Leupold Mk4HD 2.5-10 review

[gbflyer]

A person has to have near perfect technique every day along with their perfect “platform” to call with absolute certainty a .1 to .3 mils vertical error off of a built position laying prone out in dirt/snow. Even harder on a shaky table. To do it every time and use the data from
that criteria as a concrete fact for go/no-go on a scope is hard to swallow for the skeptic.

Glad you are doing these tests. I understand your point and you were honest in your assessment. I bet that’s a good eating elk, too.

 

[BBob]

Find someone with a scope checker to compare and check that scope to see if it’s moving or not

ie: removing the human element.

 

[AZ_Hunter]

A person has to have near perfect technique every day along with their perfect “platform” to call with absolute certainty a .1 to .3 mils vertical error off of a built position laying prone out in dirt/snow. Even harder on a shaky table. To do it every time and use the data from
that criteria as a concrete fact for go/no-go on a scope is hard to swallow for the skeptic.

Glad you are doing these tests. I understand your point and you were honest in your assessment. I bet that’s a good eating elk, too.

Thank you. Not to mention ammo. Recall from the beginning I made up a quick ladder with one bullet and powder, chose the fastest one because they all shot basically the same and haven’t changed since. What if if this isn’t the best load for this rifle? I don’t know, it’s shoots within my standards so it’s good enough form me. But that’s another variable.

And that is why I got defensive, there was way too many variables to just jump to one conclusion.

 

[AZ_Hunter]

A person has to have near perfect technique every day along with their perfect “platform” to call with absolute certainty a .1 to .3 mils vertical error off of a built position laying prone out in dirt/snow. Even harder on a shaky table. To do it every time and use the data from
that criteria as a concrete fact for go/no-go on a scope is hard to swallow for the skeptic.

Glad you are doing these tests. I understand your point and you were honest in your assessment. I bet that’s a good eating elk, too.

Exactly. Give me a heavy precision rifle, with a higher magnification scope, precision reticle with developed loads, shooting prone from concrete at a solid target stand (not cardboard stapled to two vertical 1x2’s stuck into a saw horse) and I guarantee I can do better.

It’s all context.

This is a 7.5lb rifle with a sporter (thin) forearm … if a mouse farts 3 miles away the rifle wiggles.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

Use a bigger target dot.

I use hollow 1” squares lately. Used to use hollow triangles. Works really well for any type reticle, especially a floating center dot.

My son’s latest 10 shot group from his 17 Mach 2.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

shooting prone from concrete at a solid target stand (not cardboard stapled to two vertical 1x2’s stuck into a saw horse) and I guarantee I can do better.

It’s all context.

I think this is the crux here. You don’t need a bench gun or 2 million zoom scope with less than 10 ES handloads. Folks are requiring just the above statement when trying to validate a scopes reliability is all. I checked my Tikka 22 Creedmoor at 100 yards with my Maven RS1.2 the other day. Not even really trying to be “crazy accurate” as I knew that was a reliable lot of ammo for several hundred rounds already. 10 shots on a 1” square…




If you’re a 2-2.5 MOA shooter with current setup and ammo, there is no way to know what is “you” “the ammo” or “the scope shifting” is all.

I appreciate threads like this in general, I think there’s a couple small tweaks you can do to make this a bit more “reliable” from a pure “data” standpoint is all.

 

[Jake Larsen]

If you’re a 2-2.5 MOA shooter with current setup and ammo, there is no way to know what is “you” “the ammo” or “the scope shifting” is all.

I appreciate threads like this in general, I think there’s a couple small tweaks you can do to make this a bit more “reliable” from a pure “data” standpoint is all.

Well put. Im not reading any of this as a bash fest of OP. Just trying to ascertain if the testing is reliable enough to make a determination about the scope.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AZ_Hunter]

Well, I just shot this. No warm up, just shoot. Interpret it however you want:

Shot three, adjusted up 8 mils, shot 3, adjusted back to 0, shot 3.