So, what about Leupold Mark 5 ?

5RWill

Optics Fiend
Oct 15, 2009
4,135
391
83
27
Mississippi
They're definitely flimsy but it's better than nothing. Though i do wonder why a scope of that price doesn't warrant the aluminum covers that the VX6HD lineup receives.
 

wjm308

Send it!
Nov 30, 2012
1,793
641
113
Black Forest, CO
Why do I spend time here. I haven’t even had time to mount my most recent 5-20 ultra short and now I’m thinking I have to have a Mark5.
Don't, I've had the 5-20 Ultra Short and it is an awesome scope, I now have the 3-20 Ultra Short and think I like the 5-20 better, don't get me wrong, the 3-20 is amazing but there was something special about the 5-20 and with its huge FOV it acts more like a scope that has greater than 4x magnification. The glass is better in the Schmidt vs. the Leupold Mark 5, but then again for a scope that costs more than 2x as much one would hope to see that. If you don't need illumination and are okay with the reticle choices I think the Leupold 3.6-18x44 represents the best value to date in an ultra short design and its turrets are really growing on me. It exhibits more CA than I hoped it would but about on par for this price range, the only exception would be the Vortex AMG, at $2400 it exhibits amazing resolution and minimal CA (almost unnoticeable); if Vortex were to make an AMG 4.5-18 or 5-20 that was a shorty and the price was around $2k I would be all over that! But wishing a scope existed doesn't get me anywhere so the Mark 5 3.6-18x44 is easily the best scope in its class - the shortest, lightest, cheapest scope in the 18-20x top end magnification range. Also, for turret purists, the Mark 5HD has my favorite feeling turrets to date, keep in mind I am not bothered by most turrets and find I can easily dial my elevation given enough time behind the unit, but the clicks on the Mark 5 have a very distinct click with a sharp sound to it and I like the spacing and resistance between clicks.
 
Likes: mrobles3808

wjm308

Send it!
Nov 30, 2012
1,793
641
113
Black Forest, CO
They're definitely flimsy but it's better than nothing. Though i do wonder why a scope of that price doesn't warrant the alumina covers that the VX6HD lineup receives.
I agree with Will, better than nothing or lame bikini caps for sure. They are plain plastic and my only gripe about them is that they will not lay flat once opened, they stay at a canted 45 degree angle or so. A nice little design touch is the rear cap is almost flush with the ocular housing and completely protects the diopter adjustment, it gives it almost a built in look to it.
 
Jan 15, 2005
6,018
748
113
VA
None of the plastic caps are exactly precision made pieces, but they're more than serviceable. I've opened and closed mine hundreds of times and caught them on stuff and they're still as good as new. They stay shut when you close them and open when you open them.
 
Nov 16, 2013
8
0
1
I know the turrets have 30 Mils of elevation adjustment but what is the total internal elevation? I just bought a 3.6-18x44 tremor 3 and ordered a 20moa mount. Will 20 MOA be enough for a 6.5 Creedmoor?
 
Nov 16, 2013
8
0
1
I’ll have it mounted on a 16” 6.5 Creedmoor Aero M5 gas build. Depending on load I think I should be supersonic out to @ 1200 yards or so. So 1000 to 1200 yards would be fine.
 
Aug 7, 2014
789
71
28
Gillette, WY
I know the turrets have 30 Mils of elevation adjustment but what is the total internal elevation? I just bought a 3.6-18x44 tremor 3 and ordered a 20moa mount. Will 20 MOA be enough for a 6.5 Creedmoor?
You may have worded the question wrong, the total internal elevation is 29.1 mils. So if you mounted the scope with a 0 moa base and everything held true, you would have 14.6 up and 14.6 down. Now a 20 moa base should give you 5.5 mils more on the upside. Let's just say you lose a mil in the noise of mounting and zeroing, theoretically you should have over 18 mils up, just an estimate. I'm positive this will take you way past subsonic range of any bullet you use.
 
Likes: Bender
Nov 16, 2013
8
0
1
You may have worded the question wrong, the total internal elevation is 29.1 mils. So if you mounted the scope with a 0 moa base and everything held true, you would have 14.6 up and 14.6 down. Now a 20 moa base should give you 5.5 mils more on the upside. Let's just say you lose a mil in the noise of mounting and zeroing, theoretically you should have over 18 mils up, just an estimate. I'm positive this will take you way past subsonic range of any bullet you use.
This is what I was asking without knowing exactly how to word it. Thanks. I feel good about my choice in getting a 20moa now. I didn’t want to have ~15 mils on either side and need ~13 and be almost maxed out.
 
Aug 7, 2014
789
71
28
Gillette, WY
This is what I was asking without knowing exactly how to word it. Thanks. I feel good about my choice in getting a 20moa now. I didn’t want to have ~15 mils on either side and need ~13 and be almost maxed out.
I'm putting one on a dasher, do not have rings yet and am using a kahles in the interim, want to do load dev with the 24 power anyway. But at 1600 yards, I will need 16.1 mils up, bullet goes subsonic at 1585, and the actions rail is 20 moa.
 
Aug 7, 2014
789
71
28
Gillette, WY
I’d really like to see the 3-18.. Have heard nothing but good things.. Was looking at this for a 20” .308 bolt gun..
I do not have mine mounted, but glass seems legit, I viewed way over a mile, the turrets I heard some complaints on seem more than fine, see what happens with use, it's light, but the 10.5 mil turret is lost on me, leave it to Leupold to make a guy do math. I shot enough of their 15 moa turrets to dislike it before I fire a shot.
 

MarinePMI

Battery Operated Grunt
Jun 3, 2010
2,271
690
113
San Diego, Ca
I do not have mine mounted, but glass seems legit, I viewed way over a mile, the turrets I heard some complaints on seem more than fine, see what happens with use, it's light, but the 10.5 mil turret is lost on me, leave it to Leupold to make a guy do math. I shot enough of their 15 moa turrets to dislike it before I fire a shot.
Hmmm, the turrets are one of the features on the Mk5 that I've come to really like. Zeroing is snap with these turrets. No trying to hold the turret steady, while not bumping the post and then trying to screw in three set screws with an allen wrench. just dial up to your zero, undo two set screws and turn the turrret back to zero until the zero stop clicks and locks the post in place. Tighten the two screws and you're done. Hands down this scope has the easiest zeroing method of scopes within it's price range.
 

J.Boney

Resident Sheepdog
May 10, 2006
477
16
18
47
NC - USA
Hmmm, the turrets are one of the features on the Mk5 that I've come to really like. Zeroing is snap with these turrets. No trying to hold the turret steady, while not bumping the post and then trying to screw in three set screws with an allen wrench. just dial up to your zero, undo two set screws and turn the turrret back to zero until the zero stop clicks and locks the post in place. Tighten the two screws and you're done. Hands down this scope has the easiest zeroing method of scopes within it's price range.
What reticle do you have?
 

MarinePMI

Battery Operated Grunt
Jun 3, 2010
2,271
690
113
San Diego, Ca
It's taken a little to get used to, but it works as advertised. I usually dial for everything, so it's a matter of training and trusting the reticle to do it's thing.
 

wjm308

Send it!
Nov 30, 2012
1,793
641
113
Black Forest, CO
Hmmm, the turrets are one of the features on the Mk5 that I've come to really like. Zeroing is snap with these turrets. No trying to hold the turret steady, while not bumping the post and then trying to screw in three set screws with an allen wrench. just dial up to your zero, undo two set screws and turn the turrret back to zero until the zero stop clicks and locks the post in place. Tighten the two screws and you're done. Hands down this scope has the easiest zeroing method of scopes within it's price range.
I agree, the Mark 5 turrets are quickly becoming my favorite, I have not had a TT but out of all the scopes I've had (and I've had a fair share) I think I like the Mark 5 the best, very precise clicks, I hope to be wrapping up my review of the 3.6-18x44 this week.
 

J.Boney

Resident Sheepdog
May 10, 2006
477
16
18
47
NC - USA
I agree, the Mark 5 turrets are quickly becoming my favorite, I have not had a TT but out of all the scopes I've had (and I've had a fair share) I think I like the Mark 5 the best, very precise clicks, I hope to be wrapping up my review of the 3.6-18x44 this week.
Awesome.. Did you get illuminated reticle? What reticle did you choose?
 

wjm308

Send it!
Nov 30, 2012
1,793
641
113
Black Forest, CO
Awesome.. Did you get illuminated reticle? What reticle did you choose?
I could not justify paying another $590 just for illumination with the plain TMR reticle (if Leupold came out with a decent Christmas tree style and offered illumination it might be more compelling) and I wanted to try out the Tremor3 and see if it would work for me. To be honest, it's not as cluttered as I thought it would be in actual use, but it is cluttered more than others so if that is something that bothers you and you plan on dialing elevation then probably not the best choice for you, but if you want to get more into using the reticle in place of dialing, then I can see the merits of the Tremor3. I have not played around with the wind dots as of yet, but those who've taken the time to learn that system seem to swear by it.
 

J.Boney

Resident Sheepdog
May 10, 2006
477
16
18
47
NC - USA
I could not justify paying another $590 just for illumination with the plain TMR reticle (if Leupold came out with a decent Christmas tree style and offered illumination it might be more compelling) and I wanted to try out the Tremor3 and see if it would work for me. To be honest, it's not as cluttered as I thought it would be in actual use, but it is cluttered more than others so if that is something that bothers you and you plan on dialing elevation then probably not the best choice for you, but if you want to get more into using the reticle in place of dialing, then I can see the merits of the Tremor3. I have not played around with the wind dots as of yet, but those who've taken the time to learn that system seem to swear by it.
Was eyeballing that CCH FFP.. Not typically a fan of busy reticles, but don’t care for TMR either.
 

Konarex

Full Member
Mar 31, 2012
154
8
18
44
Oregon
I got a Mark 5 5-25x56 a few weeks ago. On paper the scope appears to be a contender in the long range scope market. I like the glass, turrets and the CCH reticle. It appears that a lot of thought was put into those components. I think the 10.5 mil per revolution makes sense. It eliminate the need to do simple math on the fly. The offset numbers on the dial are easy to read when you mount the rifle. The CCH reticle is brilliant. I think it has all of the benefits of a Horus with less clutter. With all of those positives here is the negative. My scope did not track or return to zero. Changes from zero to ten mils in one mil increments had a 2%-11% error and each time I dialed from 10 mil to 0 mil my zero would change. On the bright side Leopold has great customer service. Unfortunately I had to use it on a new scope.
 
Likes: wigwamitus
Jan 5, 2014
934
110
43
Wabaunsee, KS
... My scope did not track or return to zero. Changes from zero to ten mils in one mil increments had a 2%-11% error and each time I dialed from 10 mil to 0 mil my zero would change ...
I'm about to make a move and it is coming down to trying a Mk5 5-25x T3 ... primarily for a .300WM(24) for LD targets. The alternative is a NF ATACR F1 probably a repeat of the 7-35x T3 I already have. One aspect that makes the price closer than it might seem is that I would have to get a whole new Spuhr mount for the Mk5 (35mm tube) whereas I already have a spare 34mm mount for the NF. That and I might be able to get a decent discount for the NF. So, price will be closer than it might seem for my transaction.

But Konarex seems to think maybe he got a "lemon" and after some "customer service" ... the tracking issue will be solved.
 
Last edited:

SLG

Gunny Sergeant
Sep 2, 2009
864
260
63
Deleted, cause mistakes are not fun to admit to.🤐

I actually shot a mk8, but had mk5 on the brain. Not relevent to the thread.
 
Last edited:
Likes: wigwamitus

plong

Gunny Sergeant
Nov 13, 2010
637
36
28
Ohio 44685
I'm about to make a move and it is coming down to trying a Mk5 5-25x T3 ... primarily for a .300WM(24) for LD targets. The alternative is a NF ATACR F1 probably a repeat of the 7-35x T3 I already have. One aspect that makes the price closer than it might seem is that I would have to get a whole new Spuhr mount for the Mk5 (35mm tube) whereas I already have a spare 34mm mount for the NF. That and I might be able to get a decent discount for the NF. So, price will be closer than it might seem for my transaction.

But Konarex seems to think maybe he got a "lemon" and after some "customer service" ... the tracking issue will be solved.
Nothing specifically against the MK5, but if it were my choice, with the stated criteria, I'd choose the Nightforce in a heattbeat... In fact, I did 😉!
 

Konarex

Full Member
Mar 31, 2012
154
8
18
44
Oregon
I am hoping it is a lemon and not representative of the entire line. I regularly talk with one of the Team APA shooters who are sponsored by Leopold. He has been using a Mark 5 since their launch and has had no tracking issues.

I agree with Plong about Nightforce. Money was the deciding factor with the Mark 5. It was way cheaper when I bought it.
 
Feb 11, 2017
359
150
43
Don't, I've had the 5-20 Ultra Short and it is an awesome scope, I now have the 3-20 Ultra Short and think I like the 5-20 better, don't get me wrong, the 3-20 is amazing but there was something special about the 5-20 and with its huge FOV it acts more like a scope that has greater than 4x magnification. The glass is better in the Schmidt vs. the Leupold Mark 5, but then again for a scope that costs more than 2x as much one would hope to see that. If you don't need illumination and are okay with the reticle choices I think the Leupold 3.6-18x44 represents the best value to date in an ultra short design and its turrets are really growing on me. It exhibits more CA than I hoped it would but about on par for this price range, the only exception would be the Vortex AMG, at $2400 it exhibits amazing resolution and minimal CA (almost unnoticeable); if Vortex were to make an AMG 4.5-18 or 5-20 that was a shorty and the price was around $2k I would be all over that! But wishing a scope existed doesn't get me anywhere so the Mark 5 3.6-18x44 is easily the best scope in its class - the shortest, lightest, cheapest scope in the 18-20x top end magnification range. Also, for turret purists, the Mark 5HD has my favorite feeling turrets to date, keep in mind I am not bothered by most turrets and find I can easily dial my elevation given enough time behind the unit, but the clicks on the Mark 5 have a very distinct click with a sharp sound to it and I like the spacing and resistance between clicks.
Hey Bill, whilst I know they are not directly comparable scopes would you mind commenting on the Mk5 vs the Bushnell Lrts (I know you've had both).

I'm eyeing one of the Bushy 4.5-18x44's, I have no need for a compact scope with this build (mainly hunting/steel), but if there are significant reasons to opt for the mk5 I'll certainly consider it. Illumination is a feature I value in a hunting scope, and the LRTS offers that will only a slight price bump

Cheers,
BP
 
Last edited:
Jan 5, 2014
934
110
43
Wabaunsee, KS
... Nothing specifically against the MK5, but if it were my choice, with the stated criteria, I'd choose the Nightforce in a heattbeat ...
Aye, it is just that I am trying to make a "data driven" decision ... and there is still not much DATA to go on, as far as the Mk5. No data driven comparative reviews, etc. Though hearing it doesn't track, at least in one case, I consider to be a data point in the data book.
 

wjm308

Send it!
Nov 30, 2012
1,793
641
113
Black Forest, CO
Hey Bill, whilst I know they are not directly comparable scopes would you mind commenting on the Mk5 vs the Bushnell Lrts (I know you've had both).

I'm eyeing one of the Bushy 4.5-18x44's, I have no need for a compact scope with this build (mainly hunting/steel), but if there are significant reasons to opt for the mk5 I'll certainly consider it. Illumination is a feature I value in a hunting scope, and the LRTS offers that will only a slight price bump

Cheers,
BP
Hey BP, that is hard as I sold my LRTS last year; however, in a few weeks I should be getting my GAP LRHS which is the same scope but different reticle. I keep thinking of selling the Mark 5 3.6-18x44 to get a Kahles K318i, but I also keep trying to convince myself to just keep the Mark 5. Like you, I prefer reticles that have illumination and I opted for the Tremor3 with the Mark 5 which does not come with an illumination option for the 3.6-18 but even if it did it would be very hard to justify almost $600 more for illumination, Leupold really needs to get with the program.
In lieu of what you shared, I would definitely recommend the LRHS/LRTS as it has a better reticle (than the TMR) has illumination for a minor price bump (have you checked out the GAP deal for the LRHS, they are supposed to be doing another pre-order run in a few weeks) , the Leupold is 2" shorter and has better turrets (but the Bushnell turrets aren't bad). The Leupold has more CA than I'd like to see for a $2kish scope but CA doesn't bother a lot of shooters so take that with a grain of salt; the Bushnell also exhibits CA but controls it better than many scopes in that price range. If you can get in on the next GAP deal at $750 there just is no other scope that comes close at that price point while the LRTSi at around $1250 or so street price starts getting closer to other scopes that you might consider.

I'd really need both side by side to give a more thorough response, I can say that Leupold has done something to make the Mark 5 an excellent low light performer, next to my S&B US 3-20 it was very difficult to discern between the two in low light settings; however, in bright light the Leupy seems like it may be slightly washed out, most shooters would probably not notice but it is something I picked up when comparing to other scopes and I wonder if its a result of whatever they did for low light. I'm wrapping up my mini review of the Mark 5 and will post that soon.
 
Nov 16, 2013
8
0
1
My 3.6-18 tremor showed up today. Now I just have to wait on my mount and rifle parts. Wish there were more mount options available.
 
Feb 10, 2013
217
16
18
Minneapolis
After 3 trips to the range I'm really happy with my 3.6-18. It's the first Leupold I've owned in many years and it's a winner to my amateur eyes. The folks that have used my rifle have also been impressed. The TMR reticle is still lacking - a Vortex-ish Christmas tree with .2 mil hashes would be great, but it is what it is and the MK5 saved more than a pound vs. a Razor2 3-18, a trade off I'd probably make again for a sub eight pound ar15.
 
Likes: wjm308
Feb 11, 2017
359
150
43
Hey BP, that is hard as I sold my LRTS last year; however, in a few weeks I should be getting my GAP LRHS which is the same scope but different reticle. I keep thinking of selling the Mark 5 3.6-18x44 to get a Kahles K318i, but I also keep trying to convince myself to just keep the Mark 5. Like you, I prefer reticles that have illumination and I opted for the Tremor3 with the Mark 5 which does not come with an illumination option for the 3.6-18 but even if it did it would be very hard to justify almost $600 more for illumination, Leupold really needs to get with the program.
In lieu of what you shared, I would definitely recommend the LRHS/LRTS as it has a better reticle (than the TMR) has illumination for a minor price bump (have you checked out the GAP deal for the LRHS, they are supposed to be doing another pre-order run in a few weeks) , the Leupold is 2" shorter and has better turrets (but the Bushnell turrets aren't bad). The Leupold has more CA than I'd like to see for a $2kish scope but CA doesn't bother a lot of shooters so take that with a grain of salt; the Bushnell also exhibits CA but controls it better than many scopes in that price range. If you can get in on the next GAP deal at $750 there just is no other scope that comes close at that price point while the LRTSi at around $1250 or so street price starts getting closer to other scopes that you might consider.

I'd really need both side by side to give a more thorough response, I can say that Leupold has done something to make the Mark 5 an excellent low light performer, next to my S&B US 3-20 it was very difficult to discern between the two in low light settings; however, in bright light the Leupy seems like it may be slightly washed out, most shooters would probably not notice but it is something I picked up when comparing to other scopes and I wonder if its a result of whatever they did for low light. I'm wrapping up my mini review of the Mark 5 and will post that soon.
Thanks Bill, decision fatigue is a real thing :) I'm interested in your thoughts once you can compare the Mk5 and the LRHS side by side. Cheers, BP
 

just browsing

Sergeant of the Hide
Feb 18, 2017
337
63
28
Louisville, KY
What’s the verdict on the CCH reticle? I’ve used H59 and Tremors plenty and while I don’t dislike them, they are not my favorite either. CCH seems like it could be a good balance of them?

I can also get the CCH a fair bit cheaper than either of the Horus options. Just trying to figure out if it’s been a well received reticle or if it’s just better to stay with the tried and true.
 
Mar 12, 2013
996
101
43
What’s the verdict on the CCH reticle? I’ve used H59 and Tremors plenty and while I don’t dislike them, they are not my favorite either. CCH seems like it could be a good balance of them?

I can also get the CCH a fair bit cheaper than either of the Horus options. Just trying to figure out if it’s been a well received reticle or if it’s just better to stay with the tried and true.
It's a solid grid / tree reticle that's easy to use. The plus and minus is that the lines are heavy so you can see it clearly even at 5x and there's lots of reference points for holding for dope, but that also means it's pretty cluttered and for some people its distracting. Really personal preference here.
 

Bender

Something witty here
Feb 12, 2014
2,550
2,063
113
Cheyenne WY.
Sooooo.......I went to go shoot with my buddy who received his MK 5 5-25..... I was excited because this scope checked all the boxes on what I personally feel should be in a LR scope.

The rifle it sits on is a new Bergara HMR PRO, and that action felt amazing! The trigger is the best I’ve felt on any factory rifle! Anyway...... I digress...

When checking Zero, the scope paralax seemed off, so I looked to the sky and set the Diopter which was off slightly, went back to 100yds to check paralax, it would resolve into a clear edge to edge picture at 200ish yards... not bad, so I loaded one and fired.... it was about 1/3 Mil high, and slightly out of focus. I adjusted the paralax again without looking at the knob, into a clear picture again, fired another round and hit half mil low....again out of focus... so again I adjusted paralax with out looking at the knob to a clear picture.... then out of curiosity, I peek at the setting.....400yds.... clear image at 100yds...wtf... we ended up shooting a few more, even pulled a bore snake a couple times, then it settles in to a consistent group. Paralax still off, eye box seems touchy, crosshairs out of focus again.... we try some dialing with it, it tracks to 400, 500, 600 and 700 with good first round hits on target.... but paralax remains off with poor focus on diopter with it adjusted fully in....I am at a loss....

I brought my Weaver 6-30 and had zero issues with paralax or diopter. I’m not a scope pro, but I’m no noob either.... what gives???
 
Top Bottom