The New Leupold Mark 4HD?

[roosiebull]

I think the arguments in this thread represent that most people want this scope, but some will not buy it because they don’t trust that it will hold up to normal use.

If this scope wasn’t very attractive to most of us, nobody would care

I really want the 2.5-10x, it’s literally the perfect scope for me, especially at the price point, but I will not be an early adopter. Almost every scope on the market is a compromise of some sort, including this one… the compromise with the mark 4 to me is uncertainty of reliability.

If I thought this scope would likely hold up long term to normal use, I would be all over it. I have only had one leupold that I didn’t have to rezero fairly often, and it was a fixed 4x and I only had it a couple years, but never had to rezero it…

Never had one really far from zero, but besides the one, none have been confidence inspiring, I just don’t want another one until they prove reliable

I currently need another scope fairly soon, and the mk4 2.5-10 would be absolutely ideal, but I don’t think I can do it. The reason there is so much arguing in this thread is because everyone wants one of these scopes but it feels like a trick

Many claim leupold doesn’t have a reliability issue, and leupold claims that they don’t have a reliability issue, which means they didn’t address that with this series of scopes, and it’s still going to be wildly popular, so why would they do anything different?

Form’s drop tests at least get people thinking and paying attention, and that’s a net benefit for everyone, even if everyone is arguing, at least they’re discussing it

 

[gbflyer]

That was awesome. I’d love to hear his take on this thread lol

He got himself kicked out of here I think, it’s kinda too bad that he’s always seeking reaction because he’s super knowledgeable when you cut through the BS. I don’t know him but I know he doesn’t live too far away. We SE Alaskans all get a little crazy, especially this time of year.

 

[PathFinder]

Knowing that your rifle system will maintain zero during normal use and handling is far, far, far more important than the drop test. Losing zero from getting thrown in a truck or bounced off a fencepost is pretty unacceptable. Losing zero because you dropped your rifle 24+" onto a hard surface is very different - it doesn't matter if "your" scope passed, or failed, the drop test - if you drop it, you can't trust it until you check zero. For this reason I trust the general acceptance of an optic within competitive shooting circles far more than I trust it based on it passing a drop test. If it won't stand up to general handling it doesn't see common use in series like PRS. But a lot of really excellent scopes get nixed due to failling the drop test. My contention there is that - if you have to confirm zero anyways - then it doesn't matter if it passed/failed the drop test, so long as it does stand up to general use.

I think you've made your two main points pretty well and clearly. They are as follows:

1. No rifle scope is reliable enough after a normal drop (we'll say 36" and less) to trust. No matter what rifle scope and mounts, it must be zero checked after such an impact.
2. Because of #1, it's silly to discount scopes that fail the drop test criteria.

I'd refute both points based on experience and analysis of data as follows:

1. Scopes can be tested to handle "field use impacts" just as they can be tested to handle recoil shot to shot, riding in a vehicle, etc. A statistically significant sample can be accumulated to demonstrate the scope's ability to handle normal use. This is a data driven approach, rather than relying on general opinions of quality. If a scope can't be trusted to handle "field use impacts" based on data from testing, it shouldn't be considered for field use. To say that no scope can handle a reasonable drop is is a somewhat paradoxical point for someone to make if they're trying to assert that all "quality" scopes are suitable for field use. Are scopes that can't be trusted after being tipped over on a bipod or back suitable for backcountry hunting?
2. This is an emotional argument. Analysis of suitable aiming devices should be unapologetically objective. True, there are lots of optics with a fantastic feature set (on paper) that get discounted because they fail to demonstrate an ability to deal with normal field use. It's truly unfortunate. The good news is that there are a growing number of scopes that do demonstrate the ability to deal with field use. I'm on the list of people who has high hopes for the new Mark 4. However, like every other setup I own, I won't trust one until it passes a drop test on my personal rifle.

As far as "general acceptance of an optic with competitive shooting circles" goes, I could care less. Only a completely objective, data driven demonstration of zero retention will convince me to trust a scope on a hunt.

 

[Formidilosus]

For this reason I trust the general acceptance of an optic within competitive shooting circles far more than I trust it based on it passing a drop test. If it won't stand up to general handling it doesn't see common use in series like PRS.

You mean the competitive shooting circles where every single match has a zeroing stage, zeroing range setup to check zero or rezero before the match begins? Or the competition that allows “sighter” shots before scoring?

then it doesn't matter if it passed/failed the drop test, so long as it does stand up to general use.

So what is “general use” for western backpack and backcountry hunting?

 

[Scottf270]

I find it odd anyone cares what someone else thinks. I'd use what I like and what suits me. I also don't understand defending Leupold to the death even if others are truly wrong. Are you trying to save the world. Let Leupold defend themselves.

I appreciate discussion and hearing others view points. I read them all and then make my decision what sits on my rifle. I take the drop tests for what they are. I appreciate the effort put into them. I think it does point to the strength or weakness of a scope.

If a brand or model fails it doesn't mean a scope is worthless for every application. It also doesn't mean a scope that passes is perfect. It does point to certain brands being more capable of taking unintended abuse and still being able to do their job.

In the end, it's not personal. Hell if your favorite brand is branded a failing scope, you can buy all u want at bargain prices in the classifieds!!

 

[Helislacker]

I find it odd anyone cares what someone else thinks. I'd use what I like and what suits me. I also don't understand defending Leupold to the death even if others are truly wrong. Are you trying to save the world. Let Leupold defend themselves.

I appreciate discussion and hearing others view points. I read them all and then make my decision what sits on my rifle. I take the drop tests for what they are. I appreciate the effort put into them. I think it does point to the strength or weakness of a scope.

If a brand or model fails it doesn't mean a scope is worthless for every application. It also doesn't mean a scope that passes is perfect. It does point to certain brands being more capable of taking unintended abuse and still being able to do their job.

In the end, it's not personal. Hell if your favorite brand is labled a failing scope, you can buy all u want at bargain prices in the classifieds!!

While I can appreciate the sentiment….why would you continue buying a product that fails at the role it’s intended to be used for?

I can understand if you don’t you don’t have the information and buy whatever your grandfather would use or what a gun magazine “review” recommended - I’ve been there and so have many others. But the fact that someone could come across and read the drop tests, believe they offer valuable insights into aiming device reliability and then continue on buying whatever their “favorite brand” is makes zero sense. It’s completely emotion based decision making and doesn’t benefit the buyer or market whatsoever. Now you’ve got an aiming device that can’t reliably be used to aim after minor impacts on top of a rifle that through even careful use will likely see minor impacts. Instead, the whole mess could have been avoided with a bit of insight that the results from the drop tests should override any emotional attachment to a specific optic or optic company.

If we all do this, maybe some of these “favorite brands” will start producing scopes that actually work.

 

[JGRaider]

While I can appreciate the sentiment….why would you continue buying a product that fails at the role it’s intended to be used for?

I can understand if you don’t you don’t have the information and buy whatever your grandfather would use or what a gun magazine “review” recommended - I’ve been there and so have many others. But the fact that someone could come across and read the drop tests, believe they offer valuable insights into aiming device reliability and then continue on buying whatever their “favorite brand” is makes zero sense. It’s completely emotional based decision making and doesn’t benefit the buyer or market whatsoever. Now you’ve got an aiming device that can’t reliably be used to aim after minor impacts on top of a rifle that through even careful use will likely see minor impacts. Instead, the whole mess could have been avoided with a bit of insight that the results from the drop tests should override any emotional attachment to a specific optic or optic company.

If we all do this, maybe some of these “favorite brands” will start producing scopes that actually work.

I have a 2-12x VX6 that sits atop a Tikka 695 7mag that I've taken at least 100 big game animals with and that many more hogs. Would you say it's reliable and actually works?

 

[UpSideDown]

I think you've made your two main points pretty well and clearly. They are as follows:

1. No rifle scope is reliable enough after a normal drop (we'll say 36" and less) to trust. No matter what rifle scope and mounts, it must be zero checked after such an impact.
2. Because of #1, it's silly to discount scopes that fail the drop test criteria.

I'd refute both points based on experience and analysis of data as follows:

1. Scopes can be tested to handle "field use impacts" just as they can be tested to handle recoil shot to shot, riding in a vehicle, etc. A statistically significant sample can be accumulated to demonstrate the scope's ability to handle normal use. This is a data driven approach, rather than relying on general opinions of quality. If a scope can't be trusted to handle "field use impacts" based on data from testing, it shouldn't be considered for field use. To say that no scope can handle a reasonable drop is is a somewhat paradoxical point for someone to make if they're trying to assert that all "quality" scopes are suitable for field use. Are scopes that can't be trusted after being tipped over on a bipod or back suitable for backcountry hunting?
2. This is an emotional argument. Analysis of suitable aiming devices should be unapologetically objective. True, there are lots of optics with a fantastic feature set (on paper) that get discounted because they fail to demonstrate an ability to deal with normal field use. It's truly unfortunate. The good news is that there are a growing number of scopes that do demonstrate the ability to deal with field use. I'm on the list of people who has high hopes for the new Mark 4. However, like every other setup I own, I won't trust one until it passes a drop test on my personal rifle.

As far as "general acceptance of an optic with competitive shooting circles" goes, I could care less. Only a completely objective, data driven demonstration of zero retention will convince me to trust a scope on a hunt.

I will try to clarify what I'm saying, my points should be stated as follows:

1. There is too much variability in a given complete rifle package to simply take the drop-testing of a different scope, apply it's success or failure to your own complete rifle package, and assume that your rifle package is or is not going to hold zero if you drop it.
2. It is beneficial to know that certain scopes generally handle the forces seen during normal hunting use and transport. A good degree of trust can be placed on this level of force, but the physics behind little bumps and bruises vs a 2'+ fall is very large. The movement of an action in a stock, scope rings, scope in rings, scope internals, cannot be assumed good on ones' own rifle because of the drop test on a different rifle

You mean the competitive shooting circles where every single match has a zeroing stage, zeroing range setup to check zero or rezero before the match begins? Or the competition that allows “sighter” shots before scoring?




So what is “general use” for western backpack and backcountry hunting?

Absolutely. That is absolutely what I mean. What hunter wouldn't take a free zero check just before he pulled the trigger if the opportunity was there? Comp guys are also constantly working on their guns and it's nice to be able to reassemble things and not need a separate range trip when the match itself is at a range where you can set/check zero.

General use vs a damaging event is the distincion I'm making, and those things should be somewhat clear to everyone. The physics of smacking a tree with your stock with rifle in hand is quite different from dropping a rifle 2-3' onto a rock.

 

[JGRaider]

Absolutely. That is absolutely what I mean. What hunter wouldn't take a free zero check just before he pulled the trigger if the opportunity was there? Comp guys are also constantly working on their guns and it's nice to be able to reassemble things and not need a separate range trip when the match itself is at a range where you can set/check zero.

Agreed, especially if they just dropped the freaking thing with the scope taking a direct hit from 3ft. David Freaking Tubb would do the same thing.

 

[Helislacker]

I have a 2-12x VX6 that sits atop a Tikka 695 7mag that I've taken at least 100 big game animals with and that many more hogs. Would you say it's reliable and actually works?

I don’t know. How often do you check zero or rezero it? What’s the average range you killed them at? Did you kill these out of a stand primarily? Or while backpack hunting?

Maybe you killed all 100 animals with it while backpacking and have dropped the rifle multiple times. If so, good for you and I’m glad it works. That said, it’s pretty well documented the VX6 generally has issues. That said, the exception is not the rule and there are outliers.

 

[JGRaider]

I don’t know. How often do you check zero or rezero it? What’s the average range you killed them at? Did you kill these out of a stand primarily? Or while backpack hunting?

Maybe you killed all 100 animals with it while backpacking and have dropped the rifle multiple times. If so, good for you and I’m glad it works. That said, it’s pretty well documented the VX6 generally has issues. That said, the exception is not the rule and there are outliers.

Or maybe the "issues" reported are the minority for this specific 2-12 VX6 model? I killed them in most every way imaginable......Trans Pecos mountain hunts, wheat fields, bouncing around in a Ranger and 4 wheeler, and from the truck. 60+ head in Africa, zero never moved in 6 trips over there.

So in light of this, you'd refuse to say that it's reliable and works?

 

[Formidilosus]

Absolutely. That is absolutely what I mean. What hunter wouldn't take a free zero check just before he pulled the trigger if the opportunity was there? Comp guys are also constantly working on their guns and it's nice to be able to reassemble things and not need a separate range trip when the match itself is at a range where you can set/check zero.

So your appeal to authority about function is based on competitions where they have to have rezero ranges setup, so people can check zero or rezero before that match starts?

This makes sense to you? Their equipment is so great that every single match we have to have a place where nearly everyone will go check zero, with a significant amount having to adjust their zero- and this is proof that their scopes work?

General use vs a damaging event is the distincion I'm making, and those things should be somewhat clear to everyone. The physics of smacking a tree with your stock with rifle in hand is quite different from dropping a rifle 2-3' onto a rock.

Again- what is “general use”? They aren’t clear because everyone’s definition varies.

 

[willfrye027]

I don’t think redneck bike rider dude has read beyond the first paragraph of the drop test procedure and definitely not the “why” behind it. Or if he has, he does not comprehend it. The same old merry go round is getting old.

I know this thread is about the all American leupy scopes and I hope for their sake they make a durable one this time around. I’m happy enough with my RS 1.2s (one of which I actually dropped, and the rifle system holds zero…) so I am not particularly interested beyond curiosity.

 

[UpSideDown]

So your appeal to authority about function is based on competitions where they have to have rezero ranges setup, so people can check zero or rezero before that match starts?

This makes sense to you? Their equipment is so great that every single match we have to have a place where nearly everyone will go check zero, with a significant amount having to adjust their zero- and this is proof that their scopes work?






Again- what is “general use”? They aren’t clear because everyone’s definition varies.

This isn't an appeal to authority, it's a conclusion based on aggregate experience - which is exactly why people care about the drop tests you do.

You are chastising guys who take the opportunity to adjust their zeros a few tenths of a mil, on a day with different environmentals than they're zeroed for, after spending probably an average of $1,000 per match, in a competitive sport, when they're given the free and easy chance to do so? Come on dude. If I could hit pause and check zero on my rifle before shooting a game animal I would; not because I feel that I couldn't take game without it, but because the cost:benefit ratio is incredibly supportive of doing so.


I don't think general use needs much explanation, but I already explained it and I'll say it again. There is a big difference when talking physics between little bumps against a rifle, and hard drops. This is an imperfect science so setting hard rules is, while potentially useful, arbitrary - which you understand and which is exactly why you guys did just that. You have different criteria for your drop tests. My point has been that drop tests are useful, but there seems to be a common misuse of them by putting excess faith in optics that pass, and too little faith in optics that fail certain portions.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

Or maybe the "issues" reported are the minority for this specific 2-12 VX6 model? I killed them in most every way imaginable......Trans Pecos mountain hunts, wheat fields, bouncing around in a Ranger and 4 wheeler, and from the truck. 60+ head in Africa, zero never moved in 6 trips over there.

So in light of this, you'd refuse to say that it's reliable and works?

Ah yes your mythical VX6 that never loses zero is here again… You’ve been asked in multiple threads, multiple times, to put up or shut up and you never do.

Send me this exact scope. I’ll properly mount it and take it on just one single off road trip in the jeep and shoot it. I won’t drop it. If it still holds zero after the jeep trip/ full day of shooting, I’ll send you $500 for your troubles.

Easiest $500 you’ve ever made right? I’ll PM you my ship to address.

 

[DangerRanger]

I like prs, I do not compete professionally, only for fun at club/regional matches.

I meet a lot of cool people that really enjoy shooting. I also hear a lot of shit that makes me not take them as quite the authority that people seem to want to.

Hornady has spoken about prs shooters being shocked at missing really small “zero” stages, they attribute some of that to group size. I also wonder how much is their zero not being perfect. Personally, I have seen multiple occasions of people mid match changing velocity to fix their dope not working etc. I’ve also watched people almost quit because of the rain/ babying rifles so much that they took off their coats to cover their action and scope. We even used mine as a barrier for the mud splash off the tent runoff for a defiance.

Idk, it’s just not the authority I thought it was years ago. Lot of good people having fun and trying to shoot better, but that doesn’t mean they have every answer.

Anyway, blah blah blah an acquaintance I know that ROs big matches and was on a shooting team until this year spoke about seeing lots of issues with mk5s which I thought to be funny after hearing so much about how much the prs shooters are proof they work

What I do know is my buddy dropped an Swfa 3-15 off the bleachers at mammoth and it held zero. Idk if that’s general use tho. My bushnell elite has not had issues.

 

[Formidilosus]

This isn't an appeal to authority, it's a conclusion based on aggregate experience - which is exactly why people care about the drop tests you do.

You are chastising guys who take the opportunity to adjust their zeros a few tenths of a mil, on a day with different environmentals than they're zeroed for, after spending probably an average of $1,000 per match, in a competitive sport, when they're given the free and easy chance to do so? Come on dude. If I could hit pause and check zero on my rifle before shooting a game animal I would; not because I feel that I couldn't take game without it, but because the cost:benefit ratio is incredibly supportive of doing so.

Why are their zeroing shifting? That’s the point- rifles don’t just magically lose zero sitting still. Also, apparently magically, when I check zero- my zeros don’t shift.

don't think general use needs much explanation, but I already explained it and I'll say it again. There is a big difference when talking physics between little bumps against a rifle, and hard drops. This is an imperfect science so setting hard rules is, while potentially useful, arbitrary - which you understand and which is exactly why you guys did just that. You have different criteria for your drop tests. My point has been that drop tests are useful, but there seems to be a common misuse of them by putting excess faith in optics that pass, and too little faith in optics that fail certain portions.

You mean like riding in a truck on a padded seat and multiple instances of zero shifts, normal? Hmmm. Also my likes there’s a correlation to between certain scopes that shift zero from truck rides, and certain scopes that lose zero going to a match.

 

[JGRaider]

If I thought I had anything to prove to you I may be interested, but since I don't, I'll keep doing what I do and I sure don't need your money. In the meantime you can continue to whine about my scopes getting the job done. And as far as "shutting up", what are you gonna do if I don't?

 

[5811]

If I thought I had anything to prove to you I may be interested, but since I don't, I'll keep doing what I do and I sure don't need your money. In the meantime you can continue to whine about my scopes getting the job done. And as far as "shutting up", what are you gonna do if I don't?

Come on now, think this through. If you have any faith in your gear holding up to riding around on a seat, you'd send it.

Collect your 500, use that towards purchasing a new Mk 4, and just post a picture of it any time these debates come up!

 

[Fartrell Cluggins]

But you can’t. People are still defending Leupold when they often lose zero from jostling in a vehicle — which is insane.

That’s a big part of why people, myself included, defend drop tests.

Often?