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

[Macintosh]

Well, color me hopeful, will follow this and see how they fare as folks pick them up. I have been burned 3 times out of four so I’ll remain skeptical, but would love, love, love to take leupold off my no-fly list, as they generally tick every other box better than about any brand out there.

Also, I agree 100% with a scope like this being better without the adjustable parallax. There just isnt enough realistic parallax error sub 500-600 yards to justify the shit-show that happens at 50-yards when you have a soft focus and cant see the brown critter against a brown background. You couldnt pay me to put an adjustable-parallax scope on a general-purpose standard-to-medium range rifle for the way I hunt.

 

[Formidilosus]

To all:

I edited to add clarity to the initial eval about the 3x drop evals and whether it “passed” or not. There are huge question marks, and in no way has this scope proven to be reliable, “better”, or “fixed”. There needs to be a lot more samples, extremely hard use over long periods, and data to even start to trust these scopes. Leupold has a repeated history of “fixing all the problems” with a new model, only to find out they are as unreliable and/or as fragile as all that came before.


If you have a Mark 4 HD and are willing to send it to Ryan, we will do just the drop eval portion, and have it back to you within a week. The goal is to get 8-10 samples (or as many as possible) to see if there are initial consistent trends. This one, and another that Ryan will get are going to be put through the entire 3,000 round eval.

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).

Would you be willing to send yours to Ryan, I would just do the drop portion and send it back within a week?

 

[Marbles]

I feel like if reliable, I would prefer this over the RS1.2. prefer the illumination on the RS1.2, but prefer the magnification range on the Mark 4.

I'm tempted to buy one and send it to be dropped.

Edit: I see there is an illuminated version.

Edit again: I feel like I might end up like Mr. Lorian though.

 

[mddat]

Because it’s a Leupold….




If it loses zero again, I will.

Sorry if it’s being mentioned in other threads already but could you explain a little further, I’ve always just torqued to the ring manufacturers specs, is there a reason not to with a Leupold?

 

[Formidilosus]

Sorry if it’s being mentioned in other threads already but could you explain a little further, I’ve always just torqued to the ring manufacturers specs, is there a reason not to with a Leupold?

Some scopes have very thin tube walls- Leupold being one, and are overly sensitive to ring cap torque. Manufacturers torque spec is already way in the light side in general, you shouldn’t have issue of binding up the scope uses their values. But…. You may have issues with scopes losing zero and/or slipping.

 

[Formidilosus]

Short update to eval thread.

 

[atmat]

@Formidilosus — if this scope holds up (and that’s a big ‘if’), do you like it more or less than the RS1.2?

I don’t know what it is about Leupold, but I have really enjoyed getting behind nearly every one I’ve shot. They just have never worked/held zero well.

 

[Formidilosus]

@Formidilosus — if this scope holds up (and that’s a big ‘if’), do you like it more or less than the RS1.2?

Different. If lots and lots of these scopes prove to be consistently reliable and durable through heinous use…. It’s a competitor to the SWFA 3-9x. For an above 10x scope, the RS1.2 is really well thought out.

I don’t know what it is about Leupold, but I have really enjoyed getting behind nearly every one I’ve shot.

Very much the same. In general Leupold has the best overall combination of eyebox, eye relief, and size/proportion on the market.

They just have never worked/held zero well.

And that.

 

[Dobermann]

@Formidilosus - I'd be interested in your thoughts on this reticle for hunting compared to the SWFA Mil-Quad and the RS 1.2 SHR-MIL?

From the photos in the eval thread, my quick reaction was that it didn't seem as bold/defined as the SWFA (especially for low magnifiication) or as useful as the RS 1.2 at higher magnification - the subtention design seems a little 'muddly' to me, but that might be because I'm now used to the THLR reticle and the similar elements of this in the SHR-MIL.

 

[ChrisAU]

Shot my 2.5-10 this morning, dialed to 418 and back perfectly. Glass is great, but I’m being spoiled by the easy 15x on the Mavens for sure ha. 10” plate at 418 looks a lot different at 10x vs 15x.

 

[Formidilosus]

@Formidilosus - I'd be interested in your thoughts on this reticle for hunting compared to the SWFA Mil-Quad and the RS 1.2 SHR-MIL?

From the photos in the eval thread, my quick reaction was that it didn't seem as bold/defined as the SWFA (especially for low magnifiication) or as useful as the RS 1.2 at higher magnification - the subtention design seems a little 'muddly' to me, but that might be because I'm now used to the THLR reticle and the similar elements of this in the SHR-MIL.

The outer bars are not as thick as the MQ, the inner lines are thicker. I prefer the Maven SHR-Mil due the center dot. However the TMR reticle is just a standard .5mil per tick reticle- and a pretty good one at that. I have no issue for hunting with either of the 3.

 

[atmat]

I have no use for hunting with either of the 3.

Assuming this is a typo and supposed to say “no issue hunting”?

 

[Formidilosus]

Assuming this is a typo and supposed to say “no issue hunting”?

Correct. Will edit.

 

[Kurts86]

I hope these work out. I played with the sfp version of the scope at scheels and it is a compelling overall package. I hope Leupold has changed their ways but I’m skeptical until we have more data points.

 

[roosiebull]

Well, color me hopeful, will follow this and see how they fare as folks pick them up. I have been burned 3 times out of four so I’ll remain skeptical, but would love, love, love to take leupold off my no-fly list, as they generally tick every other box better than about any brand out there.

Also, I agree 100% with a scope like this being better without the adjustable parallax. There just isnt enough realistic parallax error sub 500-600 yards to justify the shit-show that happens at 50-yards when you have a soft focus and cant see the brown critter against a brown background. You couldnt pay me to put an adjustable-parallax scope on a general-purpose standard-to-medium range rifle for the way I hunt.

I second this whole reply, agree with every point

I’m not going out and buying a mk 4, but the results are better than I expected.

This exact scope with reliability would pretty much be the perfect scope for everything I do

 

[NSI]

To all:

I edited to add clarity to the initial eval about the 3x drop evals and whether it “passed” or not. There are huge question marks, and in no way has this scope proven to be reliable, “better”, or “fixed”. There needs to be a lot more samples, extremely hard use over long periods, and data to even start to trust these scopes. Leupold has a repeated history of “fixing all the problems” with a new model, only to find out they are as unreliable and/or as fragile as all that came before.


If you have a Mark 4 HD and are willing to send it to Ryan, we will do just the drop eval portion, and have it back to you within a week. The goal is to get 8-10 samples (or as many as possible) to see if there are initial consistent trends. This one, and another that Ryan will get are going to be put through the entire 3,000 round eval.





Would you be willing to send yours to Ryan, I would just do the drop portion and send it back within a week?

Headed your way. Will go to @clperry afterwards, instructions in box. Curious to see whether your heavier rifle causes issues I didn’t see.

-J

 

[Formidilosus]

Headed your way. Will go to @clperry afterwards, instructions in box. Curious to see whether your heavier rifle causes issues I didn’t see.

-J

My man.

 

[clperry]

My man.

Hoping it does what it’s suppose too. Being I spent the money and all… but seriously, I’m glad it’s getting evaluated hard. I’d love to see leupold do something to earn our business.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[roosiebull]

You guys rock!

I also promise if I get one, I will send it to be officially dropped for a controlled data point… I’m very intrigued and perhaps falsely optimistic

Would love to see this line inline with trijicon, because I like the package better if gains reliability.

 

[Brucebarker024]

I just ordered a 6-24 mark 4 so I might ship it right out to you guys when I get it for a drop test. Really depends on timing.