The New Leupold Mark 4HD?

[mxgsfmdpx]

Oh no I’ve upset the masses

Nobody is upset one bit. Put up or shut up, or leave, nobody cares either way guy.

 

[ORJoe]

Obvious competitor is the NXS 2.5-10, but here we get FFP, locking turret, and capped windage. Biggest difference will be price - I expect the non-illum version to be available (after the inital rush) in the $700 range, illuminated around $900.

I'm pretty sure the new Leopold will pass all of the reliability tests with flying colors just because I bought an NXS 2.5-10 two weeks ago.

 

[kipper09]

I guess I should interject here. I have read the drop evaluations and I try to keep an open mind about things. I always was a little hesitant to put a ton of weight in them…. Listened and took notice, but always questioned why I hadn’t had an issue.

I have several leupolds and have overall killed quite a bit of game with them. Most are older so i don’t know if that matters. Rewind to a month or so ago I finally saw it first hand. I had a custom 6.5 PRC built this spring and put a brand new mark 5 3.6-18 on it, love the specs love the features. Love the glass. Overall really like the scope. Zeroed the rifle and got ready for a hunt. Flew to New Mexico and the rifle was 2” low. Kind of wrote it off as just airline travel. Re zeroed the rifle and went hunting. Shot opportunity comes up so I dial the scope and from a dead rest hit the Animal about 5” high.

Come home and shoot the gun and it’s 5” high….???? Re zero rifle and put rifle in truck. Rides around a little. Gun isn’t beat on or even dropped. Check zero two weeks ago and it’s 3” high.. Sent scope back to leupold for replacement and am waiting for it to arrive.

Now that’s just an experience I had and could it be a fluke? I’m not sure but I saw it first hand and it really got me hesitant to put faith in a big hunt on the scope. As I said I’ve used them alot and killed quite a few animals but after this experience I will be looking at different options.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Raider4044]

You mean this-

View attachment 655679

View attachment 655680

View attachment 655683



View attachment 655685

View attachment 655686






Please show one post where I have “shit” on the Mark 5. You are either being a troll or are not intellectually honest. If I/we’re lying, I offered to give an all expense paid trip for you to come prove it. All you have to do is show up- we’ll go buy several Mark 5’s from the store with you. You can mount them, you can shoot them, and you can drop them. If they hold zero you can have them. This should be easy if it’s all BS- show up and prove they hold zero.

@Ryan Avery @Bwhntr Has stated that we are lying, I have offered him to come out and show it. If he comes out and the Mark 5’s hold zero through the drop eval, he gets his expenses paid for.

Hopefully this doesn’t come across the wrong way, but is there a reason that you don’t use the same model rings/mounts from a reputable company for every scope test? It seems obvious to me to eliminate as many variables as possible in your testing that way every test is consistent. I doubt rings are the issue in the vast majority of your tests, but it would certainly eliminate a lot of the questioning of the test’s validity if the mounting methods were consistent for every scope.

 

[fwafwow]

The better question is, do any non cult members care?

I've had 5x 3.6-18 and 3x 5-25 MK5's that I shot quite a bit and was an early adopter of the MK5 and not one had a single issue, had a tracking issue, or zero retention issues and a few of those were on comp rifles. My 2x VX5HD 3-15's have also been perfectly reliable. LOTS of people use MK5's in PRS and win with them, it's one of the most common optics now... You wouldn't see that level of use if they had the issues that are only talked about on this forum based on one persons flawed tests.

He’s back!

Whether it’s in your wheelhouse or not is irrelevant. You should be voicing forms findings on them that they did not pass the rokslide drop test, right? That’s the same logic going on here throughout the forum. That’s all I’m saying. It’s like a cult following lol.

I think he’s saying that far fewer people care about ZCO enough to ask “hey, is a ZCO a good choice for my rifle” as compared to how many ask the same question - frequently - about Leupolds. When the latter question is asked, people say they have failed. Are people asking about ZCOs and not being told about the results? If that’s the case, I will be vigilant in telling them. Does that help?

 

[IrkedCitizen]

Hopefully this doesn’t come across the wrong way, but is there a reason that you don’t use the same model rings/mounts from a reputable company for every scope test? It seems obvious to me to eliminate as many variables as possible in your testing that way every test is consistent. I doubt rings are the issue in the vast majority of your tests, but it would certainly eliminate a lot of the questioning of the test’s validity if the mounting methods were consistent for every scope.

Not all companies make a ring to fit the size tube of the ZCO. The most common sizes anymore are 30mm and 34mm. The outliers are Leupold Mark5hd 35mm tube and ZCO 36mm. How many people are buying those scopes? Market share determines production. Why spend money on the tooling if you might sell 100 pairs of rings a year?

 

[Raider4044]

Not all companies make a ring to fit the size tube of the ZCO. The most common sizes anymore are 30mm and 34mm. The outliers are Leupold Mark5hd 35mm tube and ZCO 36mm. How many people are buying those scopes? Market share determines production. Why spend money on the tooling if you might sell 100 pairs of rings a year?

I wasn’t specifically referring to the ZCO. I certainly get that there’s going to be exceptions where you might have to use different rings, but it seems to me that there really hasn’t even been an attempt to standardize the mounting when possible. In any kind of testing where you are comparing different products, removing as many variables as possible is super important to the integrity of the results. Like I said, Form may have his reasoning, I’m just curious because it seems like a lot of the naysayers want to blame failures on mounting.

 

[Mschroeder40]

I don't believe what anyone says on here! I just want a free scope!

 

[Balderdash]

For the record, I was a Tikka fan and had enough of multiple Leupolds before I started looking on Rockslide.

I'm going to pick up a Mk4 2.5-10. I very much like the reticle and feature set. Seems to be the scope that a lot of us have been telling companies to build for years and years. Sure, I wish NF were offering this scope, but they're not; so I'll take my chances with a Leupold. Again.

I'll use it and test it and expect some HS that I haven't been subjected to since moving on from Leupolds many years ago.

Ultimately, it's just too much of what I'd ask for in a scope to not give one a shot. Hopefully I'm pleasantly surprised.

 

[Mschroeder40]

The Mk4 hd needs to be tested on here! It will more than likely fail but I really hope that it doesn't. It will also give the, if it ain't got a gold ring I ain't shootin it something to complain about.

 

[Mschroeder40]

I personally like the 4.5-18. It gives me a little more zoom when I'm looking at animals at distance. I'm used to better to have than not have I guess.

 

[Formidilosus]

Hopefully this doesn’t come across the wrong way, but is there a reason that you don’t use the same model rings/mounts from a reputable company for every scope test? It seems obvious to me to eliminate as many variables as possible in your testing that way every test is consistent. I doubt rings are the issue in the vast majority of your tests, but it would certainly eliminate a lot of the questioning of the test’s validity if the mounting methods were consistent for every scope.

1st, one of the chief “complaints”, or excuses from a couple manufactures has been that we didn’t use their rings. So when able, we use the rings that the scope maker manufactures- or prints their name on.

2nd, there has been no noticeable difference what so ever in common picatinney rings between manufacturers. Leupold Mark 4, NF UL, Badger, Hawkins, etc. all make the same, common pic ring design that works. This easily provable, and does get proven out repeatedly.


3rd, in nearly all cases where possible, the proof scope comes out of rings, and the scope being evaled goes in those same rings.


4th, when a scope repeatedly fails, it gets multiple different rings tried.

5th, When a ring design or model has shown an issues, all scopes that have used that design get rechecked.

6th, sometimes the manufacturer or the person sending the scope requests it to be done with certain rings. So we do that first. Then if it fails, they go into other rings.

7th, I am unaware of any company or group that claims all the common pic rings are garbage or aren’t quality.



So, the whole thing is a red herring. There has not been a single eval ended, that the scope was only put into one set of rings.

 

[Pronghunter]

Speaking on drop test and rings. I had a NF ATACR that consistently wouldn’t hold zero on my 300 RUM. So fed up after countless attempts to find out why, gun smith work or rechecking everything, I reached out to NF. Sent the ATACR in, came back as “no issue found” (of course) and eventually just torqued the rings to 30 inch pounds. Still wouldn’t hold zero. Sent scope back in. They found nothing. NF had me send in their rings that were holding the optic. They reached out and said they had tolerance issues with a batch or two of rings. Sent me out a new set of rings. Immediately resolved the issues. Not one problem since and have hundreds of rounds down. Right around 2017-2018.

 

[atmat]

I guess I should interject here. I have read the drop evaluations and I try to keep an open mind about things. I always was a little hesitant to put a ton of weight in them…. Listened and took notice, but always questioned why I hadn’t had an issue.

I have several leupolds and have overall killed quite a bit of game with them. Most are older so i don’t know if that matters. Rewind to a month or so ago I finally saw it first hand. I had a custom 6.5 PRC built this spring and put a brand new mark 5 3.6-18 on it, love the specs love the features. Love the glass. Overall really like the scope. Zeroed the rifle and got ready for a hunt. Flew to New Mexico and the rifle was 2” low. Kind of wrote it off as just airline travel. Re zeroed the rifle and went hunting. Shot opportunity comes up so I dial the scope and from a dead rest hit the Animal about 5” high.

Come home and shoot the gun and it’s 5” high….???? Re zero rifle and put rifle in truck. Rides around a little. Gun isn’t beat on or even dropped. Check zero two weeks ago and it’s 3” high.. Sent scope back to leupold for replacement and am waiting for it to arrive.

Now that’s just an experience I had and could it be a fluke? I’m not sure but I saw it first hand and it really got me hesitant to put faith in a big hunt on the scope. As I said I’ve used them alot and killed quite a few animals but after this experience I will be looking at different options.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Kip — S&B, NF, Trij, SWFA, or Maven RS1.2. Ditch the Leupold.

Whether it’s in your wheelhouse or not is irrelevant. You should be voicing forms findings on them that they did not pass the rokslide drop test, right? That’s the same logic going on here throughout the forum. That’s all I’m saying. It’s like a cult following lol.

Drop your scope and film it. Or take up their offer for free flight and scopes if you’re sure Leu’s will pass.

 

[duckhunter175]

Let's put this back on track!! Got hands on the MK4HD models at DSC today.

MOA and Mil options, SFP and FFP options, and using the Zerolock M1/M5 turrets, 30mm tube on the LPVO and 2.5-10 and then 34mm on the 4.5-18 and up and 52mm and 56mm objective on the big scopes. Some illuminated options, not sure their rhyme or reason on which models they are offering on this. MK4HD has slightly smaller FOV at 18x (4.5-18 vs 3.6-18).... anyway this is all on the spec sheets.

Thoughts on what I handled:
-HPR-1 LPVO reticle that would be better if it were illuminated.
-The price point seems to undercut the NX8s and it offers much more than the Razor LHT
-More mounting space on the front now compared to a short VX6HD
-I don't love FFP PR1 reticles in the 2.5-10.... I think they should've stuck with SFP TMR/TMOA, the PR1 does not do well at low magnifcation, also no parallax adjustment- for the price will be in the niche with NXS 2.5-10
-I DO like the PR2-MOA in the 4.5-18 and think that is a really well rounded scope at a killer price
-Glass seemed good but I was indoors looking across a convention center

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

Let's put this back on track!! Got hands on the MK4HD models at DSC today.

MOA and Mil options, SFP and FFP options, and using the Zerolock M1/M5 turrets, 30mm tube on the LPVO and 2.5-10 and then 34mm on the 4.5-18 and up and 52mm and 56mm objective on the big scopes. Some illuminated options, not sure their rhyme or reason on which models they are offering on this. MK4HD has slightly smaller FOV at 18x (4.5-18 vs 3.6-18).... anyway this is all on the spec sheets.

Thoughts on what I handled:
-HPR-1 LPVO reticle that would be better if it were illuminated.
-The price point seems to undercut the NX8s and it offers much more than the Razor LHT
-More mounting space on the front now compared to a short VX6HD
-I don't love FFP PR1 reticles in the 2.5-10.... I think they should've stuck with SFP TMR/TMOA, the PR1 does not do well at low magnifcation, also no parallax adjustment- for the price will be in the niche with NXS 2.5-10
-I DO like the PR2-MOA in the 4.5-18 and think that is a really well rounded scope at a killer price
-Glass seemed good but I was indoors looking across a convention center

Did they mention anything about their note stating “impact verified”? What does that mean? What has changed to make it more “durable”?

None of the stuff you mentioned matters one bit if the scope fails at its primary objective.

 

[Dobermann]

Both have an Illuminated PR1-Mil reticle. What makes the Mark 5hd $900 better?

Lots of warranty claims and profit would probably do it.

 

[DaleW]

Let's put this back on track!! Got hands on the MK4HD models at DSC today.

MOA and Mil options, SFP and FFP options, and using the Zerolock M1/M5 turrets, 30mm tube on the LPVO and 2.5-10 and then 34mm on the 4.5-18 and up and 52mm and 56mm objective on the big scopes. Some illuminated options, not sure their rhyme or reason on which models they are offering on this. MK4HD has slightly smaller FOV at 18x (4.5-18 vs 3.6-18).... anyway this is all on the spec sheets.

Thoughts on what I handled:
-HPR-1 LPVO reticle that would be better if it were illuminated.
-The price point seems to undercut the NX8s and it offers much more than the Razor LHT
-More mounting space on the front now compared to a short VX6HD
-I don't love FFP PR1 reticles in the 2.5-10.... I think they should've stuck with SFP TMR/TMOA, the PR1 does not do well at low magnifcation, also no parallax adjustment- for the price will be in the niche with NXS 2.5-10
-I DO like the PR2-MOA in the 4.5-18 and think that is a really well rounded scope at a killer price
-Glass seemed good but I was indoors looking across a convention center

Did they say when the scopes will show up at dealers? I'll likely pick up a 4.5-18x52.

 

[redneckbmxer24]

Did they say when the scopes will show up at dealers? I'll likely pick up a 4.5-18x52.

Nobody but Leupold really knows what models are shipping first, but they’re supposed to start shipping by the end of the month.

 

[redneckbmxer24]

Did they mention anything about their note stating “impact verified”? What does that mean? What has changed to make it more “durable”?

None of the stuff you mentioned matters one bit if the scope fails at its primary objective.

Optic manufacturers have actual scientific ways to impact test optics that are far more consistent and controlled tests than throwing it on the ground.