Leupold mark 5 HD reticle help

[Linetrash]

New To long range rifle scopes I am trying to figure out what reticle would best suit my needs. Narrowed down between the TMR and the pr 1moa. Plan is for it to be on a 300 Weatherby and hunting western states. Any experience and opinions appreciated! Thanks!

 

[Pronghunter]

PR 1MOA is what I have on my 3 Mark 5’s. Especially for a hunting scope.

 

[Linetrash]

PR 1MOA is what I have on my 3 Mark 5’s. Especially for a hunting scope.

Do you run the 5-25?

 

[Pronghunter]

Do you run the 5-25?

Yup

 

[CApighunter]

I’ve got the TMR in my 3.6-18 and have no complaints. Haven’t compared it to the pr1

 

[General RE LEE]

Is the glass on that Mark 5HD comparable to VX5/VX6HD glass?

Also how is the reticle in low light on low power since it’s FFP?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Linetrash]

I’ve got the TMR in my 3.6-18 and have no complaints. Haven’t compared it to the pr1

Do you feel the 18x is enough?

 

[Pronghunter]

Do you feel the 18x is enough?

I had an 18 and it’s plenty. I have a few VX5 HDs in 15x and have no problem shooting 10” plates out to 1300 yards.

 

[Pronghunter]

Is the glass on that Mark 5HD comparable to VX5/VX6HD glass?

Also how is the reticle in low light on low power since it’s FFP?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Mark 5HD, VX5HD, and VX6HD all utilize the same glass and same coatings. I did a factory tour and had the same concerns but it’s exactly the he same. Also, the FFP does surprisingly well on low power in timber or twilight. The illuminated reticle will cure any worries if you can swing the extra $$$

 

[Linetrash]

Yup

What’re you running for rings? Thanks for all the info!

 

[Pronghunter]

What’re you running for rings? Thanks for all the info!

Seekins .95 or Low work with my setup. I have a few others with the high Seekins or 1.0”.

 

[ChrisAU]

Looking at the Loopy specs, the fine lines on the TMR are 0.05 mils thick and PR-1 fine lines are 0.15 MOA. Meaning, on a 100 yard target the TMR would cover .180" while the PR-1 would cover .157", making the TMR the ever so slightly more bold reticle correct? I have a TMR 3.6-18 on order, hoping I don't regret going with the non-illuminated version. Never had anywhere close to an issue seeing the reticle in my SWFA at low light, though for comparison the thin lines on it are 0.07 mils thick, or .252" on a 100 yard target.