Leupold Mark 4 HD 6-24x52…drop test

[Snowhunter11]

I recently had both Mark 4 HD 2.5-10 TMR and the Maven RS1.2 2.5-15 mil for a side by side comparison. The Leupold had excellent glass. TMR Reticle was good and clear out to 700 yards (the furthest I held on something). However in my eyes the Maven reticle is better. I am no optical expert so I won’t go into extreme depth on my comparison. At the end of the day they both are exceptional products. The two scopes are not apples to apples so it isn’t worth further discussion. I will let you know out of the two I kept the Maven.. I am glad to hear the Mark 4HD passed another drop. The more scopes we have to choose from the better! Thanks for testing! The mark 4 scope has potential to fill a lot of freezers.

 

[Juan_ID]

I recently had both Mark 4 HD 2.5-10 TMR and the Maven RS1.2 2.5-15 mil for a side by side comparison. The Leupold had excellent glass. TMR Reticle was good and clear out to 700 yards (the furthest I held on something). However in my eyes the Maven reticle is better. I am no optical expert so I won’t go into extreme depth on my comparison. At the end of the day they both are exceptional products. The two scopes are not apples to apples so it isn’t worth further discussion. I will let you know out of the two I kept the Maven.. I am glad to hear the Mark 4HD passed another drop. The more scopes we have to choose from the better! Thanks for testing! The mark 4 scope has potential to fill a lot of freezers.

I can’t argue that the Maven reticle is easier to use or “center” quickly but I feel they’re both pretty easy to use and useable at all magnifications. As you said, either will probably work just fine to fill some freezers. I was planning on using the maven this year but may opt for the Leupold if it continues to work well through the summer.

 

[danhuntingmi]

I can’t argue that the Maven reticle is easier to use or “center” quickly but I feel they’re both pretty easy to use and useable at all magnifications. As you said, either will probably work just fine to fill some freezers. I was planning on using the maven this year but may opt for the Leupold if it continues to work well through the summer.

I can't tell you if the tmr changed for ffp or this specific model of scope. I can tell you that my tmr reticle in sfp is cartoonishly bold and easy to see. It's bolder than the Leupold tri-moa and lr/creedmore reticle. It's waaaayyy bolder and easier to see than the swfa milquad reticle in 6x or 10x. If anything, it's as if they read too many forum posts and went too far in that direction. It's definitely not the best reticle for shooting groups off the bench, let's put it that way.

 

[danhuntingmi]

I can't tell you if the tmr changed for ffp or this specific model of scope. I can tell you that my tmr reticle in sfp is cartoonishly bold and easy to see. It's bolder than the Leupold tri-moa and lr/creedmore reticle. It's waaaayyy bolder and easier to see than the swfa milquad reticle in 6x or 10x. If anything, it's as if they read too many forum posts and went too far in that direction. It's definitely not the best reticle for shooting groups off the bench, let's put it that way.

Also, to clarify, this comes from literally having a scope with tmr reticle, a scope with tri-moa reticle, a scope with a lr duplex reticle, a swfa 6x mil quad reticle, and a swfa 10x moa quad reticle. All of these are in my current possession and I pulled out and compared them today.

I know that's hilarious and all. I mean, reality can be a good joke, especially for those that won't believe it.

Of course I can't speak for how the reticles have been changed in the last few years. But my current tmr reticle in sfp is almost as if it was designed so bold it would still be bold in low power in ffp.

 

[Juan_ID]

I can't tell you if the tmr changed for ffp or this specific model of scope. I can tell you that my tmr reticle in sfp is cartoonishly bold and easy to see. It's bolder than the Leupold tri-moa and lr/creedmore reticle. It's waaaayyy bolder and easier to see than the swfa milquad reticle in 6x or 10x. If anything, it's as if they read too many forum posts and went too far in that direction. It's definitely not the best reticle for shooting groups off the bench, let's put it that way.

I stole these pics from @ChrisAU ’s post on snipershide, nothing to really reference its size in the pic but it doesn’t look “too thick” from these pics? May just need to buy one to see how it looks for myself… Also @NSI has a ffp 2.5-10 so maybe he can comment on the thickness of it compared to some others?

 

[danhuntingmi]

I stole these pics from @ChrisAU’s post on snipershide, nothing to really reference its size in the pic but it doesn’t look “too thick” from these pics? May just need to buy one to see how it looks for myself… Also @NSI has a ffp 2.5-10 so maybe he can comment on the thickness of it compared to some others?
View attachment 736587

This conversation is about the reticle being too small to see clearly. No? In my SFP tmr scope the reticle is bolder than the SWFA reticles and (more marginally) thicker than other Leupold reticles. If this is what you want, then that is my experience. If you can't see the tmr reticle in another scope, then they significantly changed it from mine or you should get in line with Mr Magoo at the optometrist.

 

[Juan_ID]

This conversation is about the reticle being too small to see clearly. No? In my SFP tmr scope the reticle is bolder than the SWFA reticles and (more marginally) thicker than other Leupold reticles. If this is what you want, then that is my experience. If you can't see the tmr reticle in another scope, then they significantly changed it from mine or you should get in line with Mr Magoo at the optometrist.

Ya but I was just wondering out loud how much difference there is between the sfp and ffp.

 

[NSI]

By the time the 2.5-10 gets to 4x, it’s very usable. It’s also usably fine at 10x. For an FFP TMR, I wouldn’t change it.

-J

 

[ChrisAU]

I stole these pics from @ChrisAU’s post on snipershide, nothing to really reference its size in the pic but it doesn’t look “too thick” from these pics? May just need to buy one to see how it looks for myself… Also @NSI has a ffp 2.5-10 so maybe he can comment on the thickness of it compared to some others?
View attachment 736587

For everyone who is reading, this is an FFP Illuminated model which is thicker than the FFP non-illuminated.

 

[NSI]

Ahhhhhh. I went non-illum.

-J

 

[NSI]

Dan and I went to the range this morning to run 3 more drop tests on the Leupold. I imagine many of you will feel like we do - encouraged but needing more data for complete trust - after you review these findings. First, a zero confirmation group of 5 rounds in .9” following the bumpy forest road in. Rounds were .1-.2 high but we elected not to adjust on this small group.
I’ll post the 3 drop tests we did in order here for you to draw your own conclusions:



Did rounds trend high during the drop tests? Yes. Did they exceed my hastily drawn circles? Yes. Did they demonstrate the sort of multi-mil zero shift we have come to observe in other Leupolds and Vortexes? Definitively not. We did not re-zero between each test. Mirage was thick and the system remained hot with 100 rounds fired in 40 min.

18” drops looked like this:



36” looked like this:



Substrate was a 1.5” closed cell foam wrestling mat on a hard packed gravel surface. No physical damage was observed, though the bounces were phenomenal.



Impressions:
The mk4 reticle is usable, but presents particular challenges for short range target shooting due to the lack of center dot and substantial reticle obscuration. These very features probably enhance field usability, so I’ll continue to test that on mid range targets.

The locking elevation turret is excellent, but the set screws backed out easily with vibration. They were tightened between each drop test due to necessity.

The low profile turret compared to the SWFA may improve the prospects of use with a piggyback red dot on mk18 style rifles.

Shooting side by side with Dan’s maven, I got the impression that you would really want to be saving those 6oz to compromise so heavily on the reticle. But that weight is material on an AR or HOWA mini build, and we will continue to test durability with periodic zero checks as it rides in my truck this summer.

Thanks for the patience,

-J

 

[Alpha Echo]

The low profile turret compared to the SWFA may improve the prospects of use with a piggyback red dot on mk18 style rifles.

Would a dab of nail polish / paint pen a la Form work on these set screws? I'm assuming all turret components are metal, with no plastic to interact with any degreaser?

 

[Alpha Echo]

Thanks for the patience,

-J

Don't thank us, we should all be the ones exclusively thanking you.

 

[Justin Crossley]

Dan and I went to the range this morning to run 3 more drop tests on the Leupold. I imagine many of you will feel like we do - encouraged but needing more data for complete trust - after you review these findings. First, a zero confirmation group of 5 rounds in .9” following the bumpy forest road in. Rounds were .1-.2 high but we elected not to adjust on this small group.View attachment 738972
I’ll post the 3 drop tests we did in order here for you to draw your own conclusions:
View attachment 738973
View attachment 738974
View attachment 738975
Did rounds trend high during the drop tests? Yes. Did they exceed my hastily drawn circles? Yes. Did they demonstrate the sort of multi-mil zero shift we have come to observe in other Leupolds and Vortexes? Definitively not. We did not re-zero between each test. Mirage was thick and the system remained hot with 100 rounds fired in 40 min.

18” drops looked like this:

View attachment 738978

36” looked like this:

View attachment 738979

Substrate was a 1.5” closed cell foam wrestling mat on a hard packed gravel surface. No physical damage was observed, though the bounces were phenomenal.

View attachment 738980

Impressions:
The mk4 reticle is usable, but presents particular challenges for short range target shooting due to the lack of center dot and substantial reticle obscuration. These very features probably enhance field usability, so I’ll continue to test that on mid range targets.

The locking elevation turret is excellent, but the set screws backed out easily with vibration. They were tightened between each drop test due to necessity.

The low profile turret compared to the SWFA may improve the prospects of use with a piggyback red dot on mk18 style rifles.

Shooting side by side with Dan’s maven, I got the impression that you would really want to be saving those 6oz to compromise so heavily on the reticle. But that weight is material on an AR or HOWA mini build, and we will continue to test durability with periodic zero checks as it rides in my truck this summer.

Thanks for the patience,

-J

I would not expect a rifle to shoot tight groups if you and the rifle are laying on a mat like that for the shots. I recommend shooting from a solid surface.

 

[wind gypsy]

So what does not having the parallax set 100% right translate to on target at 100 yards or at distance? I’ve seen where some people set it to 2-300 then shoot from close to far and it seems to work fine. Again, pardon my ignorance on this, I’m just trying to figure out what I’m gaining from testing this? I don’t know that I’ve ever tried getting it perfect when shooting at an animal but maybe I should?

I have not messed around with parallax issue diagnosis to give solid answers but sensitivity/error seem to vary with different scope models. I've heard Chris Way mention that he's observed as much as a Mil of parallax error before which i'd have never guessed was happening.

 

[Juan_ID]

I would not expect a rifle to shoot tight groups if you and the rifle are laying on a mat like that for the shots. I recommend shooting from a solid surface.

Really? Solid surface as in not laying on the ground? What about laying on the ground but shooting off a bipod and rear bag?

I have not messed around with parallax issue diagnosis to give solid answers but sensitivity/error seem to vary with different scope models. I've heard Chris Way mention that he's observed as much as a Mil of parallax error before which i'd have never guessed was happening.

Man that seems like a lot, but I’d also think that all other things being equal I’m not changing head position/cheek pressure THAT much between shots to show that much variation but I can’t say that with much certainty as it’s nothing I’ve ever tried to measure.

 

[wind gypsy]

Man that seems like a lot, but I’d also think that all other things being equal I’m not changing head position/cheek pressure THAT much between shots to show that much variation but I can’t say that with much certainty as it’s nothing I’ve ever tried to measure.

The head pressure/cheek position variance is part of the issue. The error I see mentioned more is someone was parallax free during their zero and then have parallax error at longer distances when its not adjusted out of the scope.

 

[JohnJohnson]

Really? Solid surface as in not laying on the ground? What about laying on the ground but shooting off a bipod and rear bag?

Man that seems like a lot, but I’d also think that all other things being equal I’m not changing head position/cheek pressure THAT much between shots to show that much variation but I can’t say that with much certainty as it’s nothing I’ve ever tried to measure.

The head pressure/cheek position variance is part of the issue. The error I see mentioned more is someone was parallax free during their zero and then have parallax error at longer distances when its not adjusted out of the scope.

Would this be relevant?

#10 Parallax: It is NOT making you miss at long range

I have read the typical stuff that gets repeated on the internet, which says, adjust your parallax for long range or you'll miss. But, I have read and listened to several optics experts who have disabused me of the notion. The technical aspect of optics is way more than I fully understand and...

rokslide.com

Parallax Error Calculator - Leland-West Insurance

This quick calculator shows the amount of parallax error that may occur using a fixed-parallax scope to sight onto an object placed at a known distance.

www.lelandwest.com

 

[NSI]

Re-ran the entire test today from a shooting mat and RokBlok today @Justin Crossley .




Baseline group was 1.2”, adjusted .1 down.



The drop test was more conclusive this time around. No rounds left the circle, and the group was 1.3”. No climbing group behavior occurred here, most likely due to reduced mirage, better shooting position, and reduced shooter fatigue.



I remain flummoxed by group shooting with this open centered reticle. Dan had no such issues - as with so much in optics, preference will prevail. I’m looking forward to shooting more practical scenarios to fully appreciate the usability of the optic. It’s safe to say I’m done dropping this system for a moment.

-J

 

[SouthPaw]

I remain flummoxed by group shooting with this open centered reticle. Dan had no such issues - as with so much in optics, preference will prevail. I’m looking forward to shooting more practical scenarios to fully appreciate the usability of the optic. It’s safe to say I’m done dropping this system for a moment.

-J

Looking at the Leupold website, the FFP TMR 2.5-10 that HAS illumination looks to have a .1mil center dot and .1mil inner reticle thickness, similar to the Maven SHR-Mil. Anyone have the illuminated version in hand to confirm this?

The non-illum 2.5-10 TMR FFP shows a .05 thick reticle and no inner dot.