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

[Formidilosus]

Updated again with a zero check.

 

[clperry]

There’s hope…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sierracharlie338]

Waiting for them to come back in stock on Leupolds website. If I can snag one I’ll send it for a sample.

 

[clperry]

Check eurooptic.com. They’ve been in stock there for a while.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[eric1115]

Updated again with a zero check.

Was that low right shot the first one? Looks like that group and the previous two are trending high right. If that's the real zero/cone, looks like that one round may be out of the cone? It would match the zero shift that settles back in that I've observed in leupold's before.

 

[Strider]

 

[wapitibob]

Waiting for them to come back in stock on Leupolds website. If I can snag one I’ll send it for a sample.

email sales at europtic and get the best price

 

[Formidilosus]

Updated.

 

[atmat]

@Formidilosus — do you think you’re more cautious/skeptical of this scope knowing it’s a modern Leupold?

How many of these and/or how many rounds are you looking for on this scope to claim it as a pass?

 

[Formidilosus]

@Formidilosus — do you think you’re more cautious/skeptical of this scope knowing it’s a modern Leupold?

It’s a Leupold. If it were a woman in the Bible it would be called (Delilah).

How many of these and/or how many rounds are you looking for on this scope to claim it as a pass?

If this particular scope goes 3k rounds without failing, it passes the field eval. As to knowing that the scope line is good- a lot. Leupold has lied and BS’s for over 20 years, each time claiming that “everything is fixed”, and in some cases the initial batch did well/better. However in each case, after a year or so they all started being typical Leupold.

I don’t know that there will ever be legit trust for me, nor do I think logically anyone should. As for legitimately having confidence that the scope model is good- 20 plus scopes over years, with thousands upon thousands of rounds through each, and heinous use.

 

[wind gypsy]

I'd hit up Schmaltz (Predator Optics) on hunttalk for Leupolds. Does good on pricing.

 

[Justin Crossley]

It’s a Leupold. If it were a woman in the Bible it would be called (Delilah).






If this particular scope goes 3k rounds without failing, it passes the field eval. As to knowing that the scope line is good- a lot. Leupold has lied and BS’s for over 20 years, each time claiming that “everything is fixed”, and in some cases the initial batch did well/better. However in each case, after a year or so they all started being typical Leupold.

I don’t know that there will ever be legit trust for me, nor do I think logically anyone should. As for legitimately having confidence that the scope model is good- 20 plus scopes over years, with thousands upon thousands of rounds through each, and heinous use.

Is that the same criteria for the Maven? I really like the Maven guys but it seems like we're going easier on them compared to Leupold.

 

[Formidilosus]

Is that the same criteria for the Maven? I really like the Maven guys but it seems like we're going easier on them compared to Leupold.

It absolutely does to an extent- if you read my responses about the RS1.2 I have stated so. And I have been brutal according to some people in pointing out issues with Maven. The main difference is that Maven doesn’t make the RS1.2- LOW does. And Maven has no history of changing or “relaxing” quality of a line… Leupold does. Maven also hasn’t lied and BS’s for nearly three decades about problems, Leupold has.

If the Mark 4 HD was being built by LOW it would also be different. The likelihood that LOW in a year or two, will in some way change something in the RS1.2 that makes it unreliable is highly unlikely- and if Maven allowed it or requested it, they would lose all of the (some) level of trust about the RS1.2 built. Leupold has history of producing first article/runs that work better, and then at some point they no longer are “better”.

 

[MT_Wyatt]

It absolutely does to an extent- if you read my responses about the RS1.2 I have stated so. And I have been brutal according to some people in pointing out issues with Maven. The main difference is that Maven doesn’t make the RS1.2- LOW does. And Maven has no history of changing or “relaxing” quality of a line… Leupold does. Maven also hasn’t lied and BS’s for nearly three decades about problems, Leupold has.

If the Mark 4 HD was being built by LOW it would also be different. The likelihood that LOW in a year or two, will in some way change something in the RS1.2 that makes it unreliable is highly unlikely- and if Maven allowed it or requested it, they would lose all of the (some) level of trust about the RS1.2 built. Leupold has history of producing first article/runs that work better, and then at some point they no longer are “better”.

I don’t have any perspective on the luepold stuff, but Maven said some nonsense on the latest TT pod episode - so yeah they don’t lie, but man it sounded like they don’t get it. Which is disappointing given they were talking about actively taking some cues for Ryan. I think the appearance of luepold getting a harder time is because it’s simply brought up so much in the forum. I thought the drop eval on Mark 4 was pretty well the same as RS1.2 from an objectively perspective.

The pod: First thing was being “happy” about consistency with drop testing, as if there wasn’t a defined approach or previous was invalid. Also indicated they did a turret change on the 1.2 then went on to assert the RS.1 was as robust (to be fair he had a god experience he was citing falling on one)…..I was most annoyed with their “we don’t get why Mils is selling so much” - it’s the reticle. Just shows they aren’t tracking the why, which is a tad frustrating (if they were, they could carry that through to other models). Small stuff probably, but it really bothered me they didn’t have the plot on “why” especially with internal changes. Hopefully they capitalize on what they did reticle wise and what LOW gave them in that model for the future.

It’s a good thing the product works and just to be annoyed with their presentation of it. Big strides.

Also hoping for the mark 4, but that rs1.2 reticle is too awesome.

 

[Formidilosus]

I don’t have any perspective on the luepold stuff, but Maven said some nonsense on the latest TT pod episode - so yeah they don’t lie, but man it sounded like they don’t get it. Which is disappointing given they were talking about actively taking some cues for Ryan. I think the appearance of luepold getting a harder time is because it’s simply brought up so much in the forum. I thought the drop eval on Mark 4 was pretty well the same as RS1.2 from an objectively perspective.

The pod: First thing was being “happy” about consistency with drop testing, as if there wasn’t a defined approach or previous was invalid. Also indicated they did a turret change on the 1.2 then went on to assert the RS.1 was as robust (to be fair he had a god experience he was citing falling on one)…..I was most annoyed with their “we don’t get why Mils is selling so much” - it’s the reticle. Just shows they aren’t tracking the why, which is a tad frustrating (if they were, they could carry that through to other models). Small stuff probably, but it really bothered me they didn’t have the plot on “why” especially with internal changes. Hopefully they capitalize on what they did reticle wise and what LOW gave them in that model for the future.

It’s a good thing the product works and just to be annoyed with their presentation of it. Big strides.

Also hoping for the mark 4, but that rs1.2 reticle is too awesome.

No, Maven does not “get” it. Not at all.

 

[Mountainrancher]

I don’t have any perspective on the luepold stuff, but Maven said some nonsense on the latest TT pod episode - so yeah they don’t lie, but man it sounded like they don’t get it. Which is disappointing given they were talking about actively taking some cues for Ryan. I think the appearance of luepold getting a harder time is because it’s simply brought up so much in the forum. I thought the drop eval on Mark 4 was pretty well the same as RS1.2 from an objectively perspective.

The pod: First thing was being “happy” about consistency with drop testing, as if there wasn’t a defined approach or previous was invalid. Also indicated they did a turret change on the 1.2 then went on to assert the RS.1 was as robust (to be fair he had a god experience he was citing falling on one)…..I was most annoyed with their “we don’t get why Mils is selling so much” - it’s the reticle. Just shows they aren’t tracking the why, which is a tad frustrating (if they were, they could carry that through to other models). Small stuff probably, but it really bothered me they didn’t have the plot on “why” especially with internal changes. Hopefully they capitalize on what they did reticle wise and what LOW gave them in that model for the future.

It’s a good thing the product works and just to be annoyed with their presentation of it. Big strides.

Also hoping for the mark 4, but that rs1.2 reticle is too awesome.

Episode link?

 

[MT_Wyatt]

Episode link?

Rokcast: TT#36 Scouting with Jared Bloomgren on Apple Podcasts

Show Rokcast, Ep TT#36 Scouting with Jared Bloomgren - Jul 30, 2024

podcasts.apple.com

 

[Formidilosus]

Two more for the drop eval.

 

[Gettincloser]

I am looking forward to the results! On the fence to wait for SWFA to get more in stock or give up and get this. As of yesterday, SEFA said they do not know when they will get more in so it is making me think it might be worth the chance.

@Formidilosus, any chance you are going to test one in the UM Tikka scope rings? Then let the rest of us know the magical torque that works?

 

[Stocky]

@Formidilosus
any of those the illuminated versions?