The New Leupold Mark 4HD?

[Team4LongGun]

Which model? I hope it's the 2.5-10x42

It is

 

[Jason Snyder]

Any estimate on a timeline?

 

[ID_Matt]

Sweet scope so far… scared to drop it. Maybe one of these days once competitions slow down.

 

[atmat]

The delay was I had to step away from the fray on this thread.....

Good question @atmat Leupold PROVIDED me this scope FOR the drop test, and a review after field use.

Drop it like it’s hot, and keep us updated!

 

[Gstew1930]

eagerly waiting on the drop tests

 

[6.5x284]

I’ve never wanted something to pass more! Love the idea of the 4.5-18 for an affordable and light NRL hunter scope and the 2.5-10 on a couple truck guns! But I’ve got a feeling Leupold pulled a Leupold.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TxLite]

Sweet scope so far… scared to drop it. Maybe one of these days once competitions slow down. View attachment 715123

Any updates? Have you thrown it on the ground yet?

 

[sickles107]

Sweet baby jesus, a non illuminated, capped windage, low zoom, simple mil reticle version too..

Too bad I have zero hope.. I'll keep bouncing brass off my fixed super chicken windage knobs

 

[ID_Matt]

Any updates? Have you thrown it on the ground yet?

I’ve shot it for two separate 2 day matches now and wasn’t terribly easy on it. I had to adjust my zero a tenth or 2 after 1 day but can’t say for certain that my system is totally bomb proof, nor that i had a perfect zero before the match started.

 

[TxLite]

I’ve shot it for two separate 2 day matches now and wasn’t terribly easy on it. I had to adjust my zero a tenth or 2 after 1 day but can’t say for certain that my system is totally bomb proof, nor that i had a perfect zero before the match started.

Fingers crossed it was just a slightly off initial zero and not a shift. I’m really hoping to see this scope succeed

 

[Tundrawalker]

Really wanting the 2.5-10 to be a winner as well.

When I bought my first Leupold it was in an era where scope fogging was a big concern. Anyone remember the ads with the scope in a tank of water and they proudly proclaimed no bubbles? That and good glass quality for the time period, generous eye relief, light weight and the reputation at the time had me buying several of their VX2, and VX3 models. They all still work great, and I use them to this day.

But the last scope I bought was a Trijicon Credo, fair or not there were questions in my mind about spending the same money on a scope I questioned vs one I had less doubts about. I would love to see more fair and consistent testing done on all scope models. I do not try and drop or abuse my scopes, but they all get used, in distant places, and where getting bounced around or taking a tumble on a hill is likely to happen.

It can get tricky to sort out actual risk of failure on the basis of anecdotal evidence. If one manufacture has a failure rate of 1%, but moves 100,000 scopes, vs a failure rate of 5% and 1,000 sold, then you will see a lot more horror stories of the former, even if they are actually more reliable. But in a test you have to wonder if they were unlucky and had one of the odd bad ones, or are you likely to see this performance from the one you buy as well.

Ideally we would see a large sample size, sourced from multiple vendors, and tested under controlled conditions so all scopes undergo the exact same test.

Until then, thanks to all for sharing your real world examples, or for those willing to risk a new purchase on more aggressive testing.

 

[rickyw]

I wonder what the holdup is? Usually scopes are tested relatively quick

 

[MidGAHunter]

It can get tricky to sort out actual risk of failure on the basis of anecdotal evidence. If one manufacture has a failure rate of 1%, but moves 100,000 scopes, vs a failure rate of 5% and 1,000 sold, then you will see a lot more horror stories of the former, even if they are actually more reliable. But in a test you have to wonder if they were unlucky and had one of the odd bad ones, or are you likely to see this performance from the one you buy as well.

A single scope that passes points to the potential for a good design. A single scope that fails tells us a lot more (based simply on probability and statistics). Multiple scopes of the same design that fail point to a very clear design flaw. It takes multiple to pass to point to true reliability, but a single pass is still noteworthy. Ideally, yes we would have 20 or more scopes of every make and model formally tested, but it doesn't take that many to know if there is a problem with the design.



Edit: Typo

 

[Mule3006Elk]

Where do you find the results of the other drop test? Thanks

I wonder what the holdup is? Usually scopes are tested relatively quick

Agree. I have it in my cart. Curious as to the result. I was looking at Vortex LHT but the drop test was a miserable fail.

 

[wapitibob]

I said I’d never buy another Leupold.


18” drops left top right then left top right.

 

[atmat]

I said I’d never buy another Leupold.
View attachment 726579

18” drops left top right then left top right.
View attachment 726580

Uh oh. Let’s see the 36”!

 

[6.5x284]

Uh oh. Let’s see the 36”!

36" or bust lol. Love when someone else is willing to drop their shit!

 

[TxLite]

I said I’d never buy another Leupold.
View attachment 726579

18” drops left top right then left top right.
View attachment 726580

Looks like it had a slight shift up?

 

[wapitibob]

Looks like it had a slight shift up?

That’s what I see.

 

[6.5x284]

Looks like it had a slight shift up?

I'm trying to decipher. The pre drop group wasn't the best baseline group. The drop made it tighter and way less vertically dispersed. Following with interest! I sure applaud the effort to give the people what they want lol.