Tenmile vs mark5hd

[packgoatguy]

Anyone have any experience comparing the Trijicon Tenmile 3-18x44mm side by side with the Mark5hd 3-18x44? The Trijicon seems to be about 2oz lighter and has the 30mm tube instead of 35... so easier to find lighter rings. I do like the leupold cds dial lock... but the Trijicon is also street value a lot less. Both are FFP, but the Trijicon comes with illuminated reticle, where mark5hd that is a costly upgrade. Plus Trijicon is claiming "drop tested" on each scope.

 

[Bubblehide]

You should read through Forms testing bbn posts in the long rang forum here.

 

[packgoatguy]

I saw the one about the tenmile, I didn't see one about the mark5hd. Also, looking for a side by side comparison if someone has done so.

 

[BjornF16]

Form has a Mk 5

Look at post #12:

Trijicon 2.5-15x42mm Credo HX SFP Field Evaluation Q&A

Questions and answers for the Trijicon 2.5-15x42mm Credo HX evaluation.

www.rokslide.com

Hint: go with Tenmile

 

[packgoatguy]

Form has a Mk 5

Look at post #12:

Trijicon 2.5-15x42mm Credo HX SFP Field Evaluation Q&A

Questions and answers for the Trijicon 2.5-15x42mm Credo HX evaluation.

www.rokslide.com

Hint: go with Tenmile

Thanks for the link. I wonder if Form will do a full write-up on the mark5 failure. He mentioned the other two (credo and gen 1 pst??) Had groups open up, but center group still on... was the mk5 all over the map like the lht? Did it pass the 18 inch test but not the 36 inch drop?

 

[Formidilosus]

Thanks for the link. I wonder if Form will do a full write-up on the mark5 failure. He mentioned the other two (credo and gen 1 pst??) Had groups open up, but center group still on... was the mk5 all over the map like the lht? Did it pass the 18 inch test but not the 36 inch drop?

I will- It’s not finished. Much like the TT and Vortex LHT, this scope is one that people lose their minds over. People believe Leupold has “fixed” all their problems with the MK5… even though they have said that no less than seven times…. And been proven to not have each time. We will spend way more rounds and time shooting and trying this scope then it is worth because of the emotional hook people have with them.


While initially it didn’t show an outright failure, it lost zero at 65 rounds after being dropped from 36” before another scope was mounted. After the drop POI was not consistent at all, and each drop caused significant shifts. It is mounted on another rifle and will be shot for a bit. While zeroing on that rifle there were a couple WTF moments…

The MK 5 is without question the best variable scopes Leupold has ever made. Unfortunately they still have issues at far too high of a rate.

 

[Fartrell Cluggins]

I will- It’s not finished. Much like the TT and Vortex LHT, this scope is one that people lose their minds over. People believe Leupold has “fixed” all their problems with the MK5… even though they have said that no less than seven times…. And been proven to not have each time. We will spend way more rounds and time shooting and trying this scope then it is worth because of the emotional hook people have with them.


While initially it didn’t show an outright failure, it lost zero at 65 rounds after being dropped from 36” before another scope was mounted. After the drop POI was not consistent at all, and each drop caused significant shifts. It is mounted on another rifle and will be shot for a bit. While zeroing on that rifle there were a couple WTF moments…

The MK 5 is without question the best variable scopes Leupold has ever made. Unfortunately they still have issues at far too high of a rate.

Do you have much experience with the Mark 4? If so, how did it perform? Midway has a few leftovers on closeout, and I am tempted. It'd go on a fun target 223 and never be used in the field, so not overly worried about drop tests. Do need it to dial and hold zero.

 

[Formidilosus]

Do you have much experience with the Mark 4? If so, how did it perform? Midway has a few leftovers on closeout, and I am tempted. It'd go on a fun target 223 and never be used in the field, so not overly worried about drop tests. Do need it to dial and hold zero.

They are terrible.

 

[SDHNTR]

Didn’t Leupold win a big Army sniper contract for the Mk5 a few years ago?

 

[Formidilosus]

Didn’t Leupold win a big Army sniper contract for the Mk5 a few years ago?

Leupold has been the sole supplier of the standard army issue sniper optic since the 80’s. It does mean what people think it means. As I have stated before- just because something (including S&B, NF, etc) is issued, does not mean it was tested the way people think it would be.

 

[packgoatguy]

What is a company like SWFA doing to their $600 scopes that companies like vortex and Leupold are NOT doing to their $2000 scopes? It would kind of make sense to me if all the scopes that were failing came from cheap manufacturers, but when you have low dollar scopes outlasting high dollar scopes... I'm confused... can't Leupold just mimick whatever magic fairy dust that swfa and NF are sprinkling on their scopes?

 

[Bubblehide]

What is a company like SWFA doing to their $600 scopes that companies like vortex and Leupold are NOT doing to their $2000 scopes? It would kind of make sense to me if all the scopes that were failing came from cheap manufacturers, but when you have low dollar scopes outlasting high dollar scopes... I'm confused... can't Leupold just mimick whatever magic fairy dust that swfa and NF are sprinkling on their scopes?

You have a lot to catch up on.

The short version is that the market does not demand it, and most think glass clarity is the most important thing. They miss the obvious fact that image quality means nothing if the scope doesnt send the bullet to the point of aim.

 

[roosiebull]

You have a lot to catch up on.

The short version is that the market does not demand it, and most think glass clarity is the most important thing. They miss the obvious fact that image quality means nothing if the scope doesnt send the bullet to the point of aim.

Really good glass may help spot your misses better

 

[Bubblehide]

Really good glass may help spot your misses better

ROTFLMAO

 

[SDHNTR]

Leupold has been the sole supplier of the standard army issue sniper optic since the 80’s. It does mean what people think it means. As I have stated before- just because something (including S&B, NF, etc) is issued, does not mean it was tested the way people think it would be.

Can you elaborate on this? If it doesn’t mean what people think it means, what does it mean? Sure seems to me that if any entity would require rigorous durability testing, it would be the US Army. Shouldn’t a sniper optic require reliable zero retention more than any other use?

 

[Formidilosus]

Can you elaborate on this? If it doesn’t mean what people think it means, what does it mean? Sure seems to me that if any entity would require rigorous durability testing, it would be the US Army. Shouldn’t a sniper optic require reliable zero retention more than any other use?

Of course it should. But it doesn’t. Hunters and snipers have lots in common…. Why haven’t hunters cared about “reliable zero retention more than any other use “? Being in the military and being a sniper does not mean someone is a good shooter or knowledgeable- the military doesn’t shoot.

There’s a whole host of reasons why scopes aren’t tested the way they should be- mainly the people writing the requirements, doing the testing, and making the selection aren’t shooters and have no idea about it. The MK5 didn’t get chosen after rigorous testing and comparison to other optics- they just said we want MK5’s.

 

[Wrench]

Guys want 7 miles of erector travel and then get butthurt when they can't tame the enormous spring.

There's bound to be a point of diminishing returns ...

 

[SDHNTR]

Of course it should. But it doesn’t. Hunters and snipers have lots in common…. Why haven’t hunters cared about “reliable zero retention more than any other use “? Being in the military and being a sniper does not mean someone is a good shooter or knowledgeable- the military doesn’t shoot.

There’s a whole host of reasons why scopes aren’t tested the way they should be- mainly the people writing the requirements, doing the testing, and making the selection aren’t shooters and have no idea about it. The MK5 didn’t get chosen after rigorous testing and comparison to other optics- they just said we want MK5’s.

I don’t have any combat experience (thank the Lord) but it sure seems to me that hunters would have a bit more control over how carefully their optics get handled. They aren’t jumping out of aircraft or tossing stuff around humvees. Sure doo doo happens, but I’d have to think at a lower rate than combat applications. As an American taxpayer, this is disheartening to me that our fine servicemen don’t have the best tool for the job. I suppose this occurs throughout the military.

Now that last part about non shooters making the selection makes sense. Bean counters behind a desk doing the purchasing.

 

[Formidilosus]

Now that makes sense. Bean counters behind a desk doing the purchasing.

While it feels good to say that, and in same cases it may be true, it’s also not all or mostly true anymore. People in the military do not shoot. Even at the very highest levels, unless individuals shoot and compete on their own (and very, very few do), the military does not produce “shooters” regardless of job.

 

[SDHNTR]

While it feels good to say that, and in same cases it may be true, it’s also not all or mostly true anymore. People in the military do not shoot. Even at the very highest levels, unless individuals shoot and compete on their own (and very, very few do), the military does not produce “shooters” regardless of job.

Just curious then…. If a military sniper is not a “shooter” what is your definition of shooter?