The New Leupold Mark 4HD?

[Ryan Avery]

Someone does a test and immediately every single scope from that brand is a POS, forever and ever and ever. Same when one passes a test, then every scope from that brand is solid forever and ever and ever.

All rifle scopes fail - all of them, from every single brand. I have personally witnessed failure from Nightforce, Vortex, Leupold, Kahles, Swaro and they all have failed either to track or hold zero.

Now take Kahles, infamous by many here for being a tracking and zero compromised POS. The brand continues to be the 2nd most popular scope in comps. In fact, NF, Kahles, and Vortex are the top 3 brands in use today. Modern Day Sniper prefers the Kahles brand and I trust anything that Caylen does. Whats my point? Reputation has a way of becoming truth if we let it.

And sometimes you can beat the crap out of one and its fine just like the video below.

So by that logic, every single PST GEN II can be expected to perform like this.


Then you get guys that will do some pretty scientific test on tracking...no it wasn't dropped but how many of us actually drop our scopes. So now by the logic in this thread, every single Mark 5 will track just like this forever and ever!

Also look forward to seeing the result...and what might happen if this one passes the test

We live in the same town. Let's get together and do some testing. Bring your Kahles.

 

[Article 4]

We live in the same town. Let's get together and do some testing. Bring your Kahles.

Offered that to Form a while ago on a separate topic. He declined.
What testing do you propose?

 

[MidGAHunter]

What testing do you propose?

This is Rokslide. My guess, he's proposing drop testing. DO IT! The more scopes tested the better!

 

[Ryan Avery]

Offered that to Form a while ago on a separate topic. He declined.
What testing do you propose?

Dropping of course! You are correct all scopes can fail but to say there’s not a difference in durability is ridiculous. I will let you in on a little secret the majority of hunters fall on, drop and bang their scopes around every year while hunting in the mountains.

 

[Article 4]

Dropping of course! You are correct all scopes can fail but to say there’s not a difference in durability is ridiculous. I will let you in on a little secret the majority of hunters fall on, drop and bang their scopes around every year while hunting in the mountains.

Ok. You offering to fund the drop? Hope so since you made the offer.

If so i am all in. Let’s work together and put out a definitive test. Let’s test as many as we can with repeatable and supportable data through monitored and trackable criteria

It’s not a secret. Done it more than a few times myself.

 

[atmat]

Ok. You offering to fund the drop? Hope so since you made the offer.

If so i am all in. Let’s work together and put out a definitive test. Let’s test as many as we can with repeatable and supportable data through monitored and trackable criteria

It’s not a secret. Done it more than a few times myself.

Just bring your scope and let him drop it. It’s not rocket science.

 

[ME180]

Modern Day Sniper prefers the Kahles brand and I trust anything that Caylen does.

I would bet Caylen and MDS are sponsored by Kahles.

 

[Article 4]

Just bring your scope and let him drop it. It’s not rocket science.

I would bet Caylen and MDS are sponsored by Kahles.

True.
Think if their reputations in the comp and instructional community was on the line, they would use sub standard glass cause they got it for free? They can run anything they want for free and the choose Kahles.

 

[Formidilosus]

Offered that to Form a while ago on a separate topic. He declined.

That’s not true.


Feel free to quote the post.

 

[Dobermann]

Someone does a test and immediately every single scope from that brand is a POS, forever and ever and ever. Same when one passes a test, then every scope from that brand is solid forever and ever and ever.

All rifle scopes fail - all of them, from every single brand. I have personally witnessed failure from Nightforce, Vortex, Leupold, Kahles, Swaro and they all have failed either to track or hold zero.

Now take Kahles, infamous by many here for being a tracking and zero compromised POS. The brand continues to be the 2nd most popular scope in comps. In fact, NF, Kahles, and Vortex are the top 3 brands in use today. Modern Day Sniper prefers the Kahles brand and I trust anything that Caylen does. Whats my point? Reputation has a way of becoming truth if we let it.

And sometimes you can beat the crap out of one and its fine just like the video below.

So by that logic, every single PST GEN II can be expected to perform like this.


Then you get guys that will do some pretty scientific test on tracking...no it wasn't dropped but how many of us actually drop our scopes. So now by the logic in this thread, every single Mark 5 will track just like this forever and ever!

Also look forward to seeing the result...and what might happen if this one passes the test

As others have noted above, quite a few untruths and misrepresentations here.

Not sure why you're so fired up about this ... but know that more than a couple of people have taken Ryan and Form up on the offer to meet up, and the ones who've posted about it afterwards have said how instructive it was.

I respectfully suggest eating some humble pie now before the meet-up so you have better time, and don't have to eat so much of it afterwards ...

 

[Article 4]

That’s not true.


Feel free to quote the post.

It is 100% true. Be accountable. It was part of another post and it got so contentious at one point, one of the moderators here shut down the thread. I offered to meet and debate and you declined.

Remember when we debated energy? You said it doesn't matter or exist with respect to killing with bullets. You quoted a number of old studies which I liked cause it was an attempt at actual data rather than just opinion; but they have since been disproved.

1. Remember when I quoted Litz and Quinlan who are on record stating energy matters in bullets. Quinlan further stated he believes that animals that drop straight in their tracks have succumbed to hydrostatic shock or "energy"
2. I then quoted the DTIC and the chief ballistician at West Point and a study they did on hydrostatic shock remote affect powered to look at expressly at energy and they disproved the Viet Nam era science that started this fallacy
3. I talked about studies by MIT scientists with degrees in physics and injury biomechanics that call out the old studies as being flawed and false, stating hydrostatic bullet shock and energy exist and matter
4. I called out studies by the swiss talking about remote damage in nerves, brain tissue, spinal cords and other areas from bullet energy with some nearly 18 inches from impact.
5. Even the Meateater quoted all of this in 2021 article by Sillars; and although he states what I also believe to be true, is that bullet placement is the #1 factor, energy and hydrostatic shock exist and are facts that contribute to death and damage

You disregarded it all cause you were sure your opinion was irrefutable.

That aside...it interesting out of all the people that comment on things that you and now Ryan have chosen me as the lucky one. Not sure how I got so lucky but I am fine with it and happy to take part in debate or well designed studies, if we are going to do actual science.

 

[Article 4]

As others have noted above, quite a few untruths and misrepresentations here.

Not sure why you're so fired up about this ... but know that more than a couple of people have taken Ryan and Form up on the offer to meet up, and the ones who've posted about it afterwards have said how instructive it was.

I respectfully suggest eating some humble pie now before the meet-up so you have better time, and don't have to eat so much of it afterwards ...

Not really but we all know what opinions are like.

Guess by that logic Ryan and Form are the only people on this entire site and in every post that are correct and have the proper experience and background to prove or disprove a premise?

I am all in and 100% ok with being wrong, as long as it is shown with supportable data and fact rather than opinion.

More of a cake and ice cream guy but again, to each their own.

 

[atmat]

So @Article 4, just to confirm: you’re okay to meet Ryan and use your scopes in the drop test?

Because you seem to be dancing around with lots of words.

 

[ME180]

True.
Think if their reputations in the comp and instructional community was on the line, they would use sub standard glass cause they got it for free? They can run anything they want for free and the choose Kahles.

I’m sure Kahles has great glass and that might be their main priority. Others value return the zero and being able to take the bumps and drops the backcountry brings. Leupold has good glass and eyebox. They sponsor a lot of hunters/shooters that could have the best. The scopes have shown not to be the most durable, but a lot people use them and push them.

 

[Article 4]

So @Article 4, just to confirm: you’re okay to meet Ryan and use your scopes in the drop test?

Because you seem to be dancing around with lots of words.

That is for Ryan and I to determine

That is for Ryan and I to determine.

 

[yycyak]

One of my favourite Rokslide threads was the one with the dude who was asking about his buddy's Nightforce scope. Apparently it sucked, wouldn't hold zero, etc.

A guy on the forum here offered to meet Dude. Said bring the scope, and he'd test it out. So Dude and his Buddy drove a long ways to meet up with Guy. Guy shot the heck out of the scope that day, and in a surprise turn of events: The Nightforce worked fine! Amazing!

Best part was Dude didn't disappear: He posted a thread update on how he was wrong, scope was fine, he learned a ton, and Buddy was happy his scope worked. Even how Guy's GF schooled them all with her 223 Tikka.

I love stories where, instead of talking, people show up and shoot stuff. And post updates. But clearly I am a simple man, likely with unrealistic expectations.

So @Article 4, just to confirm: you’re okay to meet Ryan and use your scopes in the drop test?

Because you seem to be dancing around with lots of words.

 

[Article 4]

I’m sure Kahles has great glass and that might be their main priority. Others value return the zero and being able to take the bumps and drops the backcountry brings. Leupold has good glass and eyebox. They sponsor a lot of hunters/shooters that could have the best. The scopes have shown not to be the most durable, but a lot people use them and push them.

Kahles is owned by swaro so yeah, the glass is epic. So you are saying that everyone who shoots comps with Kahles should not expect it to return to zero or be bumped?

 

[Article 4]

Lolol “through forms testing” love that you had to put that in parentheses.

Yes there’s plenty that have proven to be reliable.

Let me go back to one of the first couple of opinions stated. True that for 117 years, Leupold scopes amongst others have proven to perform.

To say all Leupolds don't track is a flawed premise based on a single test. Or even 2 or 3 tests...Leupold sold about 160MM bucks worth of glass in 2023 - if we assume that every sale was a scope (i know they werent but its impossible to know the exact amount if Leupold wont release it) at 750 dollar average across all models, that is about 213,333 scopes. Even half that at about 106,660 +/- scopes is a lot.

Again, one study that was not well designed on a scope or two neither confirms nor denies the entire companies ability. Are you all saying that every Leupold wont track or hold zero? Seems like that would put a 117 year old company out of business.

 

[atmat]

That is for Ryan and I to determine

So more words with no answers.

He invited you publicly to come drop test your scopes. You should respond publicly with a straightforward answer. So will you?

Some folks use lots of words and yet say nothing.

 

[Article 4]

So more words with no answers.

He invited you publicly to come drop test your scopes. You should respond publicly with a straightforward answer. So will you?

Some folks use lots of words and yet say nothing.

I already answered that straightforward and publicly. Sorry that it wasn't what you wanted to hear. Hope you are ok