The New Leupold Mark 4HD?

[Fartrell Cluggins]

If you aren't "running" a chest "rig" as part of your "kit" then you aren't worthy of a Creedmore.

 

[Fartrell Cluggins]

I wonder what has caused more misses, scopes losing zero or a bunch of Arem Von Benedikts who overestimate their ability to hit at long range. I'd go with the latter.

 

[atmat]

If you aren't "running" a chest "rig" as part of your "kit" then you aren't worthy of a Creedmore.

Haha all serious, but you know what I like about you? You troll everyone equally.

 

[Fartrell Cluggins]

People have been having it happen for decades my man. Squawk on.

Since you have apparently been exposed to much more of this than I have, what were you seeing that these posters did to eliminate the gun and the mounting system as variables? Or are they simply accounts like yours. "I was just riding along with a gun in a case on my seat, and just like Form's scope, mine lost zero by some unspecified but relevant amount."

 

[fwafwow]

Doesn't show up, guessing one of the club members of my ignore list.

If you ignore that poster, it's hard to read the ZCO (or any other) scope evaluation. I will both paraphrase and include some quotes for you -

• The ZCO scope was mounted with ZCO rings, based on ZCO specs.
• "The scope failed the drop eval. Whether it is the scope or the rings remains to be seen."
• "Conclusions (for now):

The rings when mounted exactly as stated by the manufacturer failed to hold the scope for a braked 308 win. After tightening the rings caps, it’s seemed to hold. It failed the drop eval. It was not close. However, the drops seemed to have cured the abnormally large groups the scope was producing. The RTZ and adjustments are fine. The next step is to get different rings and re eval the drops."​

First post was 9/9. Second was 9/19 and included the following sentence: "Will wait until new rings to continue." Last post was 11/2/23 and it's not clear (to me) if the new rifle that is sporting the ZCO is wearing new rings.

Seems like the test is ongoing and the ring issue has been addressed.

 

[Jimbee]

Since you have apparently been exposed to much more of this than I have, what were you seeing that these posters did to eliminate the gun and the mounting system as variables? Or are they simply accounts like yours. "I was just riding along with a gun in a case on my seat, and just like Form's scope, mine lost zero by some unspecified but relevant amount."

I did my own drop testing, one of my combos didn't pass. I sanded out the tight barrel channel and re mounted and torqued the action screws. This fixed my issue of the combo shooting a larger group than was known to be repeatable. I know my gun and mounting system isn't causing a shift because there's no shift. If I mounted a different scope and there was a shift, swapped the scope back and the shift disappeared, I think you could narrow down the cause as the scope, no?

 

[sbaker0029]

I did my own drop testing, one of my combos didn't pass. I sanded out the tight barrel channel and re mounted and torqued the action screws. This fixed my issue of the combo shooting a larger group than was known to be repeatable. I know my gun and mounting system isn't causing a shift because there's no shift. If I mounted a different scope and there was a shift, swapped the scope back and the shift disappeared, I think you could narrow down the cause as the scope, no?

That's too simple and there's too much logic involved in that. No way that's how it works. Lol

 

[ljalberta]

Since you have apparently been exposed to much more of this than I have, what were you seeing that these posters did to eliminate the gun and the mounting system as variables? Or are they simply accounts like yours. "I was just riding along with a gun in a case on my seat, and just like Form's scope, mine lost zero by some unspecified but relevant amount."

Swap scopes. Same system. No zero shift.

Also, believe it or not, it’s not just posters on the internet this happens to. But it happens people you can actually meet and know and see this happen in real life on days hunting or shooting.

It makes no difference to me if you don’t believe it happens. People have been hunting with guns that lose zero for centuries. You can still kill things, but it increases miss potential. Some like to minimize that, and others don’t really care.

 

[roosiebull]

lol, 14 pages and there isnt even one in the wild to actually talk about?!

Have you read the rokstok thread?

 

[Beetroot]

lol, 14 pages and there isnt even one in the wild to actually talk about?!

The Burris XTR3 took 18months after annocement to turn up on the shelf.
The illuminated version 3 years.

It's barely been a week since this was announced.

 

[Reburn]

Doesn't show up, guessing one of the club members of my ignore list.



You do realize that the majority of the time in this industry products are released months and sometimes even a year or more before they're available, right?

They're supposedly a week or two out which is a very quick delivery time for a new product release, let alone an entire line of new products.

Shouldn't that be Cult member not Club member.

Hell at least try and stay consistent with your insults.

 

[Reed104R]

Wow, 15 pages of B.S.

This is fun....lol

What if some newb dropped in here and actually believed some of this propaganda!!??

 

[UpSideDown]

Leupold really figured out their scopes with the Mk5HD. The Mk4HD is built downstream of that knowledge/manufacturing and has already exhibited some major improvements to the issues Leupold has had in the market for a long time; expensive illumination and bad reticle selection. They're also continuing the trend of producing good optics and improving prices, even with our inflation: Mk6 -> Mk5 -> Mk4 are all vastly cheaper generations, and albeit they are generationally less advanced relative to current market tech, they're still more advanced than the previous generation (with the exception probably being the Mk4 which isn't introducing anything new for Leupold besides push-button illum).

The drop test isn't useless, but the adherence to it on this forum is ridiculous. If your scope takes a hard hit you need to confirm zero, period. It doesn't matter what some 1-off sample test with different criteria than you've just faced is telling you - you don't know what is up with your scope until you confirm it. The only scopes I've lost zero on in the field were LRHSi's that this forum loves because of how they handle drops with flying colors. Last year it cost us an elk with a 1.1mil vertical shift and no good area to do a rezero. That same model again this year dropped from hand-height and I was able to do a zero right there - it was .5mil off in windage. This year we came home with an elk.

What does a drop test tell you? If the mechanics still function? That'll always depend on where and how you hit it. If your scope is still zeroed? It cannot ever tell you that. The importance of the drop test is just to provide a general sense of robustness of an optic, but it can never be used to assume a good zero post-drop or to apply sample-to-sample as a rule of outcome. Those tests are waaaaaay overrated and misapplied by a lot of folks. They're useful, they're imperfect, and they're good for getting a general idea of an optic.

I'm buying a Mk4HD. Leupold has had a lot of time to figure things out and has addressed major drawbacks in their market offerings. I really like the objective size, weight, form factor and reticle of the 2.5-10x42. The TMR reticle specs show it as .05mil thickness on the main stadia lines which lands right between the .04mil of the SWFA MilQuad in the 3-9 and the .06mil stadia of the LRHSi. Even without illum that's a nice, thick line. I'm curious to see how it does at twilight - one of my main dislikes of the SWFA is how useless the reticle is at twilight, along with tunneling so bad that it is effectively a 4.7-9x scope. If the etching of the TMR reticle really pops at twilight I'll be stoked. I dislike push-button illum coming from the difficult Vortex LHT implementation of it, but I might give it a shot on the Leupy since it's an affordable upgrade.

 

[atmat]

If your scope takes a hard hit you need to confirm zero, period.

Why? Who made this rule? What is it based off of?

Is there any possibility its based off people’s experience losing zero with scopes not designed robust enough to hold zero?

No one here is saying you shouldn’t recheck zero if you drop the gun out of a tree stand. We’re saying any reasonable bump/drop while hunting should retain zero. That’s not a big ask: SWFA, Trij, SB, NF, and now Maven all have success with it.

 

[UpSideDown]

Why? Who made this rule? What is it based off of?

Is there any possibility its based off people’s experience losing zero with scopes not designed robust enough to hold zero?

No one here is saying you shouldn’t recheck zero if you drop the gun out of a tree stand. We’re saying any reasonable bump/drop while hunting should retain zero. That’s not a big ask: SWFA, Trij, SB, NF, and now Maven all have success with it.

I don't have to prove to you why you should rezero if you drop your gun - you have to prove why a complete rifle package can be expected to maintain zero despite the endless variations between individual scope samples and the unique nature of every real-world drop based on a single-sample test of a different sample scope/rifle with dissimilar criteria. It needs to be proven that you can 100% trust your rifle to maintain POI after a drop. The reality is that this is impossible. And no, SWFA, Trijicon, NF, etc. have never been able, and will never be able to do that. None of these drop tests have ever proven that. What they may show is that certain scopes are generally mechanically robust and that they may have good odds of retaining zero on small bumps, but that is all that the drop testing can ever show. There variables of a drop are too many. I choose to use robust optics because I know that they'll experience little bumps along the way, and I trust my rifle to shoot where I aim after bumping it into fenceposts and brush. I don't expect my rifle to maintain POI after it falls from hand-height onto the ground, despite using those optics.

Yes, a minor bump on a gun should maintain zero. Some scopes don't even handle that well. It seems that many people put excessive faith in the results of the drop tests, and many times put too little faith in scopes that fail them. A lot of scopes out there get ruled out for failing the drop test when the reality is that if you drop your rifle like the drop test does, even if it's a Nightforce in great rings, you still need to check zero, which kind of rules out a lot of the merit people place in the drop test.

 

[JF_Idaho]

The rules were written by physics and statistical probability.

I commend Form and Ryan. Putting money and time into this endeavor deserves respect in itself. They are creating a great data point. But, it's a data point, not gospel.

The data has shown that some scopes fare better in the testing and that's good information.

Toyotas are statistically more reliable than Dodges. Its a fact. If you go buy one of each and that specific Toyota breaks down before the Dodge that doesnt change the fact that Toyotas are more reliable.

Just because the test scope in the test rings on the test rifle didn't fail the test drops doesn't mean that it can't fail. The only way to know whether it did fail or not is to check zero.

 

[atmat]

I don't have to prove to you why you should rezero if you drop your gun - you have to prove to me why I could trust a complete rifle package to maintain zero despite the endless variations between individual scope samples and the unique nature of every real-world drop. It needs to be proven that you can 100% trust your rifle to maintain POA after a drop. The reality is that this is impossible. And no, SWFA, Trijicon, NF, etc. have never been able, and will never be able to do that. None of these drop tests have ever proven that.

I don’t have to prove anything, bud. I asked you where the rule you stayed was non-negotiable came from, and whether it was from experience with scopes losing zero.

It needs to be proven that you can 100% trust your rifle to maintain POA after a drop.

100% is an impossible bar in any study. You either don’t understand the scientific method, statistics, or both — or you’re just trolling, but I don’t think you are.

What they may show is that certain scopes are generally mechanically robust and that they may have good odds of retaining zero on small bumps,

This is exactly the purpose. Though I would argue that 9 consecutive 36” drops doesn’t qualify as “small bumps.”

I don't expect my rifle to maintain POI after it falls from hand-height onto the ground, despite using those optics.

I do.

the reality is that if you drop your rifle like the drop test does, even if it's a Nightforce in great rings, you still need to check zero, which kind of rules out a lot of the merit people place in the drop test.

If I drop my rifle 9x from 36” and it holds zero, I trust it’ll hold zero from 1x 36” drop. Sure, there’s a non-zero chance it won’t. But the entire point of this is that it’s a risk probability game.

 

[General RE LEE]

I've never even looked at the drop test.

Drop test gets in people's heads like the Lusk Broadhead Tests on You Tube. In their mind, unless the scope can withstand a drop on a rock or a broadhead can be shot multiple times through wood and steel, it isn't considered. I don't put much stock into those type of tests.

I can honestly say I have never completely dropped by rifle hunting. Granted, my style of hunting is pretty pedestrian here in the East vs the West. There is a reason this site is called "Rok Slide".

I am interested in a scope's ability to hold zero riding in a vehicle with bumps and shakes. If that causes issues, that's a problem regardless of what terrain you hunt.

 

[Lv2000]

Well if any of you guys buy a Mk4 and don't like it I will gladly let you send it to me. Lol

Right ? Last 2 optics I bought second hand especially with being under warranty you can’t go wrong

 

[atmat]

The rules were written by physics and statistical probability.

I commend Form and Ryan. Putting money and time into this endeavor deserves respect in itself. They are creating a great data point. But, it's a data point, not gospel.

The data has shown that some scopes fare better in the testing and that's good information.

Toyotas are statistically more reliable than Dodges. Its a fact. If you go buy one of each and that specific Toyota breaks down before the Dodge that doesnt change the fact that Toyotas are more reliable.

Just because the test scope in the test rings on the test rifle didn't fail the test drops doesn't mean that it can't fail. The only way to know whether it did fail or not is to check zero.

I 100% agree with this post. No one is advertising you should never have to check zero. People are saying “the scope and system has been texted and successful at X impact threshold. Below that, it should generally be okay.”