could always upgrade the scope if she wanted to get into the sport more. The only downside I see to the NF F1 is the fact that its 7oz heavier than a Mark 4, and the side focus is weird, and I have to use bikini covers. So stuff that's pretty insignificant, and if its much clearer glass than a mark 4 ert then, its probably worth it.
Click to expand...

What are you finding strange about the parallax knob on the nightforce?

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk
 
No numbers just lines. I know that the numbers arent 100%correct but they are a better reference point than lines.
 
If this is for a match you won't care. If all targets are 300+ and you are transitioning targets then I throw it on infinite and don't touch it till we go below 300 again. If you're dialing and adjusting parallax in a stage it's going to take way to long to finish in the allotted time

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk
 
I own both an MK4 and an MK6. Both with TMReticle / FFP / matching reticles and turrets. There's nothing wrong with the MK4. Its a scope, not a space shuttle.
 
Sh33pdog said:
So does exit pupil have nothing to do with low light performance? Its my understanding that its the size of the light coming from the ocular lens, but I suppose I never accounted for the fact that every scope gathers light differently than others. I would like illumination, but its not a huge deal, seeing how illumination just adds weight and complexity to the system.. and if I truely need to shoot in low light, nothing beats NV or IR.

So a Mark 6 could theoretically be brighter to the shooter at max magnification (18x 44obj= 2.44mm exit pupil) over a Mark 4 at max (14.60s w. 50obj = 3.42mm exit pupil). This would really mean than the Mark 6 has a smaller area in which the light is coming in, meaning its more critical that I position my head in exactly the right position, but the light that is coming through is brighter because of the coatings or??

And yes, the Mark 6 is only about $400 more than the Mark 4, which isn't too bad. I'm just concerned that with such a high magnification and smaller objective than the Mark 4, that the low light performance would be worse. And FWIW, I can't say I'm a fan of the turrets on the Mark 6, I don't understand why they are so huge and I don't like the squeezing you have to do to adjust elevation.

I have the SWFA SS 3-9x42 FFP, and it actually has clearer glass than my 10x, but I would like more magnification than 9x. The SS 3-15FFP's 42obj doesn't seem like 15x would be usable during low light. Which would mean I'd have to drop the mag down to 10x and then the reticle's subtensions would be hard to read. So that's the only reason why I've steered away from the 3-15. My SS 3-9FFP fits perfectly on my 18" 5.56 AR. It will also double on my AR-10 16" .308 build. Seeing how its sitting in a Larue LT104. It would make for a good SAPR or Pig Hunting rifle.

Nightforce just sent me an email back for their Mil program, but I haven't gotten the pricing sheet back. I like the NXS F1 3-15x50, more so than the Mark 6, base on magnification and objective size alone. Weight is more, but it might be worth 9oz if its that much better than a Mark 4, in terms of glass clarity. I do like the reticle, turrets, and their track record.
Click to expand...

The coatings on the MK 6 and the higher quality glass really make that optic what it is. Yes, a large objective will yield a brighter picture when comparing like lenses and coatings. If we were talking about a scope that had a 25x zoom then I'd say you might start to run into issues with the size of the objective lens, but not for a scope with a max of 18x.

The turrets are not bad on the MK 6 either, I initially was skeptical of them, but I don't mind them in the least bit (though I do not enjoy having to zero that scope, they can make zeroing a little more involved than other style turrets.

It is a great piece of glass for the price and if you decided you did not like it, you would have no problem selling it for what you buy it for.
 
The MK IV is still a solid scope IMHO.
It all comes down to your intended use and wallet.
 
In the scopes I have seen none have the "package" for the price as a Leupold M5 FFP. Is it outdated? Kinda. It's just not a robust a scope as a NF. I have found that 'clear' glass actually varies on a scope to scope basis. Yes, it is true that at certain price points it gets more consistent. I have owned many that have been mentioned except Vortex. I enjoy the Vortex brand as they have listened to their customers and provided a balance of cost vs. level of performance required.

I am satisfied by Leupold's MK4 lineup. The glass has been better than some NF's I owned and turn around for problems is usually fast. If a MIL/LEO discount is available for you I can't see how you could have a better value for the dollar. FFP and mil on mil with a 6.5-20 or 8.5-25x50 from $1300 to $1600 range. I'm not a fan of lower powered scopes for long range tactical. I prefer to use 8x and up.

Almost every time I have ever had a hunting shot in low light power a illuminated reticle just screws up the clarity of what light I can see anyway. I never use a lit reticle for hunting or competing, most users have the reticle turned up way to high when used anyway and it just washes out the target.

The only thing to want for would be for parallax adjustment to 7-10 yards. And, more than likely you won't need that unless you shoot matches.
 
Another scope I'd look for in the for sale section is a Vortex razor 5-20. They go from 1400-1700. Don't pay 2k for it but 1500ish is almost a no Brainer in my opinion for best all around options and robustness

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk
 
Razor HD is 35oz. Too heavy for my liking. Specially considering a Mark 4 is 21oz. 30oz is my maximum, and it better be well worth the weight if I get something heavy. So far, without seeing any of these scopes in person, I'm still shooting for a Mark 4. Just waiting for NF to get back to me as far as pricing goes.
 
There is the m5a1 turret for the mk4 6.5-20 which is an impressive scope
 
The MK4 is a very solid and dependable scope. Just because new whiz-bang stuff comes down the pike, dont mean stuff that worked great is suddenly obsolete
 
So you placed 4th in a competition of 30 guys and your entire gear probably cost less than the average cost of the other competitor's optics lone? 99% of us wish to be so skillful.
 
Sh33pdog said:
Razor HD is 35oz. Too heavy for my liking. Specially considering a Mark 4 is 21oz. 30oz is my maximum, and it better be well worth the weight if I get something heavy. So far, without seeing any of these scopes in person, I'm still shooting for a Mark 4. Just waiting for NF to get back to me as far as pricing goes.
Click to expand...

I have a couple mark 4s, two M3s and M1 4.5-14x50s, they don't measure up to my buddy's razor at all. Also you didn't buy that bushnell haha mine mine mine.
 
Well the icing on the cake is we were all beat by a 14yrold Montana kid in chick jeans! To be honest I think I did the homework for that match and they didn't. I knew my rifle pretty well and knew where the rounds would go. It was just s matter of being in the scope all day and straining my eyes by time the match portion came up.
 
Yeah I went with a mark 8 for another rifle. So im going to hang on to my ss10x for a bit til I can recoup some funds and figure out what's going on my shorty 308.
 
Why not a SS 12x? No FFP/SFP to worry about, plenty of mag for 1000+ yds, mil/mil.....
 
Yeah, I actually thought about that. But I'm going to see how this Mark 8 looks. I figured if I'm only going to get 1 scope a year, and I'm officially out of the Marine Corps (EOS) on May 2015. I might as well get the big discount on the most expensive scope... I'm using that Mark 8 for a 30-338 Lapua build. Just need to go make a barrel for it. Most of the guys say keep your rounds under 3000fps, so why not throw a 240gr at 2900? :) That gun is going to be for matches shooting >800m. Its easy to find a scope if you don't care about weight. I am pretty much stuck between a SWFA SS 5-20HD Illuminated, Vortex Razor HD 5-20x50, Leupold Mark 6 3-18x44, Leupold mark 4 er/t 4.5-14 for my 20" 308. Its really looking like the Mark 6 would be my best bet. Still a practical scope in the field. The Vortex is my next choice, and that's if I can't wait til next year to get a Mark 6. Patience is a virtue that I reserve for reloading... after reloading, there's not patience left for anyone or anything. ;)
 
I know NF mil pricing isn't comparable to Leupolds, but I have 2 F1's and the MLR 2.0 has to be my favorite reticle out there! I have no regrets.
 
Sh33pdog said:
Yeah, I actually thought about that. But I'm going to see how this Mark 8 looks. I figured if I'm only going to get 1 scope a year, and I'm officially out of the Marine Corps (EOS) on May 2015. I might as well get the big discount on the most expensive scope... I'm using that Mark 8 for a 30-338 Lapua build. Just need to go make a barrel for it. Most of the guys say keep your rounds under 3000fps, so why not throw a 240gr at 2900? :) That gun is going to be for matches shooting >800m. Its easy to find a scope if you don't care about weight. I am pretty much stuck between a SWFA SS 5-20HD Illuminated, Vortex Razor HD 5-20x50, Leupold Mark 6 3-18x44, Leupold mark 4 er/t 4.5-14 for my 20" 308. Its really looking like the Mark 6 would be my best bet. Still a practical scope in the field. The Vortex is my next choice, and that's if I can't wait til next year to get a Mark 6. Patience is a virtue that I reserve for reloading... after reloading, there's not patience left for anyone or anything. ;)
Click to expand...

If you really want to shoot matches at 1000 look at a 6.5MM caliber. Much better for target shooting and matches where you're shooting say 20 round strings you won't want to do with 300 win mag nevermind an overbore 30-338. Of the scopes you listed I would say Razor>mk6>SWFA>mk4 although after using a buddy's mk6 it is growing on me the retail prices are still out of the park.

Vortex will do mil discount too btw.
 
I already got a 30-338 lapua in the works dude. How many guys do you see rocking a big gun like that? No one really. I will do my rem 700 SA in 260 some day. But right now, it shoots better than I do. So I will continue to throw 175s down range. But 30-338 is more of a fun project than a competition gun or anything like that. What else is a guy going to do with 5gallon jugs of Swedish 338 lapua brass? Build a 338 lapua and shoot next to your run of the mill savage? No thanks. CZ 550, nice kevlar stock, and soon to be a Mark 8 riding on top.

Definitely Considering the Razor HD Gen 1. Its better suited on a 300 Win Mag IMO... It looks huge on a short action 700. I like the idea of a light weight practical 308 with a mk6 on top. So that's probably going to be my next scope. Like I said, I'm recouping my funds right now. The Mark 8 was a pretty penny. Time to make a barrel I suppose. I'm going 28" because I have a 30" blank... so that should work out. 1:8 twist .30 cal.. Yummy
 
Leupold MK4 #110079 $1650. 5x25x50 ER/T TMR reticle, matching M5 turrets, FFP. Its going on my AI 260. Makes me wish all my other MK4's were FFP with matching turretsreticles.
 
BCP said:
If you really want to shoot matches at 1000 look at a 6.5MM caliber. Much better for target shooting and matches where you're shooting say 20 round strings you won't want to do with 300 win mag nevermind an overbore 30-338. Of the scopes you listed I would say Razor>mk6>SWFA>mk4 although after using a buddy's mk6 it is growing on me the retail prices are still out of the park.

Vortex will do mil discount too btw.
Click to expand...

Also, I never said I shoot matches at 1000. Mostly 700m and in. And I did post that my current Rem 700 SPS Tact has a .260 Remington re-barrel in its future. Right now, I'm just learning and shooting... spending a lot of time and money on reloading. But that was the whole point of building a budget precision rifle. I wanted to spend more money on good dies, descent single stage press, etc. I figure the way I go through guns, I might as well put my money into the experience and knowledge gained from shooting rather than putting it into a rifle and scope. With that said, it is time for me to step up and spend some money on a scope. I ended up ditching my Leupold order after all. They said 6-8 weeks til I got the Mark 8. I need a scope by mid April for another match coming up. So I called up Vortex and bought the Razor HD 5-20x50 with EBR-2B reticle (Horus look-alike) and 5 mil per rev turrets. I had a hard time figure out what reticle and turrets... but the way I shoot is dial in my 200 yard zero, and hold for pretty much everything else. So the 5 mil turrets are a little more precise (says the Vortex Rep) and if I'm holding instead of dialing (which is the way the course is set up... its faster to hold than dial up and back down) the EBR-2B reticle with windage holds would be a better reticle for me. Again, I'm worried about the complexity of the reticle and weight of the scope... its almost a whole pound heavier than my fixed 10x SS. I don't think that's going to affect me in the matches, and I've pretty much accepted that this isn't a hunting rifle... So I might shoot a stage or two off hand, but the additional weight of the scope is right on top of the action, not at the end of the barrel. Again, with Vortex's discount for mil and dealer... I was able to afford it. I had them throw in their 35mm precision matched rings because I'm running the Weaver 20moa aluminum base. Something about running steel rings in an aluminum base doesn't sound right to me. I'll keep you guys posted on the Vortex. Thanks for all the help and options you provided. Hopefully this Vortex will treat me well. I'm sure its going to be better than my SS 10x.
 
Just in case anyone refers to this thread again... And had the questions I did...

I was worried about light transmission in a high magnification FFP scope... I didn't pose it as a question, more of a observation based on my previous PST, and current SWFA SS 10x. The reticle in the Vortex Razor HD at 20x only lets my eye see 8 or 9 mils in total drop. Thats from the center of the cross hair down to the bottom of the edge of the sight picture. In my SWFA SS 10x, I can see approximately 17 mils at 10x power. On 10.5x on the Vortex Razor HD, I can still only see about 16 mils, so its the same sight picture as the SWFA 10x roughly, and it goes up to 20x! I suppose I should have looked at the FOV at different magnifications to get a better idea of the sight picture. But FOV didn't tell me anything what the reticle would look like. So if this helps anyone, then it was worth typing.

BTW, Very happy with the Razor HD. Heavy, but this isn't my grandad's 30-06 hunting rifle...
 
If you can get a new Razor 5-20 @ 1500 you are buying them beneath dealer cost or they're selling it to you at employee pricing which is 1250 and can be done once a year per employee. LE pricing according to Vortex is 1/2 markup of MAP on a given item. A LE price on a Razor should be 1800 that is unless they've decided to discontinue and at that point the vendors are not required to advertise at MAP.

BTW I have no idea how you would even come close even with mil or dealer pricing on any variety of a MK8 to that of a Razor. Those are two different categories of glass.
 
I thought long and hard about the Mk4 6.5-20x50mm M5 as a scope for my rifle. I am active duty and qualify for their discount as well and it is a good scope in that price range. I ended up bumping up my price range due to deployment money and reserving a BEAST.
 
Leupolds are a no brainer with the discount. Mine track, hold zero, and have good glass. Without the discount things are less clear and I'd lean nightforce.
 
acfirearms said:
If you can get a new Razor 5-20 @ 1500 you are buying them beneath dealer cost or they're selling it to you at employee pricing which is 1250 and can be done once a year per employee. LE pricing according to Vortex is 1/2 markup of MAP on a given item. A LE price on a Razor should be 1800 that is unless they've decided to discontinue and at that point the vendors are not required to advertise at MAP.

BTW I have no idea how you would even come close even with mil or dealer pricing on any variety of a MK8 to that of a Razor. Those are two different categories of glass.
Click to expand...

Yep. Employee pricing was the best I could get. I'm pretty sure you're not supposed to disclose that information, specially on a public forum.

As far as the Mark 8, its for my 30-338 Lapua that I'm building. Never said it was for my 308, so I'm willing to spend more money on a Mark 8 for CZ 550 in 30-338. I didn't mean to compare those two as far as price and quality, just figured if I'm getting one scope a year.. .might as well make it count.

And no one has said anything yet about the FOV or reticle size at given magnifications. Which was one of my big concerns when buying a FFP High magnification scope.
 
KYpatriot said:
Leupolds are a no brainer with the discount. Mine track, hold zero, and have good glass. Without the discount things are less clear and I'd lean nightforce.
Click to expand...

This is true. With the discount the price on a Leupold MK4 is very attractive. I have three, and they all work very well.
 
I am a big fan of Leupold. Especially their hunting scopes. I have used them for over 20 years. However, I looked at 2 Mark 4 scopes this past Saturday in the store. If I was paying full retail I would want to compare them to others. If you get a nice discount that makes a difference. In the end, get what you want regardless of what any of us have to say. You have to be satisfied with the purchase.
 
Good business goes both ways. I have no issue sitting down with a customer and taking out a price list from any manufacturer and being up front and telling the customer what I expect to make on a product. Transparency has built a good business for me. If Vortex wants to revoke my master dealership over that then so be it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Burris xtr3 3-18 vs leupold mark 4hd
Replies
10
Views
650
redneckbmxer24
R
C
Rifle Scopes Nrl hunter/ hunting scope
Replies
10
Views
256
YotaEer
YotaEer
R
Scope ring half gaps?
Replies
12
Views
560
rmiked
R
G
Optics Loopy Mark 4s
Replies
1
Views
409
GrayRyder
G
diggler1833
Got a Chance to Compare "Pretty Guud" With "Guud Enuff"
Replies
11
Views
738
shields shtr
S
Top Bottom
Back