The New Leupold Mark 4HD?

[roosiebull]

I kinda get it, however I don't have the money to waste had I had the bad experiences that most of you talk about in regards to leupold. I guess it surprises me how many of you would still give leupold a chance.

So, is Form going to test one? Is that what you all will wait for or will you buy one and conduct your own evaluation?

Also, would you really feel that good about this scope if it did pass Forms test? I mean any brand could get lucky once couldn't they?

I guess I'm just having a hard time wrapping my mind around the reasoning here, and no I'm definitely not trying to start another back and forth argument here. I mean for someone like myself who has always been happy with leupold I understand why I would try the mark 4hd but I would never be able to have faith in a brand if I'd had the problems that so many have had( or maybe I should say if I'd have been a good enough shot to recognize those problems). I mean it took me at least a decade to buy another nightforce scope after having problems with the first one I ever bought and that was one one problem for me not multiple issues with multiple scopes.

Again, just curious as to the reasoning behind why you would be willing to trust a brand that has given you so many problems especially if it's going on a big hunt or to be used in any serious competition, regardless if one scope managed to pass Forms test.

If I couldn’t help myself and decide to take a chance, I’d have it shipped to Ryan or Form to put it through the eval… that’s what I would do if they don’t get one before

One passing doesn’t mean it’s good to go, but one failing makes it very likely to be a problem child. One passing would have me taking the chance just because I like it a lot on paper

We’ll see, but right now I don’t know.

 

[JGRaider]

I kinda get it, however I don't have the money to waste had I had the bad experiences that most of you talk about in regards to leupold. I guess it surprises me how many of you would still give leupold a chance.

So, is Form going to test one? Is that what you all will wait for or will you buy one and conduct your own evaluation?

Also, would you really feel that good about this scope if it did pass Forms test? I mean any brand could get lucky once couldn't they?

Again, just curious as to the reasoning behind why you would be willing to trust a brand that has given you so many problems especially if it's going on a big hunt or to be used in any serious competition, regardless if one scope managed to pass Forms test.

I'd do what I do every time I'm interested in a particular rifle scope. I buy it, use it the way I use it, and form my own opinion. I also take his test with a grain of salt overall. The drops are excessive and not the typical wear and tear I expect my gear to see, especially when 98% of every scope tested, "fails". If my rife and scope experienced a direct fall onto a hard surface, first thing I'd do is fire a test shot to confirm zero regardless of whether or not it has passed this "drop test". I always feel an obligation to make an ethical shot on game animals.

 

[SteveAndTheCrigBoys]

I'd do what I do every time I'm interested in a particular rifle scope. I buy it, use it the way I use it, and form my own opinion. I also take his test with a grain of salt overall. The drops are excessive and not the typical wear and tear I expect my gear to see, especially when 98% of every scope tested, "fails". If my rife and scope experienced a direct fall onto a hard surface, first thing I'd do is fire a test shot to confirm zero regardless of whether or not it has passed this "drop test". I always feel an obligation to make an ethical shot on game animals.

so if you’re 5+ miles or whatever in the backcountry hunting a nice bull/buck and your scope takes a hit, you’re okay with packing out or shooting in that area to check zero?

I’d prefer a scope model that’s proven it can take abuse beyond what I would expect to see on a hunt so I can be confident in it despite any accidental, moderate abuse in the field.

 

[atmat]

I'd do what I do every time I'm interested in a particular rifle scope. I buy it, use it the way I use it, and form my own opinion. I also take his test with a grain of salt overall. The drops are excessive and not the typical wear and tear I expect my gear to see, especially when 98% of every scope tested, "fails". If my rife and scope experienced a direct fall onto a hard surface, first thing I'd do is fire a test shot to confirm zero regardless of whether or not it has passed this "drop test". I always feel an obligation to make an ethical shot on game animals.

That’s all well and good, but my last Leupold scope was losing zero from driving in a soft-shell case down paved dirt roads.

 

[JGRaider]

My mule deer place is 65k acres, and I've driven hundreds of miles in a Ranger and my pickup just this year. Scopes are holding up fine. Had a couple of 1" Swaro's a few years ago that didn't, however.

 

[atmat]

My mule deer place is 65k acres, and I've driven hundreds of miles in a Ranger and my pickup just this year. Scopes are holding up fine. Had a couple of 1" Swaro's a few years ago that didn't, however.

That’s awesome. But it’s a game of odds. If a bunch of people’s Leupold’s are shifting like crazy with a stiff wind, it’s just not worth the gamble for many of us — even if yours could hammer a nail and be fine.

That’s the argument for SWFA, NF, Trij, SB, or the new Maven. It’s not that they don’t fail. It’s that they seem to fail at a much lower rate.

 

[JGRaider]

so if you’re 5+ miles or whatever in the backcountry hunting a nice bull/buck and your scope takes a hit, you’re okay with packing out or shooting in that area to check zero?

I’d prefer a scope model that’s proven it can take abuse beyond what I would expect to see on a hunt so I can be confident in it despite any accidental, moderate abuse in the field.

Like I said....I'm checking zero. I believe any ethical hunter should. You have no way of knowing your scope is still zero'd otherwise, no matter what brand is on it. YMMV.

 

[atmat]

Like I said....I'm checking zero. I believe any ethical hunter should. You have no way of knowing your scope is still zero'd otherwise, no matter what brand is on it. YMMV.

You do if you’ve dropped and tested it before and it did fine.

That’s the whole point: re-checking zero only exists because hunters have seen their zero shift before.

If you only learned on more robust scopes, you’d never know you “needed” to check after every drop to be “ethical.”

 

[JGRaider]

That’s awesome. But it’s a game of odds. If a bunch of people’s Leupold’s are shifting like crazy with a stiff wind, it’s just not worth the gamble for many of us — even if yours could hammer a nail and be fine.

That’s the argument for SWFA, NF, Trij, SB, or the new Maven. It’s not that they don’t fail. It’s that they seem to fail at a much lower rate.

So do you believe you get an adequate sample size on a particular scope just taking a poll or reading responses from random internet boards? Just curious.

 

[JGRaider]

You do if you’ve dropped and tested it before and it did fine.

That’s the whole point: re-checking zero only exists because hunters have seen their zero shift before.

If you only learned on more robust scopes, you’d never know you “needed” to check after every drop to be “ethical.”

Couldn't disagree more. You have no idea which bump, drop, etc will cause a shift. It's just a guess.

 

[atmat]

So do you believe you get an adequate sample size on a particular scope just taking a poll or reading responses from random internet boards? Just curious.

Sorta?

I know a lot of the guys here personally, so it’s not like it’s random internet people.

And if we’re all seeing at least one of our Leu scopes fail, it means they don’t have a very high success rate.

It’s a scope is “generally good,” it should be easy to randomly select one that works and harder to randomly select one that fails. When lots of the ones you see fail, then that’s a problem.

 

[atmat]

Couldn't disagree more. You have no idea which bump, drop, etc will cause a shift. It's just a guess.

The drop test is 9x 36” drops in a row. If it’s not shifting from that, and that’s all you’ve ever known, you would feel very confident for most tumbles in the field.

 

[JGRaider]

Confidence is great, that really doesn't have any bearing on whether you scope survives a drop or not though. NF, SWFA, Trijicon....they all have service and repair facilities for a reason.

 

[atmat]

Confidence is great, that really doesn't have any bearing on whether you scope survives a drop or not though. NF, SWFA, Trijicon....they all have service and repair facilities for a reason.

Correct. I said that. But it’s failure rate.

If most aren’t failing, and you’ve tested yours, then that’s a vastly different story than a make/model with a higher failure rate.

 

[JGRaider]

Sorta?

I know a lot of the guys here personally, so it’s not like it’s random internet people.

And if we’re all seeing at least one of our Leu scopes fail, it means they don’t have a very high success rate.

It’s a scope is “generally good,” it should be easy to randomly select one that works and harder to randomly select one that fails. When lots of the ones you see fail, then that’s a problem.

It's still a very, very small sample size. I'm not sticking up for Leupy in any way, but it's true of any brand. I only have one left that I really use alot. Thousands of hunters use them and other brands that fail every year successfully. That's why I take these tests with a grain of salt.

 

[merrittchristen]

I don't want to intentionally break the law when I hunt in ID haha.

This recently changed you can hunt Idaho with illuminated reticles now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Marshfly]

What if we all just email and call Maven to duplicate the 2.5-10 with a good reticle at the same weight?

Win/win.

 

[Helislacker]

No, not at all. I actually find good entertainment in it. Like not even getting one of the test optics properly mounted in rings so that it wouldn’t slip and then failing the scope because of it. Or continuing to drop the “bonded” rifle that’s JB welded thinking that consistently abuse it isn’t having any effect on the “bond”.

Alright, I’m probably just beating my head against a wall but…..

1. even if there was a measurable degradation of control repeatability over time with the control rifle (which there isn’t) the amount of failures would generally be consistent or abrupt in one direction and easily verified by the control. Instead, what we see is abrupt shifts in POI/POA being caused by failing optics, followed by consistent POI/POA in passing optics - indicating that the bonded rifle is still a valid control and no shift in bedding has occurred. This is confirmed when he re-drops and shoots the control optic. This is entirely valid, consistent, and verifies that the control is in fact, a control.

2. There is no 100% probability in any of this. While it’s near impossible that an optic fails the test solely due to an outside variable such as the bedding shifting in the control rifle, chance variations in ammo, or the shooter being out to lunch during that specific test, it’s still possible (though I’d guarantee this would be identified during the drop test) .

That said, these are low likelihood outside variables that, if used to write off the results of the drop test entirely, indicates a serious emotional attachment to a preferred result.

3. You get to choose if your emotional attachment to a preferred outcome will affect your purchasing choices. Interestingly, your continued interest in disputing the test rather than ignoring it and just shooting what you works for you says a lot. If your Leupolds at so reliable, why do you care about what other people think of them? For me, this testing provides a very high certainty that passing optics are more reliable. That said, I’m a grown ass man so I also know nothing is certain and lemons exist.

The passing optics results have been consistent with my anecdotal experience and alleviated many of the frustrations I had earlier with scopes. That’s all I need to know about the validity of these tests

 

[Beetroot]

What if we all just email and call Maven to duplicate the 2.5-10 with a good reticle at the same weight?

Win/win.

The Maven reticle is pretty similar to the TMR. If the Leupold proves reliable then you won't need Maven involved.

 

[redneckbmxer24]

Alright, I’m probably just beating my head against a wall but…..

1. even if there was a measurable degradation of control repeatability over time with the control rifle (which there isn’t) the amount of failures would generally be consistent or abrupt in one direction and easily verified by the control. Instead, what we see is abrupt shifts in POI/POA being caused by failing optics, followed by consistent POI/POA in passing optics - indicating that the bonded rifle is still a valid control and no shift in bedding has occurred. This is confirmed when he re-drops and shoots the control optic. This is entirely valid, consistent, and verifies that the control is in fact, a control.

2. There is no 100% probability in any of this. While it’s near impossible that an optic fails the test solely due to an outside variable such as the bedding shifting in the control rifle, chance variations in ammo, or the shooter being out to lunch during that specific test, it’s still possible (though I’d guarantee this would be identified during the drop test) .

That said, these are low likelihood outside variables that, if used to write off the results of the drop test entirely, indicates a serious emotional attachment to a preferred result.

3. You get to choose if your emotional attachment to a preferred outcome will affect your purchasing choices. Interestingly, your continued interest in disputing the test rather than ignoring it and just shooting what you works for you says a lot. If your Leupolds at so reliable, why do you care about what other people think of them? For me, this testing provides a very high certainty that passing optics are more reliable. That said, I’m a grown ass man so I also know nothing is certain and lemons exist.

The passing optics results have been consistent with my anecdotal experience and alleviated many of the frustrations I had earlier with scopes. That’s all I need to know about the validity of these tests

I don’t have emotional attachment to a damn thing but my lady and my dog, I just think it’s ridiculous that a group of people run around parroting BS when myself and others with many samples of these so called unreliable optics have seen nothing but reliability. It’s even more reinforced when I have the interactions with gun owners and hunters that I do that are idiots and can barely screw in a light bulb, let alone understand the dynamics of a rifle and marksmanship and all the things that can cause a rifle to have a wondering zero.

Why don’t you email Ilya Koshkin and ask him why this test is flawed and why literally any optic could pass it or fail it?