Rifle Scopes What's up with the Mark6?
- Thread starter Bevan
- Start date
Early models with the M5B2 turrets had tracking issues as far as i can recall. Mine certainly did. Those particular turrets were horrible also. Eyebox is the most sensitive i've ever been behind, to the point that it was uncomfortable. The glass for the price was pretty lack luster as well though that could be attributed to the design of the scope also. Thus far all indications point to the Mark 5 3.6-18 being what the Mark 6 should've been. It tracks well, eyebox is very forgiving, and the glass is good. I have the Mark 5 5-25 which thus far has been exceptional for the price i paid IMHO. I'm only going on user accounts for the 3.6-18, but i truly loathed my Mark 6 when i had it. Given the Mark 5s price comparable to the Mark 6 i'd just go straight to the Mark 5.
Touchy eye box, yes. Tracking issues I never had, but there were a slew of turret issues that I saw posted online. Turrets mounted into the tube off-center, reticles not centered in the FoV, and the squish turrets had play in them. The play did NOT adjust the reticle location at all, BUT with your scope set at 0.7 mils, it could read either 0.7 or 0.6 depending on which direction the slop was favoring. Also was hard to find sunshades and it would glare pretty bad pointing into the sun.
Glass was on par with SFP NF NXS glass. Altogether not the worst scope, and offered some pretty decent weight/size benefits. The low-profile turrets fixed a lot of complaints I had with it, also. Anyway, I ended up selling mine to get a Vortex Gen2 razor, then a March 3-24x52. I liked both of them better than the Leupy.
Glass was on par with SFP NF NXS glass. Altogether not the worst scope, and offered some pretty decent weight/size benefits. The low-profile turrets fixed a lot of complaints I had with it, also. Anyway, I ended up selling mine to get a Vortex Gen2 razor, then a March 3-24x52. I liked both of them better than the Leupy.
When other companies include illumination by default and leupold charges $300 that also leaves a bad taste in a customer's mouth.
I never had any issues with my 3-18 Mk6's. I LOVE my 1-6.
I never had any issues with my 3-18 Mk6's. I LOVE my 1-6.
As with most Leupold optics, the bang-for-the-buck is for shit. They might as well be Remington in terms of resting on their laurels.
That is certainly an issue for those who need it. Though the initial price of the MK5 without illumination isn't bad honestly, though i think they'd be selling like crazy if that was the price with illumination.
Though at discounted prices with the sales going on i'd argue that the 5-25 is a hell of a deal if you don't need illumination. As i said i can't comment on the 3.6-18 but i've been thoroughly impressed with my 5-25 for the money i paid. It has gone toe to toe with an ATACR which is $1000 more and very much held it's own despite the price disparity.
I think Leupold is trying to get back on track given the mark 5 but i still don't understand the premium for illumination. They also need to field an updated TMR with 2/10th hashes & a center dot as well as a more clean tree design that is no charge. That would also make them sell IMHO.
I absolutely agree that the Mk V is a step in the right direction, and I also agree that the price bump for illumination is ridiculous... most comparable optics (at that price point) offer illumination standard. Likewise, I agree about the reticle selection... they could really use something between the standard crosshair and the (IMO) busiest reticle they could find.
I really think that they're playing catch-up at this point, and they shouldn't have to... as far as non-professional shooters go (in the US, anyhow), they were in the catbird seat, but it seems like they took the old school IBM/General Motors approach of, "The people will buy what we make for them to buy." Nonetheless, I am glad to see them moving in the right direction at all.
Agreed, i think the CCH was a missed opportunity at it's root it's layout is identical to the H59, it's cheaper than the H59 by $100 but it would've served them better to just have a clean tree reticle of their design and carry the H59 for those who want it. That and something like a Mil C or SKMR or just the evolution of the TMR would go along way. There's a new reticle coming apparently, or that's the rumor. If it is something like the Mil-C/SKMR i'll likely have one in the 3.6-18 if there isn't an upcharge on it.
My personal take on Leupold is that they're decent enough optics... but that the price is (generally) too high for the features that you get. Nonetheless, please let us know what you think of it when you get a chance.
I'm guessing you'll like it knowing what you are getting into. Any where else you want to save space and weight, and not paying full MSRP, they are hard to beat.
I like mine (M5C2 H59) a lot on 16"-18" gas rifles, large or small frame.
