The New Leupold Mark 4HD?

[Axlrod]

If the test is flawed and any scope can fail it as I’m saying and others have as well, please explain to me what throwing another optic around and it failing would prove…

Prove the test. This should not be an issue and should be completely understandable if there is any true confidence in the equipment and procedures.





I hope so too. I don’t want to argue over stupid shit but this comes up in literally any thread that’s not worshiping SWFA or NF people just parroting bullshit.

Speaking of NF, their Tiger stripe hats are back in stock. I missed out last month when they were listed as limited edition

You say that, but if you wanted to you could stop at any time. I find it odd that you want others to waste their time proving their methods of something they are already giving everyone for free, but you wont conduct your own testing and show us. Makes it seem like all you want to do is argue about it, and that you will just see more flaws unless you do this further testing on your own

Ding ding ding we have a winner!

 

[Mschroeder40]

I'm such a Nightforce fan boy, I put one on my Henry model x 30-30!

 

[roosiebull]

No, I’m not going to waste my time and money going to put an optic through a test that an actual optical engineer that knows how scopes work has said that any optic can fail it because it’s flawed. Prove the test is not flawed or accept the fact that others have the right to be suspicious.

And there lies the problem, nobody is willing to.

Form’s drop tests give a baseline, it’s standardized and best thing we have, and he IS willing to waste money and time to actually test them, and I’m surprised he is, but very much appreciate it

If you want to put all of your faith into a company’s marketing team, you do you. It’s your money, spend it how you choose, I don’t care even a little what you shoot…

 

[Mschroeder40]

It's just for reloading purposes to find out which combination works best. Then I will put my lpvo back on.

 

[Pony Soldier]

Side note ! As I read these I think there are two differant audiences.

One group are the shooters who are squeezing the equipment to the nth degree. Money is of limited interest.

The rest of us are focused on filling the freezer or bragging rights. I sight my gun in at 50 yds then step out to 100 and hopefully adjust the elevation to fit. I just sent a leupold in that had surived three death defying horse wrecks, a few falls from blowing trees and whatever. It reached a point after 20 years that was dead on at 50 but when I stepped out to 100 it was off laterally by 6-8 " and vertically 3-4". This was after at least 18 years of very minor adjustments.

Every year I find minor adjustments of a 1/4" or so at the beginning of the year. I account that to me, the past year of horse travel and maybe the gun (slight influence from reloading). I have two other older rifles (BARs ) with leupold scopes that I use interchangable depending on my mood for the day.

There is quite a vocal group here that say I can't kill anything with a BAR because they are so inaccurate. I have something over 50 elk and who knows how many deer that would disagree. I'm looking for dependable and consistancy. In heavy timber just getting a bullet through the limbs can be a challenge at times. So far leupold has done that for me so I will let you know what I find with my new one when it warms up enough to go try it out (maybe May). I think more of my inaccuracies may be related to my age and offhand shots than a wandering scope.

 

[atmat]

I can’t believe guys keep falling for @redneckbmxer24 schtick. He’s just baiting you guys. That’s why he won’t actually address any questions. He’s been this way for a loooooong time. A classic Florida Man.

 

[Dobermann]

LOL no I didn’t. I promise you I have zero interest in that ugly ass stock that looks like it was drawn on a napkin by someone with autism and inspired by a squatted pickup truck. You don’t see me in that thread talking shit about it though and in fact you don’t see me in that thread at all, so who’s the troll?

My sincere apologies - it was the KRG Echo thread. I've corrected my post.

But thanks again for clarifying the orientation you're bringing to this conversation.

 

[Touchdown88]

Back on topic.........
These scopes are now available on Midway.

 

[Jason Snyder]

I promise you I have zero interest in that ugly ass stock that looks like it was drawn on a napkin by someone with autism

I always struggle trying to figure out why some people act the way they do. Be better than this.

On to Mark 4HD, any word on when these will be available? I really wish the illumination was available without the electronic reticle level.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

I can’t believe guys keep falling for @redneckbmxer24 schtick. He’s just baiting you guys. That’s why he won’t actually address any questions. He’s been this way for a loooooong time. A classic Florida Man.

Didn't' actually realize the level of troll he is, surprised he's still a member here to be honest. I, for one, will no longer be communicating with him.

 

[Diced]

I always struggle trying to figure out why some people act the way they do. Be better than this.

On to Mark 4HD, any word on when these will be available? I really wish the illumination was available without the electronic reticle level.

Yeah I was thinking the same. And given the ridiculous price increase leupold charges for illumination on the mk5 I'll probably just wait for the non-illum models. I don't even use illumination anyway and I don't want to intentionally break the law when I hunt in ID haha.

 

[roosiebull]

Side note ! As I read these I think there are two differant audiences.

One group are the shooters who are squeezing the equipment to the nth degree. Money is of limited interest.

The rest of us are focused on filling the freezer or bragging rights. I sight my gun in at 50 yds then step out to 100 and hopefully adjust the elevation to fit. I just sent a leupold in that had surived three death defying horse wrecks, a few falls from blowing trees and whatever. It reached a point after 20 years that was dead on at 50 but when I stepped out to 100 it was off laterally by 6-8 " and vertically 3-4". This was after at least 18 years of very minor adjustments.

Every year I find minor adjustments of a 1/4" or so at the beginning of the year. I account that to me, the past year of horse travel and maybe the gun (slight influence from reloading). I have two other older rifles (BARs ) with leupold scopes that I use interchangable depending on my mood for the day.

There is quite a vocal group here that say I can't kill anything with a BAR because they are so inaccurate. I have something over 50 elk and who knows how many deer that would disagree. I'm looking for dependable and consistancy. In heavy timber just getting a bullet through the limbs can be a challenge at times. So far leupold has done that for me so I will let you know what I find with my new one when it warms up enough to go try it out (maybe May). I think more of my inaccuracies may be related to my age and offhand shots than a wandering scope.

Who said you can’t kill anything with the BAR? I have never heard that

Nobody said you can’t kill anything with a leupold scope either, but it does historically create a variable, if you accept that variable, then who cares what anyone says? Sounds like what you’re doing works, and hopefully continues

I had a BAR safari grade in 338 win mag, and it was fun to shoot, and it was a beautiful rifle, but I couldn’t find a place for it in my lineup so it moved on, cool gun

 

[Tahoe1305]

Not at all, prove the test is not flawed in an uncontrolled environment and prove that myself and all the other naysayers are wrong. If there is truly confidence in the test and confidence in the equipment then this should not be a problem. As I understand it some of these guys go to matches anyway so they’re already there.

I’m sure nobody is going to accept it, but it’s a reasonable offer and a reasonable attempt to settle this.

No, I’m not going to waste my time and money going to put an optic through a test that an actual optical engineer that knows how scopes work has said that any optic can fail it because it’s flawed. Prove the test is not flawed or accept the fact that others have the right to be suspicious.

So I’m going to an NRL match in a few weeks. And this temps me.

But that’s the whole problem with testing/experimentation….you have to control some of the variables. You lose all that at an NRL match. Did you miss because of ranging error, bad dope, wind call, etc.

You’d have no way to know why you missed.

The idea isn’t good. The only way to “prove” it’s an issue with the scope (or rings at times) is to control the other variables and have a repeatable “scientific” process.

 

[fwafwow]

So I’m going to an NRL match in a few weeks. And this temps me.

But that’s the whole problem with testing/experimentation….you have to control some of the variables. You lose all that at an NRL match. Did you miss because of ranging error, bad dope, wind call, etc.

You’d have no way to know why you missed.

The idea isn’t good. The only way to “prove” it’s an issue with the scope (or rings at times) is to control the other variables and have a repeatable “scientific” process.

Well said. And for the one proposing this NRL match “test” approach, he won’t agree to the results of any tests outside of his control. Yet he refuses to carry out a test within his control.

 

[Jason Snyder]

I don’t even understand why you would want to prove a test is not flawed in an uncontrolled environment. A test in an uncontrolled environment is not valid. That’s the whole point in the first place, is to control certain variables, so you can isolate which variables are indeed causing a change, if any.

That is why there is a control system in place here. That would be the stock that is welded to the action, along with mounting system, and a scope that has been proven to give repeatable results time and again.

I don’t understand why folks have such a hard time with probabilities. I have a 2008 Tundra. The PROBABILITIES of it breaking down are very low, but that doesn’t mean it won’t tomorrow. And it doesn’t mean someone else can’t get one that’s a lemon.

I shot two animals this year with a Leupy scope. One was 100 yards and one was 410. Both shots hit about exactly where I aimed. The fact I experienced this does not mean the results of the Leupy drop test are flawed. The results of the drop test do not mean my scope will not work. It simply means if I take a fall, which I have and will, there is a much higher probability my Leupold will fail because of it. The amount of concern this should generate is entirely up to the individual.

Folks are way too emotionally invested in their home team brand. I was a Dodge guy for years but got tired of repairing it. Now I drive a Toyota, and that may change next time I buy a vehicle.

 

[fwafwow]

For all the nightforce/trijicon/swfa fan boys here, why the hell are you even looking at these new leupold scopes as your past history should steer you away from them regardless of whether or not you would like them to perform the way you want. For people like myself they look great and I will definitely be trying a 2-10 model.

I agreed with everything said before what remains above. Not to admit that I'm a "fan boy" - but those are among the brands that I, personally, own and/or would consider owning. There are others. And while I have owned Leupold before, I would not rule it out as an option in the future. Which is why I read the OP. But as others have said, while I root for the company, I am skeptical.

 

[Macintosh]

I and a lot of others keep looking at leupold because I WANT to have a leupold scope that lasts…because in every OTHER respect they hit it out of the park.

 

[roosiebull]

I and a lot of others keep looking at leupold because I WANT to have a leupold scope that lasts…because in every OTHER respect they hit it out of the park.

100%

The mark 4 is an incredibly attractive scope, I would be excited if they prove reliable, I think it would be my favorite scope on the market, and the price point is pretty good too, I would seriously put them on every rifle

But if history is any indication, I’m getting my hopes up for a letdown, but would love to be wrong

If one passed the initial eval, I would take my chances. I want these to work, I think everyone does.

I love leupold scopes when they are working, but I lost faith in them. It’s one variable we can weed out of the rifle system

 

[wind gypsy]

quite the storm here.

2.5-10 looks like it’d be a nice scope. I’ll not be an early adopter.

 

[HingleMcCringleberry]

I like how that gun is "zeroed"...