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.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

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.

My kind of “range” right there!

 

[Jake Larsen]

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.

Measured distance in inches between center of zero cone and +8 mil correction?

And exact distance from scope to target?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Justin Crossley]

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.

I'm curious why you keep using unstable shooting positions (table and now the back of a truck) instead of lying prone on the ground. You're probably a better shooter than you realize, but you are not setting yourself up for success.

You are trying to test your gear, which is awesome, and we all appreciate it. To do that effectively, you need to remove as many variables as possible, or the results will be less valuable.

So far, nobody can say whether this scope is working correctly or not based on your posts.

 

[AZ_Hunter]

My kind of “range” right there!

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

Haha! Those bastards are everywhere. Also down here, I swear we need no limit no season on Javelina. I see them nearly every time I go out.

 

[Jake Larsen]

Was hoping to be able to input your tall target info into this

Correction Factor Calculator – Barbour Creek Long Range School & Rifles

barbourcreek.com

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AZ_Hunter]

I'm curious why you keep using unstable shooting positions (table and now the back of a truck) instead of lying prone on the ground. You're probably a better shooter than you realize, but you are not setting yourself up for success.

You are trying to test your gear, which is awesome, and we all appreciate it. To do that effectively, you need to remove as many variables as possible, or the results will be less valuable.

So far, nobody can say whether this scope is working correctly or not based on your posts.

Because shooting from the ground puts me at a high angle to the target stand.

I know I’m better than these groups. This isn’t my first rodeo… this is what this gun is doing with these loads in these situations. That’s why I’ve been saying jumping to conclusions so fast is dumb. Too many variables.

However, it is shooting good enough for its intended role, that I’m not highly motivated to start a deep dive into load development. Though now… I might change my mind.

 

[AZ_Hunter]

Haha! Those bastards are everywhere. Also down here, I swear we need no limit no season on Javelina. I see them nearly every time I go out.

I just got home….

29”, 100.7 yards

Shot sequence

ETA: I quoted the wrong post. But yes these damn things are everywhere out here.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

I'm curious why you keep using unstable shooting positions (table and now the back of a truck) instead of lying prone on the ground. You're probably a better shooter than you realize, but you are not setting yourself up for success.

You are trying to test your gear, which is awesome, and we all appreciate it. To do that effectively, you need to remove as many variables as possible, or the results will be less valuable.

So far, nobody can say whether this scope is working correctly or not based on your posts.

Agree. A good mat on the ground, as everything sticks to you down here, and heavier/more stable front rest, ditching whatever is dangling on the stock forend allowing recoil to come straight back would be a big help.

 

[Jake Larsen]

Not shabby


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AZ_Hunter]

I felt good up there. The dongle up front is a spartan adapter.

 

[AZ_Hunter]

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…

View attachment 796930


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.

Yeah, a square would be better. This time instead of trying to center dot in the circle, I was more focused on the gaps in the horizontal and vertical stadia framing the target dot.

The maven reticle is better and 15x does make it easier though. I shot this group with my 30-06 tikka a month ago or so. 10 shots at 100 yards with 178gr ELDX at 2750 fps. Shitty shots were at the end. Can was cooking… or maybe zero was shifting… (joking) haha.

That rifle is 10lbs and much easier to shoot. The EH1 with its vert grip is much more conducive to a straight trigger pull. Also I have spent time doing load development with it.