I just unboxed my 5-25 MK5 last night and my initial impressions are very positive. First thing I did was compare the glass to a ATACR F1 and Gen 2 Razor. Glass was easily as good as my ATACR F1, the razor was behind a little bit on glass clarity/resolution. I didn't notice any CA which some have mentioned in the past which I believe was mostly in the 3.6-18 MK5s. I then compared the turrets on all 3 models. Nightforce turrets are pretty darn good, very firm and audible. Leupold are nice and firm with good audible clicks and then the razor are firm that aren't that audible. Weights good on the MK5 not as heavy as the nightforce and quite a bit lighter than the razor. Overall this is exactly what I have been looking for in an optic. I don't get caught up to much in price and more expensive doesn't always mean better for me. Yes maybe in glass quality but I was looking for specific features that the MK5 was the first to offer. I wanted an optic with around 10 revs per turn (MK5 has 10.5...check), tree reticle with center dot (check), good glass on par with my gen 2 razor or better (check), The price which Leupold has offered this optic is just a bonus to me at this point. Looks like Leupold has a winner with this optic. I will be putting it through its paces this weekend with the 223 trainer. I can report back after a few range trips on how the optics performing.
Rifle Scopes So, what about Leupold Mark 5 ?
- Thread starter longshot2000
- Start date
For an MSRP of under $2000, I think the MK5 is hard to beat. I think I'll stick with my MK5 while I watch ZCO release their scopes.
Well Mk5 number 2 came today. Same issue. Dial is at +.05 in zero stop. Doesn't line up again. This one is consistent and stays exactly between the hashes. Weird....
So... Swapping the caps... And they both are on. Well one is dead on through all the adjustments. And the other (first one) is on til it hits 10 mils. Don't know how to explain that..
but switching the caps now aligns both scops up to be at least useable.
So I'm good enough at this point to run them.
So... Swapping the caps... And they both are on. Well one is dead on through all the adjustments. And the other (first one) is on til it hits 10 mils. Don't know how to explain that..
but switching the caps now aligns both scops up to be at least useable.So I'm good enough at this point to run them.
Last edited:
I haven’t noticed either of mine exhibit this but I’m also use to a little bit of error. At long as it’s basically on one mark I don’t see an issue. My MK5’s and a VX5HD are the lowest end optics I currently own and none of my others are a perfect lineup on the full revolution.
Honestly if that’s that big of a deal you’re nit picking and should shoot more and finger fuck your gear less.
Honestly if that’s that big of a deal you’re nit picking and should shoot more and finger fuck your gear less.
So is it confirmed that the 3.6-18 has CA/other issues? Not much talk of it. Are most thinking of the mk5 as a crossover optic?
Well with all the glowing reviews and how this optic is so great the turrets should line up. It is also the least expensive optic I own, but if your still spending upwards of 2 k for an optic the turret shouldn't be inbetween the hash marks. Not like I'm asking it to do something it shouldn't. Yea maybe .1 mil isn't much. But I would like to know if I'm at 1 mil and not .9. Not inbetween the two. All my Minox and kahles and Steiner M series, Razor g2, TT, etc, etc all lined up no matter what.
Call me picky but if I wanted my turret to be off, I would just have bought a few hundred dollar optic and not worried about it because I wouldn't expect it to be what a 2k optic is. Spending that much it should be right. Maybe being between the hashes is ok with you? But I don't care for it. I guess I have high expectations.
Last edited:
Yes I also noticed this. Kinda interesting.. tried this yesterday for a bit.
CA is no better/worse at the top end than some top tier mid-range glass I've had the luxury of owning and using. The XTR II series was probably the worst from what I've seen out of mid-tier optics, and to my eyes it's nowhere near as bad as that. The Mark 5HD controls CA about as well as an S&B I previously owned. It rears it's head mostly at the very top end, but it's not bad to the point of being unusable and bothersome. Image sharpness drops off a bit at the very top end, but the image quality is perfectly acceptable and useable. I usually keep it at about 10x power and occasionally dial up to about 12x or 15x, but very rarely magnify up to 18x. For the record I've fallen in love with this scope and the CCH grid reticle. Nice, lightweight, compact and feature rich at a very competitive price point, especially if you qualify for Leupold's Fed/Mil pricing. It compliments my MWS perfectly and I'm seriously considering picking up another one for my SPS Tactical AAC-SD.
ETA: came across this review http://opticsthoughts.com/?p=2296 and it discusses CA a little bit. The pics illustrate what I'm seeing, but I hardly consider this a serious "issue". Just one of those things that's very difficult to control given the design of the optic, but nothing that I would consider a hinderance or deal-breaker for most practical applications.
Last edited:
Jake, checked my turrets and I'm not experiencing what you're seeing. It's not exactly/precisely/pinpoint dead-on between the 7 and 8 mil range (looks like the 7 mil image you posted), but it's pretty much dead-on across the elevation range. I suppose there could be some deviation if I was really scrutinizing it, but it hasn't affected my shooting in a practical sense. I've set zero for 100 yards and I'm primarily using the CCH and holding vs. dialing.
Is it just me or does anybody else not think turrets lining EXACTLY up on certain index lines a nonissue? A touch off here and there not that big or deal as long as it tracks mechanically reliably. I get that a certain price point ensures a certain quality control, but I’ve seen numerous $3k+ optics not line up, exactly, at certain points on the turret but dialed elevation was exact and repeatable.
CA is definitely a subjective experience, some see it some don't, some are bothered by it, others are not. My worst experience with CA came from the Steiner T5Xi series (both the 5-25 and 3-15), my thought process was if I pay more than $1500 for a scope it shouldn't have "that bad" of CA. The Kahles K624i was another disappointing experience with CA (especially at it's price point, but that is because CA tends to bother me). The Mark 5 definitely had thick CA that was worse than any Schmidt I've owned so our mileage varies there. Atmospherics and lighting play a pretty big role in CA as well so depending on the day one might see a lot to very little. The XTR II does have some heavy CA but no worse to my eyes than the Mark 5, and I felt the T5Xi was worse than the XTR II. To me, where the Mark 5 3.6-18x44 really excels is in ergonomics, it is really short and has some of my favorite turrets on it. If Leupold came out with a nice .2 mil Christmas tree reticle along the lines of the MR4, Gen 3 XR, SKMR3 with an illumination option, I think the Mark 5 line would be more compelling to some.
The image below shows a comparison I did when I had the T5Xi to some other scopes, CA in pictures can sometimes look worse than with the naked eye because you are dealing with another optical system with lenses (that have their own CA) to take the image. You can see the center image with the Steiner has almost a ghost effect at the high contrast edges. While CA is not going to hinder you from hitting your target, it can be distracting at best and cut down on perceived contrast/detail at worst. (My general disclaimer: never use internet pictures of through the scope shots for an example of image quality (IQ) because it is very difficult to get a through the scope image showing off how good the image appears to the naked eye.)
Thanks for the images. Disappointing to see it that bad in the Steiner.
Keep in mind that newer reviews of the Steiner seem to indicate they have "fixed" some of the earlier CA issues on their T5Xi line. With some of these scopes there seems to be a high level of sample variance, meaning that one scope excels in an area while another scope off the same line does poorly. Reminds me a bit of OEM vs. aftermarket camera lenses, in the past it used to be that if you bought the OEM (Nikon, Canon, etc.) you could expect a certain quality level, whereas if you bought an aftermarket lens (Sigma, Tamron, etc.) it was hit and miss, some lenses were fantastic while others were less than stellar. For this reason, I highly recommend the Hide dealers when purchasing new scopes, most of them are willing to work with you and as long as you don't mount the scope in rings they will accept a return for another scope, so don't allow images like the one I showed above to dissuade you if you really like a particular scope, the adage YMMV applies here as there are many shooters who love their T5Xi's and swear they can't see any CA.
Yeah I'm pretty loyal to Doug over at CameraLand. He always treats me right.
I had an early model T5xi and yes, I did see the CA as shown in your images above. I recently decided to try an updated version and they have definitely fixed the problem. The newer T5's that can be had for sub 1500.00 are a great buy. One thing I will say, the diopter on the T5 seems to be the hardest to get established correctly, but once you have it set perfectly the scope is a solid competitor in the optics market.
Not sure if you meant for the double-negative there, but I'll say it depends. Yeah, if they're just a touch off, no big deal. However, I have VX6 HD that is right on at 0, starts to get off around 7 MOA, and then is back on a few MOA later. In some cases, the indicator line is exactly in the middle of two marks. So what did I really dial, 8.25 MOA or 8.5? I'm not about to start counting clicks.
I keep forgetting to call Leupold...
Thank you for confirming. I really wish manufacturers would stop fixing issues in models and yet not provide a model number update, Kahles did the same thing with the K624i as it went through 3 generations of "updates" but nothing changed in the model making it very difficult for the consumer to figure out which "version" they are getting. One thing I did like about the T5Xi was its low profile turrets and relatively low weight for a 5-25x56, now you have me tempted to check one out again... your comment about the diopter is similar to what I experienced on my PST II 5-25x50, it was very finicky but once I got it right I was impressed with the optical performance of the scope. I often wonder how many times shooters bad mouth a scope when in reality it may be due to faulty diopter setting for their eyes. I was embarrassed by this once, where I thought I had the scope setup but was shown my diopter was off, so I spend a lot more time fiddling with it now than I used to.
Well I've got close to 1k rounds through my .223 trainer that my Mk5 5-25 CCH is on as well as a shorter range (600 and in) local match and 100+rounds of 6creed on the same rig (it's a switch barrel) and I really like it. So much that I just got another to put on my primary match gun. Before this I was running HDMR2s on both my rifles so that's what I'm comparing the glass to but I definitely find it much better/clearer throughout the magnification range as well as the eye box is easier to get behind. Being quite used to H59s I thought I'd find the CCH to be a somewhat simpler/finer version of the Horus and now that I'm used to it, my initial thoughts seem to be correct.
The only 2 issues I had with my 1st Mk5 are what some are reporting as to the markings on the turret not lining up perfectly. The hashes on the turret end up more on one side of the index mark on the scope body than the other. Since the index mark is quite a bit wider than the hashes on the turret, I just sharpie it a bit to make it thinner and now it lines up great. Also, lining up the windage isn't super consistent, you could easily be off by 0.2 mils. I don't dial windage much but I do to shoot movers. I just scribed a line on the threads that the turret cap threads on to and line up the zero with that, easy peezy.
The only 2 issues I had with my 1st Mk5 are what some are reporting as to the markings on the turret not lining up perfectly. The hashes on the turret end up more on one side of the index mark on the scope body than the other. Since the index mark is quite a bit wider than the hashes on the turret, I just sharpie it a bit to make it thinner and now it lines up great. Also, lining up the windage isn't super consistent, you could easily be off by 0.2 mils. I don't dial windage much but I do to shoot movers. I just scribed a line on the threads that the turret cap threads on to and line up the zero with that, easy peezy.
Thanks for being the grammar police, I barely made it through public school ?. What you described was what I was referencing, I don’t find that to be an issue. I see it on my own optics, I dial for selected range and send it. If I end up being .1 mils off, I usually chalk it up to something I did, if hits are consistently off, I adjust and record.
I wasn't policing any grammar. I'm fine with your double negative, I just wasn't sure if you meant to use it, or if it was a typo. Adding or removing a negative gives the sentence the complete opposite meaning. I was simply trying to clarify what you meant.
I owned a Mk 4 6.5-20 before buying a Mark 5 3.6-18x44. I didn't have the chance to compare glass side by side, but in my unprofessional opinion the Mk 5 is as good or better.
The turrets on the Mk 5 are a significant improvements over the Mk 4. I had issues with the Mk 4 tracking accurately, no issues so far with the mk 5. I also use the Tremor3 so use holdovers more often than not. If going beyond 1000 I dial 5 mils and then hold over, and the mk 5 has been right on.
FWIW, Leupold rep told me that the Mark # refers only to the turret mechanism design, not the glass or anything else. It may just be sales BS, but he told me that higher number doesn't mean better mechanism. Like I said, take it all with a grain of salt.
The turrets on the Mk 5 are a significant improvements over the Mk 4. I had issues with the Mk 4 tracking accurately, no issues so far with the mk 5. I also use the Tremor3 so use holdovers more often than not. If going beyond 1000 I dial 5 mils and then hold over, and the mk 5 has been right on.
FWIW, Leupold rep told me that the Mark # refers only to the turret mechanism design, not the glass or anything else. It may just be sales BS, but he told me that higher number doesn't mean better mechanism. Like I said, take it all with a grain of salt.
I have both the 3-18 and 5-25.
We was told everything they learned in the Mark 6 was applied in the Mark 5.
I’m extremely happy with everything about the optic I like the feel of the turrets much better and the T3 is just money.
I’ll be buying a couple more for the 2019 Bolt Gun season.
The 3-18 will be on my hunting guns as well really happy with the optic.
We are at most of the SE PRS Matches you guys are welcome to look us up and run or gear we have seen no issues with the Mark 5s and have ran them all year
We was told everything they learned in the Mark 6 was applied in the Mark 5.
I’m extremely happy with everything about the optic I like the feel of the turrets much better and the T3 is just money.
I’ll be buying a couple more for the 2019 Bolt Gun season.
The 3-18 will be on my hunting guns as well really happy with the optic.
We are at most of the SE PRS Matches you guys are welcome to look us up and run or gear we have seen no issues with the Mark 5s and have ran them all year
Rain quit here in NW PA for a day so I got out and sent 100 rounds through my 223 with the MK5 on top. I’m loving everything about the scope and the CCH reticle. Scope tracking was spot on out to 600. Returned to zero just fine and glass is very nice. My turret marks line up just fine. I’m considering another one already. This won’t be my last MK5
Last edited:
Granted i've only had glimpse behinds S&B PMIIs but had some extensive use for months with the MK5. Probably a bit on resolution/contrast, CA control, and maybe eyebox. That's really it. Considering the price tag probably not worth the difference especially if you're looking for reduced weight. Resolution on the big MK5 is outstanding for the price. Contrast is a bit washed compared to ATACR and likely to the S&B. But it's a great optic. I'd save the money and go with it personally.
Yes, Ive had that problem. All you have to do is loosen the cap, and either push the cap to one side, or center it perfectly. I had to play with mine a little bit to figure it out. But, after messing with it, they line up all the way through now.
I have a newbie question. What does the CA acronym stand for ? I see a lot of people mentioning it but I have had no luck in finding a definition so far.
Chromatic Aberration
"The material effect produced by the refraction of different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation through slightly different angles, resulting in a failure to focus. It causes colored fringes in the images produced by uncorrected lenses."
"The material effect produced by the refraction of different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation through slightly different angles, resulting in a failure to focus. It causes colored fringes in the images produced by uncorrected lenses."
Chromatic Aberration
chro·mat·ic ab·er·ra·tion
noun
OPTICS
- the material effect produced by the refraction of different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation through slightly different angles, resulting in a failure to focus. It causes colored fringes in the images produced by uncorrected lenses.
Thanks for the help slick19 and Marine PMI . I am seriously on the edge of buying the mark 5 5-25 with illumination and tremor 3 reticle. From the reviews so far it seems to be a pretty solid choice to get out to 1000.
Well, I am by no means an expert, and I really haven't even been able to use too much really great glass, but I love my 3.6-18, and am planning on buying a 5-25. My friend who I shoot team matches with just got a 5-25 and it is leaps and bounds better than the 3.6-18. BUT, neither of us at any time felt that our 3.6-18's held us back when we were shooting at 1500. So, 1000 is no problem. I am not sure what experience you have with glass, but for me I went from $300 Athlon optics straight to Bushnell DMR IIs, and HDMRs. I thought they were great until I used my Mark 5, which I thought was fantastic until I used my buddy;s 5-25. Here on the hide, people tend to shit on Leupold a lot, and I would say that they have every reason too, the LRP is just terrible, I really don't think too much of the Mark 4's, I have seen terrible problems with the Mk6's, and the Mk8's are too expensive for what they bring to the table. But this Mk5 is a whole different class of scope for Leupold. Now that said, unless you specifically plan on shooting at night, I would suggest avoiding the illuminated model, Leupold still has a huge upcharge for illumination, I know Opticsplanet has them for pretty cheap rn at about 2300, but as someone said earlier in this thread, if i was going to pay that much, I would likely try to save a little more for an ATACR F1.... unless the reticle really gets your blood moving with the Mk5. Becasue to be honest, I think that is where leupold is still way behind, is the illumination upcharge. BUT, like I said I love my MK5, am planning on buying another, and do not feel that it holds me back even in the slightest.
TL/DR.... Get either the 3.6-18 or the 5-25, you will not be dissapointed.
Realistically a good 10x will get you out to 1000 yds. Nothing wrong with more magnification, but you should pay attention to how HPVOs perform when cranked up at the highest power and determine if it's acceptable for your application.
^^^ This is completely true. Speaking to that, the 18x and 25x on both Mk5 models do make the eyebox kinda tight, and you do lose some brightness, but I rarely use 25x, and even with my 3.6-18 I find myself rarely using 18x.
I had a pretty long writeup on page 11 i think in this thread about the MK5 5-25x56. For the money they can be had at only the DMR II pro rivals it. Eyebox is tight at 25x and the FOV is small but other than that there really isn't much fault to the big mark 5.
Great write up 5RWILL. The mk5 5-25 with illumination and tremor 3 I was looking to buy is from an individual on the forum. He's got it listed for $2k with no rings. The $2k is little over my budget right now. But in about a month I get a bonus and if I cant get the mk 5 5-25 with illumination with tremor 3 I will look at upping my budget to something more along the lines of the nf actar or s&b . This will be my first long range piece of glass and by far the most I have ever spent on a scope. For some reason the buy once cry once has really stuck with me so I am trying to make the right decision. Not easy lol
Thanks for the good info. Really helps out getting user experience feed back !
I'm scrounging funds for the 3.6-18 for my LMT Valk. Recently ordered a 4.5-27 Razor and saw this thread. It's got me wondering if I should change my order to the 5-25 mk5 to run similar reticles. Other than weight, what would I be missing?
If I got the illum 5-25 it would likely be about $200-300 more than I paid for the Razor.
If I got the illum 5-25 it would likely be about $200-300 more than I paid for the Razor.
I've seen some say they believe the glass is better than the Gen2 most say it's comparable, i'd agree with the latter they're similar.. I love the MK5 but the Gen 2's only real fault is weight. If they lowered it to near 30-35oz it would be a bigger staple than it already is in the industry. It's compact, has a 6x erector, great eyebox, great fov, great reticle, huge magnification range (albeit resolution drops some at 27x), illumination, locking turrets, great turrets at that (better than the MK5 IMHO though subjective), second rev indicator, i mean i could go on and on honestly. It's just a tank, which is my main gripe with it. Reticle selection would drive my decision if weight wasn't an issue and i prefer the EBR2C to any reticle Leupold offers.
I ordered the Razor to put on my 6.5 RPR with plans to use it for my first custom build. (Just praying it actually happens) I knew I'd have to give up illumination to keep the price near the Razor. Wasn't sure if anyone had noticed any significant benefit with the 5-25 Mk5 over the Vortex.
As for the 3.6-18, not sure which reticle I want. Like I said, it'll be going on a LMT Valkyrie. Mostly for paper out to 800 or so. Used occasionally for coyote hunting. I have admittedly fallen for the Tremor3.
As for the 3.6-18, not sure which reticle I want. Like I said, it'll be going on a LMT Valkyrie. Mostly for paper out to 800 or so. Used occasionally for coyote hunting. I have admittedly fallen for the Tremor3.
Only thing stopping me buying a Razor Gen II is the weight, could've had a 3-18x50 for an absolute steal of a price, but the weight is just crazy.
Amazing that Vortex is then able to offer the AMG which is a feather weight by comparison with much the same features.
I have the medium rings with plenty of height (rem 700), you should be fine with the low rings. The only thing that might get you is if you have a long LOP, the scope bell might hit the front of the scope base, so it kinda depends on the length of the rail. if the rail is extended you might have problems, if the end of the rail is flush with the lug you.'ll be fine regardless.
Medium is 1" low is .95.
Look to see if the zero stop is set. If it is, it will not allow you to go past it.
