The New Leupold Mark 4HD?

[roosiebull]

Yeah I was meaning Swaro binos and spotters optically perform well below their current price point.

I wish that were true. I agree when you get to a certain performance point that small improvements cost a lot more, it’s not a fluid value for performance. Find me some binos that perform like NL but priced like vortex, I would prefer light and robust too. You do that, and I will show you some badass pack unicorns.

 

[Timberline001]

I wish that were true. I agree when you get to a certain performance point that small improvements cost a lot more, it’s not a fluid value for performance. Find me some binos that perform like NL but priced like vortex, I would prefer light and robust too. You do that, and I will show you some badass pack unicorns.

Exactly. I feel like once you get past that $1000 price point give or take you’re paying increasingly more for marginal improvements. I use all maven glas right now because the improvement to ELs or pures arnt worth not being able to buy other things. I sure as hell will have Pures when I have everything else I need/want

 

[cottonant]

While I won't argue that some leupolds may work plenty good, and the general user will probably never notice any issues, I don't think use in PRS competition is a good indicator for durability. Meaning I don't think you can compare a 20 lb 6mm that is babied and zero checked before every competition, or even better carried around in a cart, to a 7lb high recoiling hunting rig that bounces around in an ATV. The other extremely popular scope in PRS is the vortex razors, think that is because they are so durable?

"a 20 lb 6mm that is babied and zero checked before every competition, or even better carried around in a cart,"

BWAHAHAHAHAHA - LMAO

 

[nobody]

I wish that were true. I agree when you get to a certain performance point that small improvements cost a lot more, it’s not a fluid value for performance. Find me some binos that perform like NL but priced like vortex, I would prefer light and robust too. You do that, and I will show you some badass pack unicorns.

It was just meant to be illustrative of my point, not literal. The point was that everyone defends their purchase, right or wrong, because we have lots tied up in our purchases and it affects our ability to be objective when things like this thread about Leupolds happen. Sorry for the confusion and thread derailment.

 

[roosiebull]

It was just meant to be illustrative of my point, not literal. The point was that everyone defends their purchase, right or wrong, because we have lots tied up in our purchases and it affects our ability to be objective when things like this thread about Leupolds happen. Sorry for the confusion and thread derailment.

For sure, like when someone is in the market asking what’s the best “******” and everyone answers with whatever they have.

If something is expensive and sucks, the owner of such products will still claim greatness.

I gauge products by “am I still casually shopping for this even though I have it”? If I’m still researching the competition, I probably don’t have the best.

It’s human nature I assume.

 

[hal0ofwint3r]

well i can claim i bought a 4.5-18 pr2 moa mk4hd, with mrad turrets. yes, moa reticle, with mrad turrets. had to test it at 25yds. 16 clicks and it moved two inches. and reticle is really canted. like really bad. sent it back, they said since i just bought it, they'd put it in the front of the repair/replace warranty line. it's been more than a week. not counting on their word for "front of the line". probably get it back in two months.

 

[wapitispokes]

Here’s what doesn’t make sense to me. If you look at comparable scopes, the Mark 4 doesn’t seem to lack in features or quality of glass compared to the Mark 5. However, if you compare models with similar magnification and reticles the difference in price is significant.

Mark 4HD 4.5-18x52

Mark 4HD 4.5-18x52 M5C3 Side Focus FFP Illum. PR1-MIL

Ready your rifles with a versatile Mark 4HD. We took the legendary performance of its predecessors and gave it a slimmer maintube that’s been packed full of professional-grade features. Whether you’re a dedicated enthusiast or a seasoned expert, the Mark 4HD’s optical clarity and lightweight...

www.leupold.com

Mark 5HD 3.6-18x44

Mark 5HD 3.6-18x44 M5C3 FFP Illum. PR1-MIL

Pick up a Mark 5HD™ 3.6-18x44mm and you'll feel the difference. It's up to 20 ounces lighter than other riflescopes in its class, giving you an advantage in the field or at the range. The versatile 3.6-18x magnification range helps you engage close targets, while also giving you the flexibility...

www.leupold.com

Both have an Illuminated PR1-Mil reticle. What makes the Mark 5hd $900 better?

A late reply, but I will repeat what the Leupold Rep at the Hillsboro Hunt Expo told me in response to my question about price, build, function and quality differences between the 5HD and 4HD a few weeks ago (March 2025):

The Mark 4HD is a newer design that was not limited by the military specs that the 5HD was built around. However, the "rear half" of the two scopes are identical (or nearly so) and share the same components. The rep explained that the ability to use prior RD & Parts in the rear half of the scope enabled them to cut the price. I have no idea what the sales volume assumptions are/were for the Military contract and non-military sales of the 5HD vs. the 4HD, so it is difficult to back check the argument. As a retired finance executive, I lean towards calling "BS" on the pricing rationale. I suspect that it is just as likely that Leupold felt they needed to hit a lower price point on the FHD in order to justify the price point for the 5HD.

Many (all?) of the 4HD scopes have a longer front bell which was not an option under the military contract specs. The longer front bell enables some advantages in terms of internal angles that result in a better viewing experience that is easier on the eye, among other things. Who knows, maybe it also uses fewer lens elements and that helps keep the price down.

One rep said he favors the 4HD for competition because it is easier on his eyes the other rep who also shoots competition and I believe is ex-military said he prefers the 5HD (In both cases we were discussing lower magnification versions for hunting in mixed conditions) and his primary reason was that when shooting competition he values the lower "Low End" magnification and wider field of view at the low end over the slightly better viewing experience of the 4HD.

Lastly, the Rep (all the Reps in the booth) insisted that there was absolutely no difference in reliability between any of the 4, 5, or 6 HD scopes. I think I asked if there was anything different in the construction that would suggest that there might be a future reliability difference. If I did ask that question they said "NO".

Next, I asked if they were aware of the Rockslide / Form "drop" test and all the "blowback" Leupold was getting from Rockslide members as a result of that. The answer was "Yes" and "we are reaching out to them to discuss...". I asked how do they justify their argument of reliability given the Rockslide drop test. They answered with the standard Leupold response which focused on their internal testing protocols (which might not relate at all to falling on a scree slope, or dropping your rifle on a rock, etc.)

This particular rep has been with Leupold a long time, I think he is a regional level manager, he shoots competitions in the PNW and from time to time takes turns doing the "test shooting" of scopes that have come back to Leupold due to owners reporting issues, such as failure to hold zero. He seemed honest, sincere and believable. Both guys at the booth shoot competition and sometimes take turns doing scope warranty trouble shooting. They both claimed that scopes that are returned for issues with RTZ or similar almost never fail the Leupold tests. So infrequently that it is a big deal and a surprise when they do. They did not give specific frequency but the impression was that it was at least days of testing "suspect scopes returned for warranty" between finding an actual bad scope. The implication is that most scopes suspected of having an issue actually have an "attachment" problem or an operator problem.

 

[Balderdash]

They both claimed that scopes that are returned for issues with RTZ or similar almost never fail the Leupold tests. So infrequently that it is a big deal and a surprise when they do.

Objectively - what else would you expect them to say in that type of situation?

You should've asked if either of them were involved in the 24 HCF live cast debacle that went down some years back. A bigger clown shown I've not witnessed.

Not dismissing or downplaying any of the valuable scope testing work thats been done here or anywhere else; however, I don't distrust Leupolds because I read or heard about them failing; I've experienced it first hand with several scopes.

As far as the issues being user error and or "attachment issues" - even if/when true, it still doesn't make me warm and fuzzy about Leupolds to know that other scope brands have less Issues when attached in the exact same way, which was my experience.

 

[wapitispokes]

Objectively - what else would you expect them to say in that type of situation?

You should've asked if either of them were involved in the 24 HCF live cast debacle that went down some years back. A bigger clown shown I've not witnessed.

Not dismissing or downplaying any of the valuable scope testing work thats been done here or anywhere else; however, I don't distrust Leupolds because I read or heard about them failing; I've experienced it first hand with several scopes.

As far as the issues being user error and or "attachment issues" - even if/when true, it still doesn't make me warm and fuzzy about Leupolds to know that other scopes brands have less Issues when attached in the exact same way, which was my exact experience.

I agree and understand what you say.

Perhaps the more useful and "objectively reliable" part of their comments from the Leupold staff had to do with the similarities (I think they said "identical") construction of the back half of the Mark 4HD and Mark 5HD and their rationale for the pricing of the 4HD vs 5HD (even though I do not completely buy it). It is reasonable to anticipate that they cannot say anything acknowledging poor performance when dropped at odd angles.

Also, they really did seem like "good guys". Yes, I know they have that job partly for that reason. OTH, I spent 30 years working in institutional relationship management and I can usually spot phonies and in this case hey seemed like sincere, good and honest guys. Which is not to say that they explicitly denied a drop test problem. It IS to say that they may have been well trained in what to say and how to pivot.
(Psychotic phonies are undetectable though - neither I nor anyone else can spot those...).

 

[wapitispokes]

Objectively - what else would you expect them to say in that type of situation?

You should've asked if either of them were involved in the 24 HCF live cast debacle that went down some years back. A bigger clown shown I've not witnessed.

Not dismissing or downplaying any of the valuable scope testing work thats been done here or anywhere else; however, I don't distrust Leupolds because I read or heard about them failing; I've experienced it first hand with several scopes.

As far as the issues being user error and or "attachment issues" - even if/when true, it still doesn't make me warm and fuzzy about Leupolds to know that other scopes brands have less Issues when attached in the exact same way, which was my exact experience.

Objectively - what else would you expect them to say in that type of situation?

You should've asked if either of them were involved in the 24 HCF live cast debacle that went down some years back. A bigger clown shown I've not witnessed.

Not dismissing or downplaying any of the valuable scope testing work thats been done here or anywhere else; however, I don't distrust Leupolds because I read or heard about them failing; I've experienced it first hand with several scopes.

As far as the issues being user error and or "attachment issues" - even if/when true, it still doesn't make me warm and fuzzy about Leupolds to know that other scopes brands have less Issues when attached in the exact same way, which was my exact experience.

I should have asked...I'm not familiar with the "24 Hour Campfire Clown Show". Is there I way I can view it? Or read a transcript?

 

[Balderdash]

I should have asked...I'm not familiar with the "24 Hour Campfire Clown Show". Is there I way I can view it? Or read a transcript?

Not that I'm aware of at this time. I tried finding a video of it a couple of years ago and it was no longer playable on 24 HCF. IIRC, the thread is still around if you do some searching, and the comments can still be read. Hopefully someone who's a little more tech savvy than me can help. I know it's a different forum, but it was widely watched and discussed at the time.

The Cliff's Notes version of it is basically what the fellers you met told you: We (Leupold) don't have a problem. Everything we make and test meets our internal spec. If you have a problem with one of our products, the issue is completely on you - either you suck as a shooter, and or whoever mounted your scope sucks.

Now, I don't doubt that a lot of the issues they see involve user error. I see a lot of things when visiting my local range that leave me shaking my head, and more than a few of these instances have involved folks trying to make sense of why their CDS dial is so far off and or inconsistent. In most cases it is user error by a long shot. I just figure that Leupold ought to know by now who they are marketing these things to, and, by extension, must figure that the fleas just come with having dogs, so to speak.