Q&A Leupold Mark 4HD 2.5-10x42mm FFP TMR

[Formidilosus]

Q&A for-

Leupold Mark 4 HD 2.5-10x42mm Field Evaluation

This is a field evaluation of the new Leupold Mark 4 HD 2.5-10x42mm TMR scope. This scope was purchased from a dealer by @Ryan Avery from money donated by a forum member for this scope to be evaled. The ammunition used was Federal Gold Medal Match 168 SMK that was purchased by Shoot2Hunt for...

rokslide.com

 

[Shortschaf]

Just needs 14 drops to break it in!
Puzzling result

 

[Mike D Texas]

Are you going to continue to test to your normal round count?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Formidilosus]

Are you going to continue to test to your normal round count?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Yes. Unless it continuously fails to hold zero.

 

[ChrisAU]

Can’t help but be excited about this one. I have one mounted up and ready to go on what has been my primary hunting rifle for 6 years now. Granted I’ve built a couple new rifles this summer with RS1.2’s on them but I will hunt with the rifle with the Loopy on it some this fall. The feature set, the glass, and hopefully the durability could make it a home run. I will say mine has adjusted correctly in a few range sessions which, sadly, was unexpected.

Rooting for this one.

 

[TxLite]

So far it’s sounding pretty good. Some goofiness up front but seems to have settled in ok. Looking forward to seeing how it progresses.

 

[T_Widdy]

@Formidilosus looks like NF rings, why not torque to 25inlb?

 

[Formidilosus]

@Formidilosus looks like NF rings, why not torque to 25inlb?

Because it’s a Leupold….




If it loses zero again, I will.

 

[Macegl]

I am admittedly ignorant on what makes scopes hold or lose zero, but is it common for a scope to lose zero and then hold it later under similar circumstances?

In my mind it seems like the more impacts a scope took the more likely it would more easily lose zero on subsequent test. Is that line of thinking completely incorrect?

 

[Mike D Texas]

Yes. Unless it continuously fails to hold zero.

This is one I really want to be good.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[pbroski]

Why do you say that it should not have a parallax adjustment? I would have thought having one would be beneficial. Did you measure how much parallax it has at any longer distances, such as 600 yards?

 

[5811]

I've seen it mentioned a few times by people, supposedly coming from leupold, that you have to crank the dials a number of times to get the lubricant distributed and that helps with zero retention. Is there any chance that the third test looks like a pass after all the dialing because of the aforementioned grease spreading?

I think I know the answer, but I had to ask.

 

[T_Widdy]

Why do you say that it should not have a parallax adjustment? I would have thought having one would be beneficial. Did you measure how much parallax it has at any longer distances, such as 600 yards?

From another thread

I ran the numbers on the max parallax error with that 2-10x42. Not sure I could see a difference at 700 yards

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JCMCUBIC]

...
Rooting for this one.

This is one I really want to be good.

Yep.

 

[Formidilosus]

Why do you say that it should not have a parallax adjustment? I would have thought having one would be beneficial. Did you measure how much parallax it has at any longer distances, such as 600 yards?

Because it isn’t needed. Any error caused by parallax with this class of scope is small enough that it doesn’t functionally matter.

 

[Justin Crossley]

Maybe Leupold is starting to listen. Maybe not, but it would be great to see this pass the test.

If nothing else, all the people who say @Formidilosus hates Leupold would have to eat crow. Lol

 

[NSI]

This mirrors my experience with the mk4 from the other thread, across 5 tests. I never had an abject failure like your first, because I went straight to UM torque spec, assuming this series was thicker walled than the VX. Tests did improve over time, culminating in a true pass.


I do believe there is an asterisk there. And to the extent she gave you more trouble than me, that may be attributable to rifle weight and test media (amongst other confounders).

I find the combination of a usable FFP reticle (particularly the center dot in the illum version), 21oz weight, locking low-ish profile turrets, and capped windage to be a compelling option for budget SPR builds (w/ piggyback) and Howa mini weight weenie setups. The lighter 1 inch dialing options just don’t seem to offer this much in the way of spec or robustness. Curious to see how she holds up for you over time, and hopeful for Leupold’s future.

-J

 

[wind gypsy]

Shucks. Guess I'm gonna have to offload a 3-9 SS to justify trying one..

 

[Formidilosus]

Shucks. Guess I'm gonna have to offload a 3-9 SS to justify trying one..

Might as well try some meth while at it.

 

[Formidilosus]

Maybe Leupold is starting to listen. Maybe not, but it would be great to see this pass the test.

If nothing else, all the people who say @Formidilosus hates Leupold would have to eat crow. Lol

Haha. They conveniently ignore that I have repeatedly stated that the old Luepild Ultra and Mark 4 fixed powers were very good scopes- I am using two (10x and 6x) currently on rifles that are serious use to me.