Leupold Mk4HD 2.5-10 review

[ljalberta]

I want to believe!

I hope you keep documenting and sharing your results. So many things about the Mark 4s and 5s that I like, but I’ve always been resistant based on my past Leupold experiences and results of other’s testing.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

I've personally seen, actually in person not on the internet, 6 Mark 5's lose zero on known/good guns. I have zero experience with the newer Mark 4's...

Are there design differences in the Mark 4's from the Mark 5's to indicate they may be a better designed scope?

 

[AZ_Hunter]

I've personally seen, actually in person not on the internet, 6 Mark 5's lose zero on known/good guns. I have zero experience with the newer Mark 4's...

Are there design differences in the Mark 4's from the Mark 5's to indicate they may be a better designed scope?

No idea. That’s why I am going to keep shooting this and see what happens. If it loses zero, then good, learned something. If it doesn’t, then good, learned something.

I have a year before this rifle will go hunting. There will be a lot more shooting it by then.

 

[Jake Larsen]

No idea. That’s why I am going to keep shooting this and see what happens. If it loses zero, then good, learned something. If it doesn’t, then good, learned something.

I have a year before this rifle will go hunting. There will be a lot more shooting it by then.

Have you run a tall target test? I’d like to see that


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AZ_Hunter]

Have you run a tall target test? I’d like to see that


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Have not. I can do that next time.

 

[Axlrod]

Inhale, slowly exhale, focus on sight alignment, trigger squeeze begins, time my trigger break with bottom of my exhale, shot goes off, small bump in sight picture, reticle after firing is low. Get sight alignment again, repeat. Realize the natural out of aim is low and I am forcing the rifle up by tightening my rear support hand.

Decide to reposition bags. Now rifle has a better natural point of aim. Reticle is staying centered without muscle tension. Repeat shooting sequence. Shots break, sight picture hops, lands back real close to the original plane. Barely have to shift body. Repeat shot sequence… etc etc

This is like arguing with Rain Man.

You could make this way less convoluted, if you were driving the rifle, instead of the rifle driving you. A zeroed scope puts holes in the delineated point of aim. I guess you could draw an actual point of aim on the target, after shooting. But it would be way better to just put the bullets in the bullseye. Not being a smart ass, and I do much appreciate the testing of this scope. But the target you posted looks exactly like targets I have shot, with scopes that lost zero.

 

[AZ_Hunter]

So when a shooter doesn’t have a perfect position and the bullets don’t impact the bullseye, then the shooter recognizes their mistake, then corrects their position and shoots the bullseye, the zero has shifted?

That will make training new shooters easy:

“Son, you missed right. It’s ok, the zero shifted. Try again. You missed left this time, it’s ok the zero has shifted.”

Some of you are acting as if the rifle is held in a mechanical vice being shot in a controlled environment.

If this was about my Maven, the comments would be about shooting fundamentals.

Next time, I will only post my shots after I shoot a few and get in the groove, then shoot a fresh target.

 

[AZ_Hunter]

Speaking of Maven. Here are my last three groups I shot before my CO trip. All same loads on the same paper. 1st, 2nd, 3rd.

First group sucked and was way low. Gathered myself, repositioned and shot again. Chilled for a bit and shot again.

I see a trend. First group low. Too much pull on trigger, dipping rifle? Rear bag not positioned right?… I don’t remember. But to shoot my best takes a few rounds. I am not a machine.

 

[Formidilosus]

So when a shooter doesn’t have a perfect position and the bullets don’t impact the bullseye, then the shooter recognizes their mistake, then corrects their position and shoots the bullseye, the zero has shifted?

No. You are checking a mechanical thing- point of aim, point of impact. Why aren’t you stable enough to not “break shots” that aren’t centered? If someone can’t do that, they aren’t able to delineate between a mechanical issue and a shooter issue at all.

Some of you are acting as if the rifle is held in a mechanical vice being shot in a controlled environment.

Zeroing and checking zero is supposed to be a controlled environment. It’s literally mechanically aligning the reticle with the bore down range.

If this was about my Maven, the comments would be about shooting fundamentals.

Not from me. There is another poster that had questions about zero shift with a historically good scope make and model. My responses were the same- you must eliminate the variables of zeroing before you can know anything about the zero shifts.

Next time, I will only post my shots after I shoot a few and get in the groove, then shoot a fresh target.

That’s no different than misrepresenting data on purpose. It’s prone or benched- why not just break correct shots in the center of the target, and show everything?

 

[Formidilosus]

Speaking of Maven. Here are my last three groups I shot before my CO trip. All same loads on the same paper. 1st, 2nd, 3rd.

First group sucked and was way low. Gathered myself, repositioned and shot again. Chilled for a bit and shot again.

I see a trend. First group low. Too much pull on trigger, dipping rifle? Rear bag not positioned right?… I don’t remember. But to shoot my best takes a few rounds. I am not a machine.

Again, I am not trying to be a jerk. However, that you are not able to lay down control shots into the center, and therefor have such dramatic shifts in POI based on you alone (that’s what you are saying here), means that none of you zero or not zeroed target can be trusted.
You have over a 2.5 MOA shift in your base zero apparently from you alone- you aren’t able to see anything about your first shot to check zero, because you aren’t able to control to rifle to sub 2.5 MOA. And, it’s not that you have a round and centered 2.5 MOA group which can give information- you are randomly and uncontrollably shifting elevation.


Maybe that Leupold holds zero- but you can’t say with that much error involved. Maybe the Maven loses zero- but you can’t say with that much error involved.

Unequivocally the Mark 4 HD eval scope is shift zero by .1 to .3 miks vertically- in effect turning a 1.2 MOA rifle into a 2.5 MOA vertical system. You would not be able to tell that, because you are already introducing a massive vertical component- and would just excuse the shifts to that.

 

[Firth]

Again, I am not trying to be a jerk. However, that you are not able to lay down control shots into the center, and therefor have such dramatic shifts in POI based on you alone (that’s what you are saying here), means that none of you zero or not zeroed target can be trusted.
You have over a 2.5 MOA shift in your base zero apparently from you alone- you aren’t able to see anything about your first shot to check zero, because you aren’t able to control to rifle to sub 2.5 MOA. And, it’s not that you have a round and centered 2.5 MOA group which can give information- you are randomly and uncontrollably shifting elevation.


Maybe that Leupold holds zero- but you can’t say with that much error involved. Maybe the Maven loses zero- but you can’t say with that much error involved.

Unequivocally the Mark 4 HD eval scope is shift zero by .1 to .3 miks vertically- in effect turning a 1.2 MOA rifle into a 2.5 MOA vertical system. You would not be able to tell that, because you are already introducing a massive vertical component- and would just excuse the shifts to that.

One of the things you've mentioned in the podcasts that's really caught my attention is the discussion about how much people's groups get bigger when they break position after every shot. I've paid attention to my own 10 shot groups since then (usually shot without breaking position) and noticed that I sometimes I have little shifts from one range trip to the next. Then I wonder if the shift is the result of not enough shots to get a true zero or if it is from changes in positioning or shooting technique. What's the largest change in group size you've seen between shooting with and without breaking position. From the podcast it seems like a couple inch shifts aren't unusual.

I need to start shooting groups while breaking position, I just usually forget. Do you have a recommendation on how to train so that group size while breaking position doesn't grow? My assumption has been you will tell me to train getting square behind the rifle and work on maintaining sight picture through the shot.

 

[Formidilosus]

One of the things you've mentioned in the podcasts that's really caught my attention is the discussion about how much people's groups get bigger when they break position after every shot. I've paid attention to my own 10 shot groups since then (usually shot without breaking position) and noticed that I sometimes I have little shifts from one range trip to the next. Then I wonder if the shift is the result of not enough shots to get a true zero or if it is from changes in positioning or shooting technique. What's the largest change in group size you've seen between shooting with and without breaking position. From the podcast it seems like a couple inch shifts aren't unusual.

I need to start shooting groups while breaking position, I just usually forget. Do you have a recommendation on how to train so that group size while breaking position doesn't grow? My assumption has been you will tell me to train getting square behind the rifle and work on maintaining sight picture through the shot.

The easiest answer is to dry fire the rifle once you get into position and not what the reticle does. Start with an empty chamber and loaded mag in the rifle. Dry fire. If it is stable on the target and does not jump, repeat the dry fire multiple times- then when you know you are good, rack the bolt without moving your head or position at all. Fire one shot. The dry fire again. Get the position correct, then rack and shoot one shot. Etc etc.

If when you dry fire the reticle bounces or moves off the target- adjust body position and dry fire again. Rinse and repeat until there is no movement. Then as above, rack and shoot.


After you have solidly learned to do the above and the first dry fire each time is consistently correct, then you are able to just lay down and shoot a group. But it’s starts with learning what a correct position is by dry firing.

 

[AZ_Hunter]

Haha, ok. When I submit my peer reviewed paper to Scientific American on zero retention in hunting rifles, I’ll ensure to remove the human element.

Until then, I will keep shooting with my friends and family on Sundays… I’ll just make sure they don’t talk while I’m shooting since it’s really serious business to shoot my A-game 100% of the time, right from the start with zero warm up so I can post on the internet.

You do realize that even including my first 5 round group (the low one, before I adjusted my bags better) is still 1.87 MOA for 14 shots right? With 50% of those in a 1 MOA center. I don’t see ball busting in the “post your 10 round Tikka group thread” to those shooting 1.5 MOA 10 round groups.

Again, if I switched targets from first group to second, no one would be saying anything… then again, it is a Leupold thread, so if all shots weren’t one hole, it would be zero shift.

 

[Formidilosus]

Haha, ok. When I submit my peer reviewed paper to Scientific American on zero retention in hunting rifles, I’ll ensure to remove the human element.

Until then, I will keep shooting with my friends and family on Sundays… I’ll just make sure they don’t talk while I’m shooting since it’s really serious business to shoot my A-game 100% of the time, right from the start with zero warm up so I can post on the internet.

You are taking the time ostensibly to determine if the scope is shifting zero- correct? So then why sarcasm and nonsense when it is pointed out that you have an inherent issue that will not allow you to achieve your stated goal?

I want to know if your scope is holding zero- however because you have a 2.5 MOA vertical shift in your base zero depending on whether you are “warmed up” or not, the data you are showing is nearly useless- one cannot separate “you” from “the scope”. And your defensiveness and derision to that fact is showing that you have some part of an emotional bias in this.
Not one person would give any credence at all to the evals that I do if I stated that my zero shifts 2.5 MOA “until I am warmed up”- nor should they. My zero does not change, and there is no warm up- it’s rested on sandbags.
Step back and critically think about it yourself- would actually believe anything if someone was like “ya, so ignore the shots that weren’t perfect, they were totally and definitely me- because I can call my shots so perfect, and ya the shots that are prefect were totally and definitely me as well because I can shoot so well”?

And, how do you shoot at animals (read on demand hit) at any distance if you need to “warm up” before your shots stop varying 2.5 MOA vertically?

You do realize that even including my first 5 round group (the low one, before I adjusted my bags better) is still 1.87 MOA for 14 shots right? With 50% of those in a 1 MOA center. I don’t see ball busting in the “post your 10 round Tikka group thread” to those shooting 1.5 MOA 10 round groups.

The group size is nearly immaterial- the groups center is what matters for a zero. You have admitted and shown that your own zero shifts at least 2.5 MOA until you are “warmed up”. If you don’t have control for shot #1, you don’t have control for shot #5 or any other shot.
I don’t care at all how many shots are near center, because that doesn’t determine “zeroed” or “not zeroed”. The center of all shots fired (I.E., the cone) are what matters. To that point it is not uncommon for scopes to have a shift for the first shot randomly, then drop back to the “zero” for following shots- the scope evals show that frequently.


You can only pull meaningful data from things that fall outside of your on demand cone- your on demand center of cone is 2.5 MOA vertically. So unless the scope shifts 3+ MOA, you can’t or won’t say that it is the scope. And on that- what is your upper limit of saying it’s due to not being “warmed up”? It isn’t 2.5 MOA- is 3 MOA from center? 4 MOA? What will you allow in your mind before you will say- it’s the scope?

This is why it gets messy and becames non useful- you cannot eliminate shots that you don’t like. One shot out of a thousand- maybe. But you cannot say every group, every range session- “I need to warm up, so nothing counts until I hit what I want”. And then magically when you like what you see you get to claim that “everything is good, and definitely works correct- cause I like what I see now, but ignore those shots from earlier that I don’t like”.

Again, if I switched targets from first group to second, no one would be saying anything…

And that would be dishonest.

then again, it is a Leupold thread, so if all shots weren’t one hole, it would be zero shift.

This is why questioning the results will happen. You’re not being intellectually honest- my responses have absolutely nothing to do with the brand of scope- you just did it with a Maven and yet my response is exactly the same. It has everything to do with the reality that the variance you are presenting is much too large to pull anything meaningful out of what you are attempting.


I want you and others to track zero. I want to see that data. However bad data is as bad, or worse than no data. Data that’s based on I like/I think/I feel is not “data”, it’s subconscious bias and emotionally derived outcomes.

 

[HuntHarder]

If only Form could resist posting in this thread.... We get it, you think this is bullshit, move on and do your own tests. Your tests clearly show that Mk4's zero's shift.

 

[AZ_Hunter]

How do I shoot animals on demand? By shooting them in places that kill them. The elk didn’t seem to care that this time, on this day, I shot 14 rounds in 1.87MOA (counting all the shots) with the set up that killed her. If I could go back and tell the cow that my shooting sucked before she died, or I had zero shift, maybe she would.

Then don’t take it as data. It’s my experience shooting this rifle with this scope so far. Period. Not everything is a scientific paper.

I will do my best moving forward to take a Sunday of shooting more seriously. I didn’t know in order to post my experience with something required a strict adherence to the scientific method… I was just shooting and having fun with friends then posted what I shot with that rifle… then went on kill a bunch of dove and quail.

I also didn’t chronograph my shots this session. These loads are mixed with once and twice fired brass with bullets from two boxes and powder from two lots. What if I was shooting great and the ES caused vertical dispersion and the suppressor mirage caused horizontal dispersion… Oh no! Bad data!

 

[Jake Larsen]

You posted this specifically as a review of the Mk4HD. Don’t get mad when it’s critiqued as a review. A review of that scope is quite valuable information (good data)

If you had posted it as “here are some photos of my targets after shooting with buddies for fun” nobody would be critiquing you. And the value of that information would be???? (Bad data)

These types of reviews actually do inform people’s choices and gear selection. If the information is bad, it muddies the water for people who are serious about their gear.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AZ_Hunter]

The reason I got annoyed is because of unrealistic expectations.

The reticle has a floating dot that almost covers the target dot. It’s very hard to center a circle in a circle. Then my first group, I felt/saw the dot drift low as the shot breaks. Dot still in circle, just breaking not perfectly centered. Corroborated by my buddy on the spotting scope telling me I’m hitting a little low. I did my best to keep it centered, by muscling my support hand, which is not good technique. So after shooting that group, and repositioning, shot the second group from a better position. By the end mirage was kicking around.

That is all just real world stuff; yet still ended up with a decent group for that many rounds, and mostly centered up. I would bet 95% on this site with the exact same set up and situation would end up no better.

A better critique would be: try again, your shooting wasn’t good enough to judge. That is completely fair. But to insinuate that I can’t shoot animals, and immediately say the scope lost zero when it’s in the margin of human-error is just asinine.


I’m not emotionally invested in the scope. I have spent an insane amount of money on my shooting/shooting related hobbies over 25 years. If this scope sucks, I don’t care, it will be replaced. So far, it is acceptable to me given my parameters of human-error.

I am making a tall-target right now and will go out this week to shoot again. This time, prone from inside the bed of my truck which is the only way to get the height I need. I will be alone, and will be approaching the exercise with a focused mindset since the internet depends on it. Haha.

 

[JGRaider]

Use a bigger target dot.

 

[xsn10s]

Or use a square target and put the dot on it.