The New Leupold Mark 4HD?

[atmat]

Beating up a scope is far more likely to induce issues than if you'd left it alone. It might proof out an optic and tell you it's no good, yes, that's true - it also induces fatigue and increases the likelihood of greater damage in the future. It's been a long running debate about the benefits vs the costs of proof testing in bolts for instance; proof tested bolts obviously pass the proof test, at the cost of a guaranteed shorter lifespan.

I totally get this argument. I'd say it's helpful that Form captures miles in vehicle, all his drops, and 3,000 rounds before saying it passes. If it's passing that, it's likely going to pass your 1-2x 18-36" drops without noticeably shortening life span.

Which scope failed the drop test that I'd use? The ZCO, 100%. I haven't looked through all the tests, a lot of the scopes I've been interested in haven't been tested here.

I keep seeing that ZCO "failed." But isn't the test still ongoing because the first test failed but could be potentially attributed to rings? I'd have to go back to look, but my memory (which may be wrong) is that one hasn't failed.

 

[fwafwow]

I keep seeing that ZCO "failed." But isn't the test still ongoing because the first test failed but could be potentially attributed to rings? I'd have to go back to look, but my memory (which may be wrong) is that one hasn't failed.

That is also my read/understanding of the status of the ZCO test, based on reading it (again) yesterday after another member made an accusation again about the ZCO rings, etc. Since his ignore list is long, I summarized it for him - but expect I'm also on that list.

 

[Macintosh]

So a scope identical to yours passed the 36" internet drop test, therefore yours passed as well. What if you drop it from 40", 45", 50".......? This mentality is lost on me. I'm still in the "we owe it to our quarry to be ethical hunters" mindset. At least we know without question where you stand, and that appears to be " even though I dropped my scoped rifle from 3+ feet, a scope identical to mine survived an impact test on the internet, so I"m OK with SWAGing a round at a big game animal anyway

That does not describe my personal mentality about the evals at all.
Ethical is taking ALL of your scopes and doing your own shooting, "testing" (formal or informal), or whatever, to do what is needed so you can have a legitimate high degree of confidence that when you take out a critter you have done a good job making sure that you dont wound it. To me that entails having a reasonably objective measure of what level of handling/mishap requires a zero-check that I have performed myself--I am going to personally do SOMETHING that applies some stress to the scope and shoot it to develop a first-hand sense for this--if I have repeated harder knocks that have not caused a zero-shift, I'm not going to check zero every time I bump it less than that--that's the type of confidence that I am talking about.
But that^^ has nothing to do with whether I choose to take a scope eval and the associated comments into account when buying so that I may have higher odds of getting a scope that is reliable. To me there is zero risk in taking the evals into account, but there is significant possible up-side for me since I HAVE had consistent problems with specific scopes. It's an easy win/win--I stand to benefit, and at zero cost or risk to me. Not sure I understand what the problem is?? A failed scope MAY be "good" on average, but I dont know that and the odds of that arent that great. I'm not made of money, so I have very little incentive to disregard the ONLY piece of objective info I have--to me it makes sense to stay away from a failed scope until I have other info that either corroborates or contradicts the eval. My personal experience aligns with the leupold failures, so it'll take some doing (and a lot of corroboration) for me to try another...but then again I'm probably one of those idiots who can barely screw in a lightbulb that another poster mentioned! And, my belief is that if nothing else the eval provides some verification that a given scope model can probably withstand at least enough abuse from my personal verification that I am unlikely to run into a problem before I even have a sense of what that scope can and cant handle.

 

[Jason Snyder]

That is also my read/understanding of the status of the ZCO test, based on reading it (again) yesterday after another member made an accusation again about the ZCO rings, etc. Since his ignore list is long, I summarized it for him - but expect I'm also on that list.

Reading is hard for some folks. Not sure why he keeps repeating it.

 

[UpSideDown]

I'm excited for the Mk4HD. I look forward to peoples experience and feedback with them. I think the 2.5-10 and 4.5-18 are going to be very popular crossover scopes that see a lot of market share. It seems like Leupold is really making headway on correcting the oddities that they've held onto in the market for a long time.

It's also refreshing to feel like we're finally leaving the Covid era with how many cool new products are being unveiled right now ahead of SHOT show. The wackiness of everything for the past few years really squashed innovation and production.

 

[bpurtz]

I didn't really rifle hunt much until my boys started drawing youth tags. My dad always had Leupold scopes on his rifles, and since they are a home state company with a good warranty reputation I put a couple on the rifles my boys would shoot.

I was on a youth bear hunt with my oldest son when he got his feet tangled up and fell resulting in the rifle barrel impacting a rock. I didn't really have enough rifle hunting experience to know that the impact might affect the scope - I was mostly pissed about the scarred rifle barrel.

The next day, my son had a 175 yard shot at a bear. After the shot, the bear lunged forward about 3 feet then laid motionless on the ground. I thought the bear was dead, but 30 seconds later he was up and ran downhill into a creek drainage and out of sight. I found his tracks, but didn't find any blood. The reaction really looked like a hit, but the lack of blood was puzzling. What was even more puzzling was how could my son miss at 175 yards...

The next day I decided to check the rifle and found at 100 yards it was 9" high and 9" right. I'm pretty sure he hit the bear...

 

[atmat]

I didn't really rifle hunt much until my boys started drawing youth tags. My dad always had Leupold scopes on his rifles, and since they are a home state company with a good warranty reputation I put a couple on the rifles my boys would shoot.

I was on a youth bear hunt with my oldest son when he got his feet tangled up and fell resulting in the rifle barrel impacting a rock. I didn't really have enough rifle hunting experience to know that the impact might affect the scope - I was mostly pissed about the scarred rifle barrel.

The next day, my son had a 175 yard shot at a bear. After the shot, the bear lunged forward about 3 feet then laid motionless on the ground. I thought the bear was dead, but 30 seconds later he was up and ran downhill into a creek drainage and out of sight. I found his tracks, but didn't find any blood. The reaction really looked like a hit, but the lack of blood was puzzling. What was even more puzzling was how could my son miss at 175 yards...

The next day I decided to check the rifle and found at 100 yards it was 9" high and 9" right. I'm pretty sure he hit the bear...

Welcome to Leupold!

 

[JGRaider]

You must have missed the " it hit a rock" part, and hard enough that the barrel got scarred. I'll give the kid a pass, but any responsible adult hunter would check zero before winging bullets at game after something like that.

 

[bpurtz]

You must have missed the " it hit a rock" part, and hard enough that the barrel got scarred. I'll give the kid a pass, but any responsible adult hunter would check zero before winging bullets at game after something like that.

Irresponsible? Lol.

Like I said, I didn't have much rifle hunting experience up to that point - lots of plinking with a .22 and a deer and an elk when I was 13 y/o.

I'll give you a pass for poor reading comprehension...

 

[atmat]

Irresponsible? Lol.

Like I said, I didn't have much rifle hunting experience up to that point - lots of plinking with a .22 and a deer and an elk when I was 13 y/o.

I'll give you a pass for poor reading comprehension...

I think @JGRaider was talking about me. He likes to talk to me.

 

[bpurtz]

I think @JGRaider was talking about me. He likes to talk to me.

Ok - if so, my bad...

I moved on to NF after that experience...

One of my main hunting buddies has a Gunwerks 6.5prc that he bought 2 or 3 years ago - Gunwerks recommended the Mark 5HD to him when he bought the gun. He regularly dials and shoots out 600+

 

[JGRaider]

I think @JGRaider was talking about me. He likes to talk to me.

You're an easy target on this subject. Your thoughts on re-establishing zero (or refusing to in your case) after dropping and bashing your rifle enough to permanently scar it are here for all to see.

 

[JGRaider]

Irresponsible? Lol.

Like I said, I didn't have much rifle hunting experience up to that point - lots of plinking with a .22 and a deer and an elk when I was 13 y/o.

I'll give you a pass for poor reading comprehension...

Speaking of reading comprehension........I wasn't referring to you. I see the real irresponsible one as responded to you above.

 

[atmat]

Speaking of reading comprehension

Your thoughts on re-establishing zero (or refusing to in your case)

No one is advertising you should never have to check zero.

Second, I've never said I won't re-check zero

Lolz. Reading comprehension clearly exhibited, @JGRaider.

 

[Gravel Road]

What I can't comprehend is that people are still arguing about the scope tests. Holy hell, if you can't understand what these tests provide, just give it up.
After seeing the drop test video on the shooting pad in the snow, every scope should pass that test as it wasn't THAT tough. People act like they are getting thrown onto concrete.
Sure you could engineer jigs and impact procedures and test a large enough sample of the exact same scope model to get a proper statistical probability of failure but not many of us have a million dollars or so to conduct those tests. Forms tests seem pretty common sense to me and to keep bringing it up over and over and over is ridiculous. I'm pretty new here and it has already gotten old.

 

[BBob]

Too bad the Big Stick YouTube rifle hucking video has gone AWOL. It would fit right in with this wonky thread. If nothing else but for the entertainment

Edit: I was lame and couldn’t find them. They were found and posted below

 

[JGRaider]

What I can't comprehend is that people are still arguing about the scope tests. Holy hell, if you can't understand what these tests provide, just give it up.
After seeing the drop test video on the shooting pad in the snow, every scope should pass that test as it wasn't THAT tough. People act like they are getting thrown onto concrete.
Sure you could engineer jigs and impact procedures and test a large enough sample of the exact same scope model to get a proper statistical probability of failure but not many of us have a million dollars or so to conduct those tests. Forms tests seem pretty common sense to me and to keep bringing it up over and over and over is ridiculous. I'm pretty new here and it has already gotten old.

Then explain why 95%+ of scopes tested fail.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

Guys. I used to think that way too. That’s not really the point of the “drop tests”.

Form has never said “go drop your rifle hard and shoot at animals”. The idea is to simply create a delivery system that proves reliable in actual field use conditions. Part of that system is a scope/mounting solution that doesn’t have impact shifts under hard field use.

There’s not really much more to it in my mind. I used to not understand the “drop tests” and thought there was advocation for shooting at animals after significant impacts to the scope. That really isn’t happening.

When it comes to modern Leupold scopes, there isn’t a single model that on a large scale, is able to maintain zero impact shift in normal field use. Again, we all want them to succeed but they continue to fail unfortunately.

The drop tests are nothing more than a proven way to evaluate if scopes will stand up to actual field use over time. Anything else you “read into” them is on you. And just because your “favorite brand Leupold” never passes doesn’t negate the legitimacy.

What’s interesting is I was one of the biggest “haters”‘of the drop test early on. But then when I switched to mounting systems and scopes that “passed” the tests, I suddenly didn’t have wandering zeroes and missed varmints/predators due to minor impact shifts under field use. Or even just riding in the ATV or Jeep with no minor impacts at all (yes this does happen and I’ve seen it personally on at least 30+ scopes just in the last 3 years since I’ve started paying closer attention).

Swallow some pride and give the scopes that “pass” a try. That’s what I did, and it’s really cool when a rifle and scope get the call and it just shoots like it’s supposed to, every time, with no fuss.

 

[Gravel Road]

@JGRaider Nope, not getting sucked into stuff that's been discussed ad nauseam.

 

[fwafwow]

Lots of threads are Fudd traps. This is also a troll trap.