Rifle Scopes So, what about Leupold Mark 5 ?
- Thread starter longshot2000
- Start date
Excellent review Will, I felt you were very thorough and fair which many will certainly appreciate. It really helped me ascertain the quality of this scope without having to drop $2k to find out, if glass is that important to you, then the ATACR F1 5-25 is going to be better, but for some may not even be noticeable. I also appreciate the above comparison to the DMR II, since that was a scope I used last year it is fresh in my memory and it was pretty impressive for the price, was hoping the Leupold would be better in IQ and it definitely sounds like it is. That is odd that the Leupy seems to lose CA in bright light and suffer from it more on overcast days, I wonder if it is the bandwidth the fringing color is in almost gets washed out in bright light? Regarding illumination, if you could stay out til 20 minutes or so past sunset and then put your crosshairs back there in the thick stuff where that dear might be hiding, that is when you might appreciate illumination. Some also prefer to use it at daytime but I haven't found many long range scopes that have good enough daylight illumination, but I have been in some situations where illumination can help even in some daytime lighting.I compared it to my cousin's DMR II today and it wasn't much of a comparison honestly. DMR II was just like my HDMR II; CA issues, haziness around the edges, and lower resolution than the Mark 5, albeit it still good. We also both seemed to notice a white hue of the image through his DMR II something i hadn't noticed with my HDMR II.
Saw a little more CA today than usual at times though again was still working on the cheek rest. Think i finally got it down pat. CA seems to be more rampant during overcast on this scope, which is odd to me as i'm used to being prevalent during bright days with vibrant targets. Though it's very faint and during the sunlight it's non existent most of the time. Snapped some reticle pics that i was impressed with for the phone. Waiting on phone Skope to release the new prism based scope of theirs.
Had some visitors in front of the 800yd IPSC today...unfortunately they're not in season
View attachment 6882963
View attachment 6882965
Love the pics of the deer, looks like it's looking right at you and saying "I wonder if that's a Leupold on his rifle..."
Excellent review Will, I felt you were very thorough and fair which many will certainly appreciate. It really helped me ascertain the quality of this scope without having to drop $2k to find out, if glass is that important to you, then the ATACR F1 5-25 is going to be better, but for some may not even be noticeable. I also appreciate the above comparison to the DMR II, since that was a scope I used last year it is fresh in my memory and it was pretty impressive for the price, was hoping the Leupold would be better in IQ and it definitely sounds like it is. That is odd that the Leupy seems to lose CA in bright light and suffer from it more on overcast days, I wonder if it is the bandwidth the fringing color is in almost gets washed out in bright light? Regarding illumination, if you could stay out til 20 minutes or so past sunset and then put your crosshairs back there in the thick stuff where that dear might be hiding, that is when you might appreciate illumination. Some also prefer to use it at daytime but I haven't found many long range scopes that have good enough daylight illumination, but I have been in some situations where illumination can help even in some daytime lighting.
Love the pics of the deer, looks like it's looking right at you and saying "I wonder if that's a Leupold on his rifle..."
Thank's Bill i appreciate it. I forgot to start off by saying i was comparing it to the ATACR, been going back and editing to try and make it more coherent with some structure rather than me just rambling.
The CA has me puzzled it's just unlike any optic i've been behind. In most optics that i have experience with it's either prevalent or not. Never really been behind one that borders on none to having a little. I've been shooting every day since i got home. Mainly to figure out what the hell is going on with my match rifle. Long story short carbon rings and 4166 losing some velocity is the answer. But yeah sunny and clear today little to no CA while behind the rifle in bright sunshine on my targets behind the shop. I had a little on the 500yd target but i found if i dug down a little more with the cheek weld it went away. Was trying to reassess edge to edge clarity as well and it's superb. I thought to myself i had only been looking at edge to edge clarity with reference to centering the object i was looking at and looking from edge to edge to see the drop in detail, if any there was. This time i went from center of the reticle on a target and then moved that target to the edge of the FOV and it remained excellent.
Having some small variance with my cheekweld depending on pressure. It's so high with this optic that it blocks me from taking my bolt out of the gun. Well i've been disassembling and cleaning the gun quite frequently lately just so i can chrono a couple of rounds before the carbon ring builds back up. I'm going to officially get rid of it tomorrow with some CLR and a brush.
I honestly question the DMR II's QC sometimes. The review you did seemed like it was a complete upgrade to the original. The pics looked phenomenal that you posted, granted i know a picture can't denote IQ to 100%, you have to see it but still. The two i've been behind thus far had me scratching my head. My HDMR II had notable upgrades from the ERS it replaced; resolution and low light performance. Edge to edge clarity and CA control was pretty poor however. Low light performance was a huge improvement over the previous gen as both you and I experienced the issues that plagued the original. I was thinking maybe that was just my model. Then i got behind the DMR II and much of the same. I don't guess it really matters with the DMR II pro on the way, less they don't drop the DMR II price and price the Pro between it and the XRS II.
As to our visitors. If she were in season i'd be posting the terminal ballistics of the 130gr hybrid lol
Last edited:
Was it an ATACR or ATACR F1, not sure if it matters too much, but some might like to know if it is the newer F1 you were comparing to. I wish Leupold would have revealed this new mystery reticle when they announced the Mark 5, the TMR is lacking in design and functionality, but it is simple and some might prefer that.
Thanks for the info on edge to edge clarity, sounds like the Mark 5 is a great scope for the price.
I’m beginning to wonder about all manufacturers QC, you get love it and hate it comments for just about every scope out there. Some say scope X has horrible CA problems while others say they never see it. Some say resolution beats Y and others say it doesn’t come close. This is why I decided long ago that if I’m really interested I need to test the scope myself and allow my eyes to make the decision.
I think this is partially why Frank and others will often say, pick the reticle you like and trust the rest is going to work when you get into the $2k and up category.
I am very close to pulling the trigger on a Mark 5 3.6-18x44, but I’m not in a rush and am curious if we’ll see a TMR II anytime soon. I’m also trying to convince myself to get a Tremor 3 just to play even though I’m not a Horus fan. It’s hard for me to let new glass sit out there without taking a peek, part of my addiction
It was the F1 and a fairly new one considering it had the Mil C. I'm still curious about the new reticle. It can make or break an optic. I know glass is a highly sought out feature behind reliability, almost equally important is reticle selection. NF in that regard much like Leupold are lacking IMHO. The Mil-C is a much need improvement over the Mil-R but both lack a simplistic tree reticle free of charge for choosing their scope.
I think it's likely to be something like an improved TMR or a floating dot reticle with 2/10th mil hashes. Seems to me they already have their Tree reticle with the CCH, albeit busy as hell much like the H59, it will turn some people away.
Thanks for the info on edge to edge clarity, sounds like the Mark 5 is a great scope for the price.
I’m beginning to wonder about all manufacturers QC, you get love it and hate it comments for just about every scope out there. Some say scope X has horrible CA problems while others say they never see it. Some say resolution beats Y and others say it doesn’t come close. This is why I decided long ago that if I’m really interested I need to test the scope myself and allow my eyes to make the decision.
I think this is partially why Frank and others will often say, pick the reticle you like and trust the rest is going to work when you get into the $2k and up category.
I am very close to pulling the trigger on a Mark 5 3.6-18x44, but I’m not in a rush and am curious if we’ll see a TMR II anytime soon. I’m also trying to convince myself to get a Tremor 3 just to play even though I’m not a Horus fan. It’s hard for me to let new glass sit out there without taking a peek, part of my addiction
No problem
I'm starting to think that's the catch for most scope manufacturers that are producing optics on a mass scale. I hate to pick on Bushnell here but it's the only brand i have lots of experience with having owned three of their high end optics and recently looked through another. My LRHS to my memory did not have a white hue or haze to it's image, clicks were both tactile/audible, and there was no blurry ring surrounding the edge. Yet both the HDMR II and DMR II i got behind, were for lack of a better word a downgrade compared to it.
Well if that's the case i'd hope you catch a sell soon. I can't help but ascertain there are variances scope to scope at this point. Not to discredit disconnect, but when he told us that his XRS actually had better glass. I was pretty shocked. I've been behind three or so XRS and owned an ERS for quite some time, plus the HDMR II and LRHS as noted. Thus far i don't even consider them remotely comparable in glass quality. The main positives were obviously the eyebox issue has been fixed and that was probably my biggest worry being a previous owner of a MK6.
I've been contemplating an optic for my SPR rig i plan to convert to .224v and i don't see any manufacturer for the money offering anywhere near the Mark 5's value. Even if the scope is 90% of what my 5-25 is finding a decent price shouldn't be that hard and again i have to comend Leupold on their weight reduction. It's the quintessential AR scope on paper.
As to your reticle dilemma. Hopefully we don't have to wait much longer. Though that could be wishful thinking, despite the CCH's announcement i haven't seen a single one in the wild. No pics, can't find subtension information, and no report from anyone i know using a MK5. Though maybe i'm wrong and we get something akin to the SKMR or a TMR II with the floating dot and 2/10th mil hashes. I'll be all over a 3.6-18 if that's the case.
A couple of comments: there is more than one type of CA that can present in the scope: lateral and longitudinal largely coming from the objective, radially symmetric CA that I've seen coming from the erector system and a few other oddball artefacts here and there.
The first two will show up differently depending on where your eye is with respect to the scope and they can also show up a bit differently if your eye pupil is different size (for example if it is a little dilated due to overcast conditions).
As far as DMR II goes, I have little experience with it, but I looked at the original DMR and HDMR scopes a fair bit and they had veyr significant sample to sample variation.
ILya
The first two will show up differently depending on where your eye is with respect to the scope and they can also show up a bit differently if your eye pupil is different size (for example if it is a little dilated due to overcast conditions).
As far as DMR II goes, I have little experience with it, but I looked at the original DMR and HDMR scopes a fair bit and they had veyr significant sample to sample variation.
ILya
It was the F1 and a fairly new one considering it had the Mil C. I'm still curious about the new reticle. It can make or break an optic. I know glass is a highly sought out feature behind reliability, almost equally important is reticle selection. NF in that regard much like Leupold are lacking IMHO. The Mil-C is a much need improvement over the Mil-R but both lack a simplistic tree reticle free of charge for choosing their scope.
I think it's likely to be something like an improved TMR or a floating dot reticle with 2/10th mil hashes. Seems to me they already have their Tree reticle with the CCH, albeit busy as hell much like the H59, it will turn some people away.
No problem
I'm starting to think that's the catch for most scope manufacturers that are producing optics on a mass scale. I hate to pick on Bushnell here but it's the only brand i have lots of experience with having owned three of their high end optics and recently looked through another. My LRHS to my memory did not have a white hue or haze to it's image, clicks were both tactile/audible, and there was no blurry ring surrounding the edge. Yet both the HDMR II and DMR II i got behind, were for lack of a better word a downgrade compared to it.
Well if that's the case i'd hope you catch a sell soon. I can't help but ascertain there are variances scope to scope at this point. Not to discredit disconnect, but when he told us that his XRS actually had better glass. I was pretty shocked. I've been behind three or so XRS and owned an ERS for quite some time, plus the HDMR II and LRHS as noted. Thus far i don't even consider them remotely comparable in glass quality. The main positives were obviously the eyebox issue has been fixed and that was probably my biggest worry being a previous owner of a MK6.
I've been contemplating an optic for my SPR rig i plan to convert to .224v and i don't see any manufacturer for the money offering anywhere near the Mark 5's value. Even if the scope is 90% of what my 5-25 is finding a decent price shouldn't be that hard and again i have to comend Leupold on their weight reduction. It's the quintessential AR scope on paper.
As to your reticle dilemma. Hopefully we don't have to wait much longer. Though that could be wishful thinking, despite the CCH's announcement i haven't seen a single one in the wild. No pics, can't find subtension information, and no report from anyone i know using a MK5. Though maybe i'm wrong and we get something akin to the SKMR or a TMR II with the floating dot and 2/10th mil hashes. I'll be all over a 3.6-18 if that's the case.
I would chalk it up at least partially to sample variance, I think. I probably have a particularly good example of Gen 1 XRS, but keep in mind that I was comparing the scopes at 18x. When I crank the XRS up to 30, CA is very pronounced and the image darkens considerably and loses contrast (the white haze you’re talking about). But at 18x, it’s pretty good.
Also, I’m comparing it to the ridiculously short Mark 5 which bends the light much more aggressively than the 5-25x, so my scope getting more CA than yours isn’t too surprising. I think for an ultra short like the 18x, ED glass would be a huge improvement, while it might not be necessary for less aggressive optical formulas. I know my Mark 6 1-6x has a pretty minor amount of CA at 6x if I’m off center in the scope, but that flickery illumination keeps me centered, and CA is not an issue. And the glass in that scope is probably inferior to the Mark 5 glass. So I’m thinking optical formula plays as much a role as sample variance and inherent glass quality in any artifacts that can be seen.
Some great info in this thread. I recently purchased the 3.6-18 version, for an SPR build I'm working on. Should be a great scope with its versatility and weight on an AR. I'm starting to look for a mount, preferably cantilever, and am realizing my options are a bit limited. I love the SPHUR cantilever i had on my Nightforce, but was disappointed to see they don't make it for a 35mm tube. Anybody currently using a mount they like with these new Mark5's. Thanks!
I’m using a 20 MOA LaRue LT745 in 35mm on a 308 AR and 2 5.56 ARs with that scope and have no issues (so far) holding zero, binding, or returning to zero. It has a pretty long cantilever and wide enough ring spacing that you can get a level adjacent to the turret housing between the rings if you want (or lots of room to adjust scope placement if you don’t). I think you should have no issues using a vertical split ring mount on a minimally recoiling small frame AR, provided you torque everything properly in the correct order.
Thank you sir, I'll take a look at the Larue stuff. Thanks again!
No problem! If the reported pitfalls of vertical split rings don’t sit well with you, I’ve heard nothing but good stuff about the Aadmount (20 MOA cantilevered with integrated illuminated bubble level, available in 35mm), and Leupold will soon have a 35mm version of the Mark 6 IMS. There could be other options, but those are the ones I know of.
koshkin - thoughts on the Mark 5 from your review so far?
There's gotta be a pile of folks interested in your initial impressions. Don't be stingy ?
So far, I like what I see. I need to spend more time with it, but so far I am pretty impressed.
Ilya
You do realize that now that you said that I will stall and pretend to be a virgin on prom night, right?
On a more serious note: the scope site on my 6.5Grendel AR where I think it makes a great fit. It zeroed without any issues and has stayed zeroed so far. I only used the windage turret while zeroing, but I exercised the elevation turret a bit and it works like it is supposed to. I will do more tests.
Optics look pretty good, especially considering how short the scope is. I thin this may become the "go to" scope for accurate gas guns.
Mine has the H59 reticle which I do not like, but I called David Tubb and he has he's got some of his DTR reticles for it. That combination will absolutely rock.
ILya
Interested to hear your thoughts on the 3.6-18 ILya. I've been contemplating one for an SPR build myself for sometime now but idk if i'll be able to swing it this summer.
Does Tubb do his own reticle swaps? I only see the full scopes listed on his site.
Are there any internal differences between the Mark 5 and the VX5 line? The 3-15 looks solid to me, don't need the illumination, and the weight seems more manageable for hunting. Lower price doesn't hurt either!
These are entirely different designs. VX-5HD is SFP and optical system is very different. Mark 5 is FFP.
Mark 5 is also about an inch and a half shorter, although heavier.
ILya
Mine showed up this morning. Initial thought, best thing I've ever seen some out of Leupold. The turrets are great, they feel very nice, are very audible, almost no slop and no mushiness. Glass is crisp edge to edge and the eyebox is very forgiving. Mine is the Tremor 3 version and even on 3.6x I can easily see the crosshairs, all the main grid lines, and the 4th wind dot is very pronounced. If I really concentrate I can see the other wind dots on 3.6x. At 5x the smaller wind dots become very pronounced and easy to quickly to pick up, and at 7x you can concentrate and get .2mil hash marks with them becoming very visible at 8x. At 18x the reticle still isn't too thick.
I can only find one complaint right out of the gate and that's the indexing mark for the windage turret. The location of it and distance from the knob (doesn't run right up to the turret like most) knob is awkward and it's hard to tell exactly which mark its on. This isn't much of an issue for me as I'll zero it and forget it, but it's still a little annoying and goofy. Whoever decided that was a good idea should rethink things.
From initial impressions I have no doubts that this optic will fulfill the role that I bought it for flawlessly (DMR rifle). Shooting and tracking feedback will be coming shortly.
I can only find one complaint right out of the gate and that's the indexing mark for the windage turret. The location of it and distance from the knob (doesn't run right up to the turret like most) knob is awkward and it's hard to tell exactly which mark its on. This isn't much of an issue for me as I'll zero it and forget it, but it's still a little annoying and goofy. Whoever decided that was a good idea should rethink things.
From initial impressions I have no doubts that this optic will fulfill the role that I bought it for flawlessly (DMR rifle). Shooting and tracking feedback will be coming shortly.
^^^ Nice redneck! Can you do me a favor, I cannot find the spec anywhere for the parallax, how close can this scope focus, I am very close to pulling the trigger on the same, a 3.6-18x44 with Tremor 3 and your explanation of reticle at all the mags helps because sometimes these rets are too thin at the small end and too thick at the high, but sounds like Leupold got this one right.
The knob is only marked down to 75 yards but spins lower than that. I didn’t go too in depth today with close parallax but at about 15 yards I got a crisp reticle and image on 5x-ish. The Optic wasn’t mounted up at this point so I couldn’t tell you if parallax was present or not. I’ve got it mounted up now and will check it out.
Does that Spuhr mount have any built in elevation? I have a 0 MOA mount with a 5-20 Razor at the moment.
This one doesn’t but they make them with built in cant. I got a flat one because it has plenty of travel so it’s not needed and so I won’t run into issues running it with NV clip ons.
Thanks. Seems like a 3.6-18 could go nicely on 16” 308 gas gun.
There is one for sale in the PX for a good deal with a SPUHR. Message fireshooter and see if it is still available.
Looked through a Schmidt this weekend lol, albeit briefly, add to the fact there is one in the Px for $2399 i couldn't resist, if i can flip it, great. I also still just long for better turrets. That's truthfully my only serious gripe. Admittedly it's picky. For the price everything else is there, arguably impossible to beat given the features. Just wanting L-tec turret like feel or better. I had a couple guys at the match ask me how i liked the Mark 5 this weekend. My friend who owns the ATACR i compared it to turned around immediately and told them "don't ask him that's one picky sob."
The other thought in the back of my head despite that Schmidt being H59 is that i might want something cleaner for hunting. Which has me going back to the AMG if it does sale. I was also a bit slow on a boat stage this weekend running the H59 using holdovers, that's lack of practice though. I just truthfully don't have time to shoot and that window is slowly closing for the foreseeable future. I have 3 months of summer starting in may and once Dental school starts it's unlikely i'll shoot a match next year at all, especially if we stick with the year around schedule instead of getting another summer off.
Still interested in hearing ILya and Redneck's further evaluation of the 3.6-18 though.
Last edited:
Thank you redneck, that makes me a bit nervous, one of the things I didn't like about the DMR/DMR II is it only focuses/parallax down to 75 yards, but it was a hard 75 yards, I used it at 50 and it was pretty blurry, I'm not so much worried at parallax in that short of range because the effects will be minimal, but would like to be able to focus. Interesting that they mark it at 75 but you say the dial goes lower than that, let me know if you find any more on if it can focus closer than 75.
ILya, I believe you have one of these as well, any chance you did some parallax/focus testing on the low end?
Like I said, mine focused down to about 15 yards with a clear image and crisp reticle.
I just heard back from Leupold and this is what they told me regarding the Mark 5HD 3.6-18x44 parallax
Your results seem to contradict what Leupold is saying because 15 yards would be significant vs 75 yards, that being said, your findings are very encouraging.
I did a little shooting today with mine mounted up on my 224 Valkyrie, did a short low light evaluation, and then clipped the LWTS in front of it and was watching deer over 900 yards away in dark.
I'm very impressed with the scope thus far.
I'm very impressed with the scope thus far.
Any updates on the 3-18? More comparisons per say to other ultra shorts?
I have not spent much time with it, but if you want to use it at closer distances you have to lower the magnification to get more depth of field. At 10x, everything looks acceptably sharp at 50 yards, but I have not tried it closer than 100 yards at higher magnification.
If you are able to focus down to 15 yards with it, check if you are still in focus at infinity. It may be that your eyepiece is not set-up right or that the scope needs to be adjusted.
ILya
I am continuing to be impressed with how small the Mark 5 is.
Was behind a 624i today for 4 hours using it on a friends 223 trainer. Weather here sucked and i didn't have the Mark 5 with me. I wish i did so i could've compared the two. Did put it side by side yet again next to a Gen II razor, was hard to tell the difference between them excluding the Gen II at 27x. On 24x in the conditions today (fog/misty rain).
Should've brought my rifle back with me.
Should've brought my rifle back with me.
So was at Mile High Shooting the other day and decided to see if they still had a Leupy 3.6-18x44 I could look at and we took it outside and to be honest its kind of hard when a scope is just sitting on a rear bag on a post while trying to fiddle with mag and diopter and parallax, but I was pretty impressed. Eye relief seemed huge and eyebox pretty forgiving even up to 18x and while the spec says 75 yards focus I was able to focus much closer than that as the parallax dial goes well below the 75y marking. Turrets seemed decent enough and glass looked pretty dang good in my brief encounter. So I am very close to pulling the trigger on one and playing with it a bit. I've never been a Horus fan but I'm seriously considering the Tremor 3 with this scope just to play around and see if I can't get used to it...
I still want one for a gas gun. Curious to hear ILya's final thoughts, though all indications point to Leupold getting this one right thus far. Least going off our small sample size in this thread.
So the excuse for $300 illumination is "cost" granted he could be 100% correct. Seems a bit disingenuous when every other brand is doing it at similar price. Still watching to see if they announce the new reticle.
They do talk about the CCH
Last edited:
CCH reticle info:
I had not been able to find reticle info on the CCH offering, so I called Leupold Customer Service and found a tech who sent me the attached PDFs with actual measurements and a detailed view of the CCH reticle.
CK Bush
Arizona
I had not been able to find reticle info on the CCH offering, so I called Leupold Customer Service and found a tech who sent me the attached PDFs with actual measurements and a detailed view of the CCH reticle.
CK Bush
Arizona
Thanks for those PDFs. I am really digging those open centers. I might pick up an LRP just to see it in the flesh.
Well I did it, I pulled the trigger on a Mark 5HD 3.6-18x44mm Tremor 3. This will be my first Leupold and I'm really hoping it will impress, this is also my first busy Horus reticle but hoping I'll get over the messyness and enjoy the usefulness... should be here within a couple weeks.
Looking forward to seeing your results Bill.
Thanks to all who have posted reviews
I own 7 NF scopes and 1 S&B. There not been a scope from another manufacturer that has caught my attention like the Leupold Mark 5 3.6-18x44 has.
A very nice power range for a gas gun or hunting rifle and a TReMor3 reticle for $2100, I'm very tempted.
I own 7 NF scopes and 1 S&B. There not been a scope from another manufacturer that has caught my attention like the Leupold Mark 5 3.6-18x44 has.
A very nice power range for a gas gun or hunting rifle and a TReMor3 reticle for $2100, I'm very tempted.
