So, what about Leupold Mark 5 ?

TheMammoth

Online Training Member
Feb 14, 2017
232
136
43
If that Bushnell rebate applied to the Elite Tactical lineup
Theres a thread in the optics section that is saying Bushnell will honor the rebate on the tactical scopes because the original release of the rebate didn't exclude them. Might be worth a try if you're looking to pick one up.
 
Dec 10, 2017
38
23
8
36
WY
If that Bushnell rebate applied to the Elite Tactical lineup i think Bushnell would have a hard time restocking their items i know i'd be tempted. I've seen the XRS II in person albeit brief and it's very nice. I was just making sure that you weren't comparing the those two rather than the Gen I XRS. I will say that's a bit disappointing to hear. The ERS/XRS DMRII/HDMRII are workhorses they work plain and simple. However i had hoped the short Mark 5 would retain most of it's big brother's characteristics as far as glass quality was concerned. Is what it is though.

Yup with the Mark 5 out i don't see a reason to get the Mark 6 at least going on the impressions of the mark 5 thus far, seems they've remedied the Mark 6.

I'm heading to Laurel this weekend for a 600yd F-class match, buddy has a 5-25 ATACR plan to put it side to side against the MK5, i'd consider it more apples to apples with the mark 5 than the SN-3 comparison.
Did they change the rebate eligibility? I swear last time I looked Elite Tactical wasn’t excluded. I see now that it is (but the fine print at the bottom of the rebate form still doesn’t mention the ET line). EDIT: just saw TheMammoth’s post, so I guess I’m not crazy after all, hahaha.

I’m not really disappointed that the shorter, lighter scope isn’t quite as good optically as the larger, heavier one... I wasn’t expecting any miracles. And it is very bright and clear, and it does have a ridiculously easy eyebox to get in, so that definitely counts for something. I look forward to hearing how the big Mark 5 compares to the ATACR!
 

Renomd

Full Member
Feb 13, 2017
1,929
168
63
If that Bushnell rebate applied to the Elite Tactical lineup i think Bushnell would have a hard time restocking their items i know i'd be tempted. I've seen the XRS II in person albeit brief and it's very nice. I was just making sure that you weren't comparing the those two rather than the Gen I XRS. I will say that's a bit disappointing to hear. The ERS/XRS DMRII/HDMRII are workhorses they work plain and simple. However i had hoped the short Mark 5 would retain most of it's big brother's characteristics as far as glass quality was concerned. Is what it is though.

Yup with the Mark 5 out i don't see a reason to get the Mark 6 at least going on the impressions of the mark 5 thus far, seems they've remedied the Mark 6.

I'm heading to Laurel this weekend for a 600yd F-class match, buddy has a 5-25 ATACR plan to put it side to side against the MK5, i'd consider it more apples to apples with the mark 5 than the SN-3 comparison.
The Leupold rep I talked to on the phone said the glass is “exactly the same” on the Mark 5hd, newer mark 8s and that vxhd model (not sure which one that was).
 
Likes: 5RWill

Renomd

Full Member
Feb 13, 2017
1,929
168
63
Did they change the rebate eligibility? I swear last time I looked Elite Tactical wasn’t excluded. I see now that it is (but the fine print at the bottom of the rebate form still doesn’t mention the ET line). EDIT: just saw TheMammoth’s post, so I guess I’m not crazy after all, hahaha.

I’m not really disappointed that the shorter, lighter scope isn’t quite as good optically as the larger, heavier one... I wasn’t expecting any miracles. And it is very bright and clear, and it does have a ridiculously easy eyebox to get in, so that definitely counts for something. I look forward to hearing how the big Mark 5 compares to the ATACR!
I can give my impressions as I currently own both the Mark 5hd 5-25 and atacr 5-25 f1 both with the tremor reticle. I’ll tell you hands down the nightforce still wins, and I’m not a nightforce fan boy... i have no loyalty to any scope company. But it’s a closer call than I would have thought.

Fit and finish, nightforce has a slightly better scope coating.

My evaluation of turrets is spot on with everyone else. The elevation turret has more wiggle than the nightforce; but, I actually like the clicks on the Leupold you’ll have to use it to know what I’m talking about but they are ultra crisp. There is no mush.

The windage marking on the Mark 5 is odd, I’m not quite sure why they thought that was a good idea. They should have at least extended the windage indicator marking to the actual turret then it would be a good idea. But I can see why they couldn’t Bc of the threads for the windage cap.

Eye box: for sure nightforce wins, there’s not even a contest

Edge to edge Clarity: I feel are the same

Chromatic abberation: little to none for both scopes

Image clarity, contrast, color and brightness: the atacr 5-25 is brighter I feel it is notable but not by a huge margin let’s say compared to a vortex viper pst vs an atacr which the atacr blows it out of the water. This comparison is close for brightness; but, I feel most will agree. Color appears to be the same. Contrast is slightly sharper on the nightforce. Clarity I feel at the low and middle mag ranges are the same but as you max out at 23-25x the atacr maintains its clarity where there is ever so slight darkening and loss in contrast on the Mark 5hd but it’s not bad. As a comparison the atacr 7-35 did this starting at 31x power too.

Another notable difference is the FoV, at a given mag the fov was obviously larger on the atacr. Also at a given mag more (a lot more) of the tremor reticle is seen on the atacr. Not sure why this is the case I’m no optics engineer or physicist.

Overall for the price point of the Mark 5hd I would happily run it in competitions over other high end scopes (I’ve sold my minox and all my Schmidt and benders on this forum... I didn’t want to mess them up in tactical competitions). The Mark 5hd 5-25 about $1k less than the atacr tremor 3. The mark5hd 5-25 tremor 3 can be obtained for $1950...the atacr tremor 3 5-25 can not be obtained for anywhere near that price from a distributor or retailer. Would I give up my nightforce... probably not.
 

5RWill

Optics Fiend
Oct 15, 2009
4,403
563
113
27
Mississippi
I forgot to add it does indeed darken just a tad towards 25x can't remember where it starts.

I think Gen II razor is an applicable category for the Mk5. I for some reason thought the 5-25 ATACR with the Mil-R was $2500 did NF raise everything to $3000?

The Leupold rep I talked to on the phone said the glass is “exactly the same” on the Mark 5hd, newer mark 8s and that vxhd model (not sure which one that was).
I heard the same, also talked to one that explained the situation of the Mark 6, that it was rushed and the Mark 5HD is what the Mark 6 should've been.
 

Renomd

Full Member
Feb 13, 2017
1,929
168
63
I forgot to add it does indeed darken just a tad towards 25x can't remember where it starts.

I think Gen II razor is an applicable category for the Mk5. I for some reason thought the 5-25 ATACR with the Mil-R was $2500 did NF raise everything to $3000?



I heard the same, also talked to one that explained the situation of the Mark 6, that it was rushed and the Mark 5HD is what the Mark 6 should've been.
Oh I should have specified this is the F1 atacr model. Unfortunately they are quite expensive MAP for the tremor 3 is $3395

https://www.milehighshooting.com/ni...1-zerostop-1-mil-radian-digillum-ptl-tremor3/

Some distributors will sell them for $150 under MAP
 
Feb 14, 2017
942
133
43
DC Area, MD
I figured that much i was just going to say that the ATACR was the only $2500 optic that i haven't remotely been behind. Once for like 10min but then upon checking i didn't realize that they're $3000.
I thought they were less expensive as well. $3000 for a 7-25x F1? Yeah, I'll get a Schmidt for less.
 

5RWill

Optics Fiend
Oct 15, 2009
4,403
563
113
27
Mississippi
I thought they were less expensive as well. $3000 for a 7-25x F1? Yeah, I'll get a Schmidt for less.
Yeah i just googled could've sworn the Mil-R or MOAR was $2500 maybe a little more than the Mil-C but they're all $3000 and $3300 for the horus derivatives. NF makes a great scope of that i have no doubt it's much like Kahles though for me personally for that amount i'm looking to S&B, TT, and ZCO. I guess NF just went up.

I'm still probably leaning toward putting the MK5 up after this Laurel match. Not really disappointed with the optic other than my picky complaints on the turrets, i just wanted an AMG and probably should've gotten it from the get go.
 
Feb 14, 2017
942
133
43
DC Area, MD
I'm still probably leaning toward putting the MK5 up after this Laurel match. Not really disappointed with the optic other than my picky complaints on the turrets, i just wanted an AMG and probably should've gotten it from the get go.
Having owned several AMGs, you will not be disappointed.
Praying for a 3-18 AMG some day!
When Vortex comes out with a mid-range AMG, I will replace my ATACR 4-16x F1 with it because I trust the AMG will be optically/mechanically solid and feature a good reticle without a $300 Horus upcharge.
 

TheMammoth

Online Training Member
Feb 14, 2017
232
136
43
Having owned several AMGs, you will not be disappointed.

When Vortex comes out with a mid-range AMG, I will replace my ATACR 4-16x F1 with it because I know the AMG will be optically/mechanically solid and feature a good reticle without a $300 Horus upcharge.
I currently have three of the 4-16 ATACR and I would most likely replace at least one of them, the one with the MIL-R reticle, possibly all three if I could unload the ATACR at some kind of reasonable price.
 

Subwrx300

Sergeant of the Hide
Jan 15, 2014
696
317
63
Cedar Springs, MI
I currently have three of the 4-16 ATACR and I would most likely replace at least one of them, the one with the MIL-R reticle, possibly all three if I could unload the ATACR at some kind of reasonable price.
Having owned several AMGs, you will not be disappointed.

When Vortex comes out with a mid-range AMG, I will replace my ATACR 4-16x F1 with it because I trust the AMG will be optically/mechanically solid and feature a good reticle without a $300 Horus upcharge.
@TheOE800 @TheMammoth I'm curious about this: is this because of something you don't like about the ATACR 4-16 or something you would like more about the hypothetical AMG in a similar range? Just wondering.
 
Feb 14, 2017
942
133
43
DC Area, MD
@TheOE800 @TheMammoth I'm curious about this: is this because of something you don't like about the ATACR 4-16 or something you would like more about the hypothetical AMG in a similar range? Just wondering.
Superior zeroing system, equally good or better warranty, likely less expensive, product portfolio features usable no-upcharge reticles. Hopefully, if such an optic should exist in the AMG line it would also be lighter. The ATACR makes me miss my NXS as far as weight goes.
 

TheMammoth

Online Training Member
Feb 14, 2017
232
136
43
@TheOE800 @TheMammoth I'm curious about this: is this because of something you don't like about the ATACR 4-16 or something you would like more about the hypothetical AMG in a similar range? Just wondering.
Superior zeroing system, equally good or better warranty, likely less expensive, product portfolio features usable no-upcharge reticles. Hopefully, if such an optic should exist in the AMG line it would also be lighter. The ATACR makes me miss my NXS as far as weight goes.
TheOE800 pretty much nailed it here. The AMG turrets are the best of all the optics I have had *in my opinion*, and the weight should be a lot less. In all reality, there's NOTHING to not like about the 4-16 ATACR and I really like mine, I am just a junky for the new hotness like a lot of optics nerds.

EDIT: Like really, the 4-16 is really a quality unit as long as the way the magnification rotation doesn't bother please don't let me discourage you from buying.
 

5RWill

Optics Fiend
Oct 15, 2009
4,403
563
113
27
Mississippi
Alright we'll today was basically a make or break day for the MK5 in my eyes at least. It was my first F-class match so tracking was imperative and it was to go head to head against the 5-25x56 ATACR. I'm happy to report i'm continually impressed and might be going back on my word as far as putting it up for sale, for now anyway. I'm going to shoot at Providence at the end of March and likely run another F-class match next month as i enjoyed it today with the electronic targets. Shot 526 for my first outing with a rear bag and atlas. Really love the electronic system and it's a great way to confirm load data. Load gave me a SD of 6 last 8 shots i ran through it and it appeared that it's solid.
I think it's safe to say someone at Leupold gathered some attention to the tarnished reputation of the Mark 6's tracking and i'm satisfied to say i think that's gone. Given the tracking test we've seen here and the results today it's spot on. Ballistic AE called for 9.3 mils for my load and i dialed to 9.3 and was on target. I did have to come down 3/10ths after the mirage cleared but that's normal or so they tell me. I'm very inexperienced at shooting past 800yds and the mirage was terrible at first.

Scored 176, 177, and 173. Only got pics of the last two.

IMG_2553.JPG
IMG_2555.JPG

Starting with the turrets again, they're growing on me. I've got them lined up perfect and despite the lack of the resistance from click to click they're louder than most i've been around, including the NF, and tactile enough. It's like that's leupold's counter to them being a little "soft" click to click so to speak. The NF i would describe as having better turrets despite my growing affection for the Mark 5. So in F-class you apparently dial for wind, which is news to me. Here we go with the wonky windage hash..You know i've been giving them hell for that hash but i was laughing because for me it actually worked :ROFLMAO: From behind the gun slightly picking my head up it's clear how they intend for the shooter to use the windage. It works using it as intended and when you try to use it as a traditional windage knob is when you're left scratching your head. It's not the most precise windage hash, but if we're being honest no windage hash on the scope body is. The angle is always a bit weird less the hash is on the turret body in which case you'll have to shift more to see it. Windage clicks are much more firm than the elevation and if the elevation felt like that i'd have zero complaints about it.

On to the glass...again. Alright so the mirage sort of made it rather difficult comparing the two. That and i couldn't find anything of serious detail that could deliberately separate them. At first i was looking at an outhouse with a white screen door i'm guessing based on the parallax setting 600yds or so away. Here we run into the same faint CA issue i had before. One minute i'm looking at some minor CA on a white, sun lit screen door. I switched to the ATACR, which has none as aspected, then went back to the mark 5 and it's gone. Also found myself uncomfortable today behind it at points. Evidently i've got to keep moving the cheek weld up as it's just not there yet. The eyebox as i've already mentioned is somewhat tight at 25x. It's not detrimental, just rather tight. I'd describe it as similar to a ERS/XRS. The NF in this regard was phenomenal, reminded me of my USO on 17x, just extremely comfortable to be behind. As it's to note it's on a friends rifle, setup for him, and i had no problem jumping behind it.

Parallax goes to NF, hands down it was reminiscent of my SN-3 you could leave it at a mid setting and look all around without inducing much parallax.

Next was resolution. Lacking rather detailed objects of small font to try and compare the two i moved to the American flag on the pole to the left of the 1000yd targets, i'm guessing it was 800yds away. It was really hard to tell the difference between them at least in this setting. Edge to edge clarity in both is superb. The image size on the NF is larger. Note i'm not specifying FOV as i have no metric to measure this. I don't really know the terminology for it but the NF again felt very reminiscent of my SN-3 it's like the eyepiece is just huge where the Leupold feels like you're looking through a smaller tube. I guess it's just the literal size of the rear ocular lens. I didn't adjust the diopter on either. I'll also note that i loathe the NF's rotating eyepiece. For the love of God some of us are left eye dominant and use scope caps to cover our dominant eye so we can shoot both eyes open. Literally serves no purpose other than an annoyance as far as i'm concerned.

Next is color/contrast this is where i think NF takes the cake, it's beautiful. It's contrast is superior to the Mark 5 bar none. The easy way to describe it for me is a calibrated versus an uncalibrated TN panel. It's not that drastic for those of you who are thinking how horrid TN panels are out of the box without the proper ICC profiles or calibration with a colorimeter. These pictures would be how i describe it but again not that drastic. Granted i realize that the picture below is not an uncalibrated TN vs a calibrated TN. My point is to illustrate the differences i'm seeing with my eyes to you all, which turns out is inherently difficult without seriously nice cameras to properly capture the IQ of the optics. What it basically translates to though, is deeper blacks and truer color.





Lastly i looked at cows off to the right and couldn't tell much difference between the two at all. Maybe a slight edge to the NF, though Idk it was very close on the last look through. I was hoping i'd find some small letters that could really discern a resolution difference between the two.

All in all yes the NF is the superior optic probably both mechanically and optically. Though to get the NF in the config i'm running (H59) it's literally $1000 more and the same for the non-illum TMR versus the Mil-R. I'm not comparing Illum vs Illum because in that regard Leupold is overpriced IMO but the obvious point is that there is an option which allows you to acquire a mark 5 at 2/3rds the cost of an ATACR. I also consider it rather unnecessary for what most of us are doing less you're running clip on NV or are LEO. Is it a $1000 difference? I don't personally think so but that's a choice that only you can make. I also have heard Leupold has a reticle that was just approved and have to say if they have something like the Mil-C or think a TMR with a center dot and .2-mil hashes and there is no premium for it, i think they'll sell like crazy. Another nod to NF, I really liked the Mil-C reticle. I still prefer a tree, i always will, but the Mil-C is noticeably thinner than both reticles in my optics i run and i appreciated that.

As i said before i can't speak for the 3.6-18, but the 5-25 is an amazing value for the discounted prices going around right now. If they can field a base model at $1999 with a proper reticle be it something reminiscent of the Mil-C or SKMR it would IMHO only be bested by DMR II pro for the money, assuming the DMR II Pro pans out and is $1599.

IMG_2557.JPG
IMG_2559.JPG
 
Last edited:
Dec 10, 2017
38
23
8
36
WY
Alright we'll today was basically a make or break day for the MK5 in my eyes at least. I'm happy to report i'm continually impressed and might be going back on my word as far as putting it up for sale, for now anyway. I'm going to shoot at Providence at the end of March and likely run another F-class match next month as i enjoyed it today with the electronic targets. Shot 526 for my first outing with a rear bag and atlas. Really love the electronic system and it's a great way to confirm load data. Load gave me a SD of 6 last 8 shots i ran through it and it appeared that it's solid.
I think it's safe to say someone at Leupold gathered some attention to the tarnished reputation of the Mark 6's tracking and i'm satisfied to say i think that's gone. Given the tracking test we've seen here and the results today it's spot on. Ballistic AE called for 9.3 mils for my load and i dialed to 9.3 and was spot on. I did have to come down 3/10ths after the mirage cleared but that's normal or so they tell me. I'm very inexperienced at shooting past 800yds and the mirage was terrible at first.

Scored 176, 177, and 173. Only got pics of the last two.

View attachment 6882624
View attachment 6882625

Starting with the knobs again, they're growing on me. I've got it lined up perfect and despite the lack of the resistance from click to click they're louder than most i've been around, including the NF, and tactile enough. It's like that's leupold's counter to them being a little "soft" click to click so to speak. The NF i would describe as having better turrets despite my growing affection for the Mark 5. So in F-class you apparently dial for wind, which is news to me. Here we go with the wonky windage hash..You know i've been giving them hell for that hash but i was laughing because for me it actually worked :ROFLMAO: From behind the gun slightly picking my head up it's clear how they intend for the shooter to use the windage. It works using it as intended and when you try to use it as a traditional windage knob is when you're left scratching your head. It's not the most precise windage hash, but if we're being honest no windage hash on the scope body is. The angle is always a bit weird less the hash is on the turret body in which case you'll have to shift more to see it. Windage clicks are much more firm than the elevation and if the elevation felt like that i'd have zero complaints about it.

On to the glass...again. Alright so the mirage sort of made it rather difficult comparing the two. That and i couldn't find anything of serious detail that could deliberately separate them. At first i was looking at an outhouse with a white screen door i'm guessing based on the parallax setting 600yds or so away. Here we run into the same faint CA issue i had before. One minute i'm looking at some minor CA on a white, sun lit screen door. I switched to the ATACR, which has none as aspected, then went back to the mark 5 and it's gone. Also found myself uncomfortable today behind it at points. Evidently i've got to keep moving the cheek weld up as it's just not there yet. This is probably the biggest draw back. The eyebox as i've already mentioned is somewhat tight at 25x. It's not detrimental, just rather tight. I'd describe it as similar to a ERS/XRS. The NF in this regard was phenomenal, reminded me of my USO on 17x, just extremely comfortable to be behind. As it's to note it's on a friends rifle, setup for him, and i had no problem jumping behind it.

Parallax goes to NF, hands down it was reminiscent of my SN-3 you could leave it at a mid setting and look all around without inducing much parallax.

Next was resolution. Lacking rather detailed objects of small font to try and compare the two i moved to the American flag on the pole i'm guessing 800yds straight out to the left and in front of the 1000yd line. It was really hard to tell the difference between them at least in this setting. Edge to edge clarity in both is superb. The image size on the NF is larger. Note i'm not specifying FOV as i have no metric to measure this. I don't really know the terminology for it but the NF again felt very reminiscent of my SN-3 it's like the eyepiece is just huge where the Leupold feels like you're looking through a smaller tube. I guess it's just the literal size of the rear ocular lens. I don't have the terminology or knowledge to reliably articulate what i'm describing but i'm sure some of you can reminisce. I didn't adjust the diopter on either. I'll also note that i loathe the NF's rotating eyepiece. For the love of God some of us are left eye dominant and use scope caps to cover our dominant eye so we can shoot both eyes open. Literally serves no purpose other than an annoyance as far as i'm concerned.

Next is color/contrast this is where i think NF takes the cake, it's beautiful. It's contrast is superior to the Mark 5 hands down. The easy way to describe it for me is a calibrated versus an uncalibrated TN panel. It's not that drastic for those of you who are thinking how horrid TN panels are out of the box without the proper ICC profiles or calibration with a colorimeter. This picture is how i would describe it but again not that drastic. Granted i realize that the picture below is not an uncalibrated TN vs a calibrated TN. My point is to illustrate the differences i'm seeing with my eyes to you all, which turns out is inherently difficult without seriously nice cameras to properly capture the IQ of the optics. What it basically translates to though, is deeper blacks and truer color.



Lastly i looked at cows off to the right and couldn't tell much difference between the two at all. Maybe a slight edge to the NF, though Idk it was very close on the last look through. I was hoping i'd find some small letters that could really discern a resolution difference between the two.

All in all yes the NF is the superior optic probably both mechanically and optically. Though to get the NF in the conifg i'm running (H59) it's literally $1000 more and the same for the non-illum TMR versus the Mil-R. I'm not comparing Illum vs Illum because in that regard Leupold is overpriced but the obvious point is that there is an option which allows you to acquire a mark 5 at 2/3rds the cost of an ATACR. I also consider it rather unnecessary for what most of us are doing less you're running clip on NV or are LEO. Is it a $1000 difference? I don't personally think so but that's a choice that only you can make. I also have heard Leupold has a reticle that was just approved and have to say if they have something like the Mil-C or think a TMR with a center dot and .2-mil hashes and there is no premium for it, i think they'll sell like crazy. Another nod to NF really liked the Mil-C reticle. I still prefer a tree, i always will but the Mil-C is noticeably thinner than both reticles in my optics i run and i appreciated that.

As i said before i can't speak for the 3.6-18, but the 5-25 is an amazing value for the discounted prices going around right now. If they can field a base model at $1999 with a proper reticle be it something reminiscent of the Mil-C or SKMR3 it would IMHO only be bested by DMR II pro for the money, assuming the DMR II Pro pans out and is $1599.

View attachment 6882622
View attachment 6882623
Great write up! I think any time you compare ED glass (ATACR) with non ED (Mark 5) you’re going to find the non ED slightly lacking in comparison, particularly in regards to CA but also in color/contrast, but it sounds like the glass and optical formula here keep the difference minimal and tolerable, especially for the price difference. I find that I don’t enjoy looking through the Mark 5 as much as I do the XRS (even though neither are ED) due to FOV and optical quality, but I do find it much easier to shoot with due to eyebox and reticle, and so far I seem to shoot better with it, which I’d say is always the bottom line with a riflescope.
 

5RWill

Optics Fiend
Oct 15, 2009
4,403
563
113
27
Mississippi
I compared it to my cousin's DMR II today and it wasn't much of a comparison honestly. DMR II was just like my HDMR II; CA issues, haziness around the edges, and lower resolution than the Mark 5, albeit it still good. We also both seemed to notice a white hue of the image through his DMR II something i hadn't noticed with my HDMR II.

Saw a little more CA today than usual at times though again was still working on the cheek rest. Think i finally got it down pat. CA seems to be more rampant during overcast on this scope, which is odd to me as i'm used to being prevalent during bright days with vibrant targets. Though it's very faint and during the sunlight it's non existent most of the time. Snapped some reticle pics that i was impressed with for the phone. Waiting on phone Skope to release the new prism based scope of theirs.

Had some visitors in front of the 800yd IPSC today...unfortunately they're not in season :(

IMG_2574.JPG
IMG_2576.JPG
 

wjm308

Send it!
Nov 30, 2012
2,082
870
113
Black Forest, CO
I compared it to my cousin's DMR II today and it wasn't much of a comparison honestly. DMR II was just like my HDMR II; CA issues, haziness around the edges, and lower resolution than the Mark 5, albeit it still good. We also both seemed to notice a white hue of the image through his DMR II something i hadn't noticed with my HDMR II.

Saw a little more CA today than usual at times though again was still working on the cheek rest. Think i finally got it down pat. CA seems to be more rampant during overcast on this scope, which is odd to me as i'm used to being prevalent during bright days with vibrant targets. Though it's very faint and during the sunlight it's non existent most of the time. Snapped some reticle pics that i was impressed with for the phone. Waiting on phone Skope to release the new prism based scope of theirs.

Had some visitors in front of the 800yd IPSC today...unfortunately they're not in season :(

View attachment 6882963
View attachment 6882965
Excellent review Will, I felt you were very thorough and fair which many will certainly appreciate. It really helped me ascertain the quality of this scope without having to drop $2k to find out, if glass is that important to you, then the ATACR F1 5-25 is going to be better, but for some may not even be noticeable. I also appreciate the above comparison to the DMR II, since that was a scope I used last year it is fresh in my memory and it was pretty impressive for the price, was hoping the Leupold would be better in IQ and it definitely sounds like it is. That is odd that the Leupy seems to lose CA in bright light and suffer from it more on overcast days, I wonder if it is the bandwidth the fringing color is in almost gets washed out in bright light? Regarding illumination, if you could stay out til 20 minutes or so past sunset and then put your crosshairs back there in the thick stuff where that dear might be hiding, that is when you might appreciate illumination. Some also prefer to use it at daytime but I haven't found many long range scopes that have good enough daylight illumination, but I have been in some situations where illumination can help even in some daytime lighting.

Love the pics of the deer, looks like it's looking right at you and saying "I wonder if that's a Leupold on his rifle..." :D
 
Likes: 5RWill

5RWill

Optics Fiend
Oct 15, 2009
4,403
563
113
27
Mississippi
Excellent review Will, I felt you were very thorough and fair which many will certainly appreciate. It really helped me ascertain the quality of this scope without having to drop $2k to find out, if glass is that important to you, then the ATACR F1 5-25 is going to be better, but for some may not even be noticeable. I also appreciate the above comparison to the DMR II, since that was a scope I used last year it is fresh in my memory and it was pretty impressive for the price, was hoping the Leupold would be better in IQ and it definitely sounds like it is. That is odd that the Leupy seems to lose CA in bright light and suffer from it more on overcast days, I wonder if it is the bandwidth the fringing color is in almost gets washed out in bright light? Regarding illumination, if you could stay out til 20 minutes or so past sunset and then put your crosshairs back there in the thick stuff where that dear might be hiding, that is when you might appreciate illumination. Some also prefer to use it at daytime but I haven't found many long range scopes that have good enough daylight illumination, but I have been in some situations where illumination can help even in some daytime lighting.

Love the pics of the deer, looks like it's looking right at you and saying "I wonder if that's a Leupold on his rifle..." :D
Thank's Bill i appreciate it. I forgot to start off by saying i was comparing it to the ATACR, been going back and editing to try and make it more coherent with some structure rather than me just rambling.

The CA has me puzzled it's just unlike any optic i've been behind. In most optics that i have experience with it's either prevalent or not. Never really been behind one that borders on none to having a little. I've been shooting every day since i got home. Mainly to figure out what the hell is going on with my match rifle. Long story short carbon rings and 4166 losing some velocity is the answer. But yeah sunny and clear today little to no CA while behind the rifle in bright sunshine on my targets behind the shop. I had a little on the 500yd target but i found if i dug down a little more with the cheek weld it went away. Was trying to reassess edge to edge clarity as well and it's superb. I thought to myself i had only been looking at edge to edge clarity with reference to centering the object i was looking at and looking from edge to edge to see the drop in detail, if any there was. This time i went from center of the reticle on a target and then moved that target to the edge of the FOV and it remained excellent.

Having some small variance with my cheekweld depending on pressure. It's so high with this optic that it blocks me from taking my bolt out of the gun. Well i've been disassembling and cleaning the gun quite frequently lately just so i can chrono a couple of rounds before the carbon ring builds back up. I'm going to officially get rid of it tomorrow with some CLR and a brush.

I honestly question the DMR II's QC sometimes. The review you did seemed like it was a complete upgrade to the original. The pics looked phenomenal that you posted, granted i know a picture can't denote IQ to 100%, you have to see it but still. The two i've been behind thus far had me scratching my head. My HDMR II had notable upgrades from the ERS it replaced; resolution and low light performance. Edge to edge clarity and CA control was pretty poor however. Low light performance was a huge improvement over the previous gen as both you and I experienced the issues that plagued the original. I was thinking maybe that was just my model. Then i got behind the DMR II and much of the same. I don't guess it really matters with the DMR II pro on the way, less they don't drop the DMR II price and price the Pro between it and the XRS II.

As to our visitors. If she were in season i'd be posting the terminal ballistics of the 130gr hybrid lol
 
Last edited:

wjm308

Send it!
Nov 30, 2012
2,082
870
113
Black Forest, CO
Thank's Bill i appreciate it. I forgot to start off by saying i was comparing it to the ATACR, been going back and editing to try and make it more coherent with some structure rather than me just rambling.

The CA has me puzzled it's just unlike any optic i've been behind. In most optics that i have experience with it's either prevalent or not. Never really been behind one that borders on none to having a little. I've been shooting every day since i got home. Mainly to figure out what the hell is going on with my match rifle. Long story short carbon rings and 4166 losing some velocity is the answer. But yeah sunny and clear today little to no CA while behind the rifle in bright sunshine on my targets behind the shop. I had a little on the 500yd target but i found if i dug down a little more with the cheek weld it went away. Was trying to reassess edge to edge clarity as well and it's superb. I thought to myself i had only been looking at edge to edge clarity with reference to centering the object i was looking at and looking from edge to edge to see the drop in detail, if any there was. This time i went from center of the reticle on a target and then moved that target to the edge of the FOV and it remained excellent.

Having some small variance with my cheekweld depending on pressure. It's so high with this optic that it blocks me from taking my bolt out of the gun. Well i've been disassembling and cleaning the gun quite frequently lately just so i can chrono a couple of rounds before the carbon ring builds back up. I'm going to officially get rid of it tomorrow with some CLR and a brush.

I honestly question the DMR II's QC sometimes. The review you did seemed like it was a complete upgrade to the original. The pics looked phenomenal that you posted, granted i know a picture can't denote IQ to 100%, you have to see it but still. The two i've been behind thus far had me scratching my head. My HDMR II had notable upgrades from the ERS it replaced; resolution and low light performance. Edge to edge clarity and CA control was pretty poor however. Low light performance was a huge improvement over the previous gen as both you and I experienced the issues that plagued the original. I was thinking maybe that was just my model. Then i got behind the DMR II and much of the same. I don't guess it really matters with the DMR II pro on the way, less they don't drop the DMR II price and price the Pro between it and the XRS II.

As to our visitors. If she were in season i'd be posting the terminal ballistics of the 130gr hybrid lol
Was it an ATACR or ATACR F1, not sure if it matters too much, but some might like to know if it is the newer F1 you were comparing to. I wish Leupold would have revealed this new mystery reticle when they announced the Mark 5, the TMR is lacking in design and functionality, but it is simple and some might prefer that.
Thank's Bill i appreciate it. I forgot to start off by saying i was comparing it to the ATACR, been going back and editing to try and make it more coherent with some structure rather than me just rambling.

The CA has me puzzled it's just unlike any optic i've been behind. In most optics that i have experience with it's either prevalent or not. Never really been behind one that borders on none to having a little. I've been shooting every day since i got home. Mainly to figure out what the hell is going on with my match rifle. Long story short carbon rings and 4166 losing some velocity is the answer. But yeah sunny and clear today little to no CA while behind the rifle in bright sunshine on my targets behind the shop. I had a little on the 500yd target but i found if i dug down a little more with the cheek weld it went away. Was trying to reassess edge to edge clarity as well and it's superb. I thought to myself i had only been looking at edge to edge clarity with reference to centering the object i was looking at and looking from edge to edge to see the drop in detail, if any there was. This time i went from center of the reticle on a target and then moved that target to the edge of the FOV and it remained excellent.

Having some small variance with my cheekweld depending on pressure. It's so high with this optic that it blocks me from taking my bolt out of the gun. Well i've been disassembling and cleaning the gun quite frequently lately just so i can chrono a couple of rounds before the carbon ring builds back up. I'm going to officially get rid of it tomorrow with some CLR and a brush.

I honestly question the DMR II's QC sometimes. The review you did seemed like it was a complete upgrade to the original. The pics looked phenomenal that you posted, granted i know a picture can't denote IQ to 100%, you have to see it but still. The two i've been behind thus far had me scratching my head. My HDMR II had notable upgrades from the ERS it replaced; resolution and low light performance. Edge to edge clarity and CA control was pretty poor however. Low light performance was a huge improvement over the previous gen as both you and I experienced the issues that plagued the original. I was thinking maybe that was just my model. Then i got behind the DMR II and much of the same. I don't guess it really matters with the DMR II pro on the way, less they don't drop the DMR II price and price the Pro between it and the XRS II.

As to our visitors. If she were in season i'd be posting the terminal ballistics of the 130gr hybrid lol
Thanks for the info on edge to edge clarity, sounds like the Mark 5 is a great scope for the price.

I’m beginning to wonder about all manufacturers QC, you get love it and hate it comments for just about every scope out there. Some say scope X has horrible CA problems while others say they never see it. Some say resolution beats Y and others say it doesn’t come close. This is why I decided long ago that if I’m really interested I need to test the scope myself and allow my eyes to make the decision.

I think this is partially why Frank and others will often say, pick the reticle you like and trust the rest is going to work when you get into the $2k and up category.

I am very close to pulling the trigger on a Mark 5 3.6-18x44, but I’m not in a rush and am curious if we’ll see a TMR II anytime soon. I’m also trying to convince myself to get a Tremor 3 just to play even though I’m not a Horus fan. It’s hard for me to let new glass sit out there without taking a peek, part of my addiction :)
 

5RWill

Optics Fiend
Oct 15, 2009
4,403
563
113
27
Mississippi
Was it an ATACR or ATACR F1, not sure if it matters too much, but some might like to know if it is the newer F1 you were comparing to. I wish Leupold would have revealed this new mystery reticle when they announced the Mark 5, the TMR is lacking in design and functionality, but it is simple and some might prefer that.
It was the F1 and a fairly new one considering it had the Mil C. I'm still curious about the new reticle. It can make or break an optic. I know glass is a highly sought out feature behind reliability, almost equally important is reticle selection. NF in that regard much like Leupold are lacking IMHO. The Mil-C is a much need improvement over the Mil-R but both lack a simplistic tree reticle free of charge for choosing their scope.

I think it's likely to be something like an improved TMR or a floating dot reticle with 2/10th mil hashes. Seems to me they already have their Tree reticle with the CCH, albeit busy as hell much like the H59, it will turn some people away.
Thanks for the info on edge to edge clarity, sounds like the Mark 5 is a great scope for the price.

I’m beginning to wonder about all manufacturers QC, you get love it and hate it comments for just about every scope out there. Some say scope X has horrible CA problems while others say they never see it. Some say resolution beats Y and others say it doesn’t come close. This is why I decided long ago that if I’m really interested I need to test the scope myself and allow my eyes to make the decision.

I think this is partially why Frank and others will often say, pick the reticle you like and trust the rest is going to work when you get into the $2k and up category.

I am very close to pulling the trigger on a Mark 5 3.6-18x44, but I’m not in a rush and am curious if we’ll see a TMR II anytime soon. I’m also trying to convince myself to get a Tremor 3 just to play even though I’m not a Horus fan. It’s hard for me to let new glass sit out there without taking a peek, part of my addiction :)
No problem (y)

I'm starting to think that's the catch for most scope manufacturers that are producing optics on a mass scale. I hate to pick on Bushnell here but it's the only brand i have lots of experience with having owned three of their high end optics and recently looked through another. My LRHS to my memory did not have a white hue or haze to it's image, clicks were both tactile/audible, and there was no blurry ring surrounding the edge. Yet both the HDMR II and DMR II i got behind, were for lack of a better word a downgrade compared to it.

Well if that's the case i'd hope you catch a sell soon. I can't help but ascertain there are variances scope to scope at this point. Not to discredit disconnect, but when he told us that his XRS actually had better glass. I was pretty shocked. I've been behind three or so XRS and owned an ERS for quite some time, plus the HDMR II and LRHS as noted. Thus far i don't even consider them remotely comparable in glass quality. The main positives were obviously the eyebox issue has been fixed and that was probably my biggest worry being a previous owner of a MK6.

I've been contemplating an optic for my SPR rig i plan to convert to .224v and i don't see any manufacturer for the money offering anywhere near the Mark 5's value. Even if the scope is 90% of what my 5-25 is finding a decent price shouldn't be that hard and again i have to comend Leupold on their weight reduction. It's the quintessential AR scope on paper.

As to your reticle dilemma. Hopefully we don't have to wait much longer. Though that could be wishful thinking, despite the CCH's announcement i haven't seen a single one in the wild. No pics, can't find subtension information, and no report from anyone i know using a MK5. Though maybe i'm wrong and we get something akin to the SKMR or a TMR II with the floating dot and 2/10th mil hashes. I'll be all over a 3.6-18 if that's the case.
 

koshkin

Dark Lord Of Optics
Feb 22, 2006
1,608
962
113
Los Angeles
www.opticsthoughts.com
A couple of comments: there is more than one type of CA that can present in the scope: lateral and longitudinal largely coming from the objective, radially symmetric CA that I've seen coming from the erector system and a few other oddball artefacts here and there.

The first two will show up differently depending on where your eye is with respect to the scope and they can also show up a bit differently if your eye pupil is different size (for example if it is a little dilated due to overcast conditions).

As far as DMR II goes, I have little experience with it, but I looked at the original DMR and HDMR scopes a fair bit and they had veyr significant sample to sample variation.

ILya
 
Dec 10, 2017
38
23
8
36
WY
It was the F1 and a fairly new one considering it had the Mil C. I'm still curious about the new reticle. It can make or break an optic. I know glass is a highly sought out feature behind reliability, almost equally important is reticle selection. NF in that regard much like Leupold are lacking IMHO. The Mil-C is a much need improvement over the Mil-R but both lack a simplistic tree reticle free of charge for choosing their scope.

I think it's likely to be something like an improved TMR or a floating dot reticle with 2/10th mil hashes. Seems to me they already have their Tree reticle with the CCH, albeit busy as hell much like the H59, it will turn some people away.


No problem (y)

I'm starting to think that's the catch for most scope manufacturers that are producing optics on a mass scale. I hate to pick on Bushnell here but it's the only brand i have lots of experience with having owned three of their high end optics and recently looked through another. My LRHS to my memory did not have a white hue or haze to it's image, clicks were both tactile/audible, and there was no blurry ring surrounding the edge. Yet both the HDMR II and DMR II i got behind, were for lack of a better word a downgrade compared to it.

Well if that's the case i'd hope you catch a sell soon. I can't help but ascertain there are variances scope to scope at this point. Not to discredit disconnect, but when he told us that his XRS actually had better glass. I was pretty shocked. I've been behind three or so XRS and owned an ERS for quite some time, plus the HDMR II and LRHS as noted. Thus far i don't even consider them remotely comparable in glass quality. The main positives were obviously the eyebox issue has been fixed and that was probably my biggest worry being a previous owner of a MK6.

I've been contemplating an optic for my SPR rig i plan to convert to .224v and i don't see any manufacturer for the money offering anywhere near the Mark 5's value. Even if the scope is 90% of what my 5-25 is finding a decent price shouldn't be that hard and again i have to comend Leupold on their weight reduction. It's the quintessential AR scope on paper.

As to your reticle dilemma. Hopefully we don't have to wait much longer. Though that could be wishful thinking, despite the CCH's announcement i haven't seen a single one in the wild. No pics, can't find subtension information, and no report from anyone i know using a MK5. Though maybe i'm wrong and we get something akin to the SKMR or a TMR II with the floating dot and 2/10th mil hashes. I'll be all over a 3.6-18 if that's the case.
I would chalk it up at least partially to sample variance, I think. I probably have a particularly good example of Gen 1 XRS, but keep in mind that I was comparing the scopes at 18x. When I crank the XRS up to 30, CA is very pronounced and the image darkens considerably and loses contrast (the white haze you’re talking about). But at 18x, it’s pretty good.

Also, I’m comparing it to the ridiculously short Mark 5 which bends the light much more aggressively than the 5-25x, so my scope getting more CA than yours isn’t too surprising. I think for an ultra short like the 18x, ED glass would be a huge improvement, while it might not be necessary for less aggressive optical formulas. I know my Mark 6 1-6x has a pretty minor amount of CA at 6x if I’m off center in the scope, but that flickery illumination keeps me centered, and CA is not an issue. And the glass in that scope is probably inferior to the Mark 5 glass. So I’m thinking optical formula plays as much a role as sample variance and inherent glass quality in any artifacts that can be seen.
 
Jul 24, 2017
16
0
1
Some great info in this thread. I recently purchased the 3.6-18 version, for an SPR build I'm working on. Should be a great scope with its versatility and weight on an AR. I'm starting to look for a mount, preferably cantilever, and am realizing my options are a bit limited. I love the SPHUR cantilever i had on my Nightforce, but was disappointed to see they don't make it for a 35mm tube. Anybody currently using a mount they like with these new Mark5's. Thanks!
 
Dec 10, 2017
38
23
8
36
WY
Some great info in this thread. I recently purchased the 3.6-18 version, for an SPR build I'm working on. Should be a great scope with its versatility and weight on an AR. I'm starting to look for a mount, preferably cantilever, and am realizing my options are a bit limited. I love the SPHUR cantilever i had on my Nightforce, but was disappointed to see they don't make it for a 35mm tube. Anybody currently using a mount they like with these new Mark5's. Thanks!
I’m using a 20 MOA LaRue LT745 in 35mm on a 308 AR and 2 5.56 ARs with that scope and have no issues (so far) holding zero, binding, or returning to zero. It has a pretty long cantilever and wide enough ring spacing that you can get a level adjacent to the turret housing between the rings if you want (or lots of room to adjust scope placement if you don’t). I think you should have no issues using a vertical split ring mount on a minimally recoiling small frame AR, provided you torque everything properly in the correct order.
 
Jul 24, 2017
16
0
1
I’m using a 20 MOA LaRue LT745 in 35mm on a 308 AR and 2 5.56 ARs with that scope and have no issues (so far) holding zero, binding, or returning to zero. It has a pretty long cantilever and wide enough ring spacing that you can get a level adjacent to the turret housing between the rings if you want (or lots of room to adjust scope placement if you don’t). I think you should have no issues using a vertical split ring mount on a minimally recoiling small frame AR, provided you torque everything properly in the correct order.
Thank you sir, I'll take a look at the Larue stuff. Thanks again!
 
Dec 10, 2017
38
23
8
36
WY
Thank you sir, I'll take a look at the Larue stuff. Thanks again!
No problem! If the reported pitfalls of vertical split rings don’t sit well with you, I’ve heard nothing but good stuff about the Aadmount (20 MOA cantilevered with integrated illuminated bubble level, available in 35mm), and Leupold will soon have a 35mm version of the Mark 6 IMS. There could be other options, but those are the ones I know of.
 

Robby0931

Sergeant of the Hide
Jan 26, 2013
54
9
8
Yuma, AZ
Spuhr does have 35mm mounts with built in MOA and bubble level, see SP-5601 and SP-5602.

American Rifle Company also has the M10 QD-L in 35mm with built in MOA and bubble level.

Others noted above.
 

koshkin

Dark Lord Of Optics
Feb 22, 2006
1,608
962
113
Los Angeles
www.opticsthoughts.com
There's gotta be a pile of folks interested in your initial impressions. Don't be stingy 😂
You do realize that now that you said that I will stall and pretend to be a virgin on prom night, right?

On a more serious note: the scope site on my 6.5Grendel AR where I think it makes a great fit. It zeroed without any issues and has stayed zeroed so far. I only used the windage turret while zeroing, but I exercised the elevation turret a bit and it works like it is supposed to. I will do more tests.

Optics look pretty good, especially considering how short the scope is. I thin this may become the "go to" scope for accurate gas guns.

Mine has the H59 reticle which I do not like, but I called David Tubb and he has he's got some of his DTR reticles for it. That combination will absolutely rock.

ILya
 

5RWill

Optics Fiend
Oct 15, 2009
4,403
563
113
27
Mississippi
Interested to hear your thoughts on the 3.6-18 ILya. I've been contemplating one for an SPR build myself for sometime now but idk if i'll be able to swing it this summer.
 
Feb 27, 2017
105
27
28
Are there any internal differences between the Mark 5 and the VX5 line? The 3-15 looks solid to me, don't need the illumination, and the weight seems more manageable for hunting. Lower price doesn't hurt either!
 

koshkin

Dark Lord Of Optics
Feb 22, 2006
1,608
962
113
Los Angeles
www.opticsthoughts.com
Are there any internal differences between the Mark 5 and the VX5 line? The 3-15 looks solid to me, don't need the illumination, and the weight seems more manageable for hunting. Lower price doesn't hurt either!
These are entirely different designs. VX-5HD is SFP and optical system is very different. Mark 5 is FFP.

Mark 5 is also about an inch and a half shorter, although heavier.

ILya
 
Jan 15, 2005
6,645
1,174
113
VA
Mine showed up this morning. Initial thought, best thing I've ever seen some out of Leupold. The turrets are great, they feel very nice, are very audible, almost no slop and no mushiness. Glass is crisp edge to edge and the eyebox is very forgiving. Mine is the Tremor 3 version and even on 3.6x I can easily see the crosshairs, all the main grid lines, and the 4th wind dot is very pronounced. If I really concentrate I can see the other wind dots on 3.6x. At 5x the smaller wind dots become very pronounced and easy to quickly to pick up, and at 7x you can concentrate and get .2mil hash marks with them becoming very visible at 8x. At 18x the reticle still isn't too thick.

I can only find one complaint right out of the gate and that's the indexing mark for the windage turret. The location of it and distance from the knob (doesn't run right up to the turret like most) knob is awkward and it's hard to tell exactly which mark its on. This isn't much of an issue for me as I'll zero it and forget it, but it's still a little annoying and goofy. Whoever decided that was a good idea should rethink things.

From initial impressions I have no doubts that this optic will fulfill the role that I bought it for flawlessly (DMR rifle). Shooting and tracking feedback will be coming shortly.

 

wjm308

Send it!
Nov 30, 2012
2,082
870
113
Black Forest, CO
^^^ Nice redneck! Can you do me a favor, I cannot find the spec anywhere for the parallax, how close can this scope focus, I am very close to pulling the trigger on the same, a 3.6-18x44 with Tremor 3 and your explanation of reticle at all the mags helps because sometimes these rets are too thin at the small end and too thick at the high, but sounds like Leupold got this one right.
 
Jan 15, 2005
6,645
1,174
113
VA
^^^ Nice redneck! Can you do me a favor, I cannot find the spec anywhere for the parallax, how close can this scope focus, I am very close to pulling the trigger on the same, a 3.6-18x44 with Tremor 3 and your explanation of reticle at all the mags helps because sometimes these rets are too thin at the small end and too thick at the high, but sounds like Leupold got this one right.
The knob is only marked down to 75 yards but spins lower than that. I didn’t go too in depth today with close parallax but at about 15 yards I got a crisp reticle and image on 5x-ish. The Optic wasn’t mounted up at this point so I couldn’t tell you if parallax was present or not. I’ve got it mounted up now and will check it out.
 
Jan 15, 2005
6,645
1,174
113
VA
Does that Spuhr mount have any built in elevation? I have a 0 MOA mount with a 5-20 Razor at the moment.
This one doesn’t but they make them with built in cant. I got a flat one because it has plenty of travel so it’s not needed and so I won’t run into issues running it with NV clip ons.
 

5RWill

Optics Fiend
Oct 15, 2009
4,403
563
113
27
Mississippi
@5RWill, what made you decide to sell the MK5?
Looked through a Schmidt this weekend lol, albeit briefly, add to the fact there is one in the Px for $2399 i couldn't resist, if i can flip it, great. I also still just long for better turrets. That's truthfully my only serious gripe. Admittedly it's picky. For the price everything else is there, arguably impossible to beat given the features. Just wanting L-tec turret like feel or better. I had a couple guys at the match ask me how i liked the Mark 5 this weekend. My friend who owns the ATACR i compared it to turned around immediately and told them "don't ask him that's one picky sob." :ROFLMAO:

The other thought in the back of my head despite that Schmidt being H59 is that i might want something cleaner for hunting. Which has me going back to the AMG if it does sale. I was also a bit slow on a boat stage this weekend running the H59 using holdovers, that's lack of practice though. I just truthfully don't have time to shoot and that window is slowly closing for the foreseeable future. I have 3 months of summer starting in may and once Dental school starts it's unlikely i'll shoot a match next year at all, especially if we stick with the year around schedule instead of getting another summer off.

Still interested in hearing ILya and Redneck's further evaluation of the 3.6-18 though.
 
Last edited: