So, what about Leupold Mark 5 ?

redneckbmxer24

Merica!
Belligerents
Jan 15, 2005
6,837
2,220
219
Gulf Coast, FL
or LPVO based on the Mark 5 ...
Doubt you'll see that unless Leupold goes full retard. When you have a ton of 1-6's, 1-8's, and 1-10's on the market then making a 1-5 would be a really good way to waste a lot of $$ on R&D because that's all you'd do. If you want a LPVO then you should look at the MK6 and MK8. They're both great optics.
 

-=boone=-

Sergeant
Belligerents
Jan 6, 2009
987
139
49
Charleston, WV
Doubt you'll see that unless Leupold goes full retard. When you have a ton of 1-6's, 1-8's, and 1-10's on the market then making a 1-5 would be a really good way to waste a lot of $$ on R&D because that's all you'd do. If you want a LPVO then you should look at the MK6 and MK8. They're both great optics.
There is zero reason it needs to be a 1-5. That is probably what’s stumped their retarded engineers. They could easily turn it out as a 1-6 or 1-8. I own a MK6 1-6 already. It’s a $3,000 optic. So how about a 1-6 MK5 fitting to the current MK5 pricing.
 

st1650

Private
Belligerents
Aug 13, 2009
69
6
12
33
There is zero reason it needs to be a 1-5. That is probably what’s stumped their retarded engineers. They could easily turn it out as a 1-6 or 1-8. I own a MK6 1-6 already. It’s a $3,000 optic. So how about a 1-6 MK5 fitting to the current MK5 pricing.
Yup ... this guy gets it.
 

redneckbmxer24

Merica!
Belligerents
Jan 15, 2005
6,837
2,220
219
Gulf Coast, FL
There is zero reason it needs to be a 1-5. That is probably what’s stumped their retarded engineers. They could easily turn it out as a 1-6 or 1-8. I own a MK6 1-6 already. It’s a $3,000 optic. So how about a 1-6 MK5 fitting to the current MK5 pricing.
uhhhhh.... Mark 5’s are a 5x erector line just like Mark 6’s are 6x erector and Mark 8’s are 8x erector.... that’s the reason it’d be a 1-5. It’s really not that complicated.

If you want a 1-6 or 1-8 they already have it in the proper lines 😂
 

-=boone=-

Sergeant
Belligerents
Jan 6, 2009
987
139
49
Charleston, WV
uhhhhh.... Mark 5’s are a 5x erector line just like Mark 6’s are 6x erector and Mark 8’s are 8x erector.... that’s the reason it’d be a 1-5. It’s really not that complicated.

If you want a 1-6 or 1-8 they already have it in the proper lines 😂
1. Touché
2. Didn’t even think about it, so that was my stupidity.
3. I just want a cheaper Mk6 1-6 CMR-W because I love my MK 6.
4. I also want them to bring back the same 2.5-8 MR/T in mil/mil. I should never have sold mine to a damn cloner.
5. I was wrong and you were right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HolyCity73

redneckbmxer24

Merica!
Belligerents
Jan 15, 2005
6,837
2,220
219
Gulf Coast, FL
1. Touché
2. Didn’t even think about it, so that was my stupidity.
3. I just want a cheaper Mk6 1-6 CMR-W because I love my MK 6.
4. I also want them to bring back the same 2.5-8 MR/T in mil/mil. I should never have sold mine to a damn cloner.
5. I was wrong and you were right.
Agreed about the Mark 6 but you can get them for under $2K if you call the right place and IMO they’re worth that. You can get deals on used ones too. I’ve seen them as low as $1000-$1200. I’ve been waiting for a deal on a used CMR-W 5.56 to pop up.
 

st1650

Private
Belligerents
Aug 13, 2009
69
6
12
33
uhhhhh.... Mark 5’s are a 5x erector line just like Mark 6’s are 6x erector and Mark 8’s are 8x erector.... that’s the reason it’d be a 1-5. It’s really not that complicated.

If you want a 1-6 or 1-8 they already have it in the proper lines 😂
Even without being a 6x erector, I'd much rather have a proper 1-5 with high quality glass and very forgiving eye relief. Most people prefer a K16i or Razor 1-6 at 6x than a NX8 at 8x and with the 35mm tube you could make a really really good product.
 

-=boone=-

Sergeant
Belligerents
Jan 6, 2009
987
139
49
Charleston, WV
I could personally deal with a 1-5.
When I compared the NX8 1-8 to the MK6 1-6 the MK6 won hands down. It wasn't even close to me. Didn’t care for the edge distortion on the NX8 or the lame reticle with the lame excuse “It was designed for shooting people” uh huh, right. CMR-W FTW.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lawofsavage

khuber84

Aim small, miss small
Belligerents
Minuteman
Nov 29, 2008
282
119
49
36
Montana
I have 2 mk5hd, illuminated 3.6-18x44 and a non illuminated 5-25x56. The 5-25 outclassed the smaller scope in all ways but the obvious size/weight/fov #s. Both scopes have the same pr1-moa reticle, yet it's noticeably thinner in the 25x scope at max power vs the 18x scope at max power. I wonder if this has to do with the illumination or if they set it up to make the reticle more usable at the lower end the power range for hunters. Regardless I really like both scopes, the 5-25 more though. Ive recommend this scope to a few people now, especially at the 1700$ price point, not a lot going to compete with it. Nx8 is close but has unforgiving traits due to 8x erector, and the xtr3 IMHO has a little clearer glass in bright weather, however the mushy turrets and questionable reliability(had one already fail) put it down in rank.
 

KaRwithaScar

Sergeant of the Hide
Belligerents
Minuteman
Nov 20, 2019
102
18
22
I liked the Mark 5 3.6-18x44 and plan to test one when the opportunity presents.

I am probably in the minority here, but I think moving to a 35mm tube is a good move for Leupold. That gives them some uniformity with Mark 8 (and I think Mark 6 will be either re-deisgned or made LE/Mil only option at some point, like the Mark 4). Also, keep in mind that Leupold also makes and sells mounts, so they can do whatever diameter they want if they are so inclined. Either way, there are enough 35mm mounts out there.

The outstanding feature of the Mark 5 is still compactness, and I suspect that the turrets have everything they learned on the Mark 6 incorporated into them. If I were to be a betting man, I would bet that the 3.6-18x44 Mark 5 will outperform the 3-18x44 Mark 6 if you put them side by side. Also, while illumination is still expensive, it is not as expensive as on the Mark 6.

I think they need to do more with reticles, but it is workable as is.

I plan to test one.

ILya
Hello, Did you ever do some testing on the Mark 5 as you planned?
 

LAW-DOG

Sergeant of the Hide
Belligerents
Minuteman
Dec 14, 2018
340
99
34
Anyone know what tenebraex caps fit the 5-25x56 scope?
I don’t think they make them for the mk5hd but Aadmount does & they are top quality. Everyone I know that has Aadmount really likes them. I’ve owned tenebraex caps & I think the Aadmount caps are just as good. One thing I really like about the Aadmount caps is the tension screw makes it easy to adjust or take off & rock solid when finally set
 

khuber84

Aim small, miss small
Belligerents
Minuteman
Nov 29, 2008
282
119
49
36
Montana
I don’t think they make them for the mk5hd but Aadmount does & they are top quality. Everyone I know that has Aadmount really likes them. I’ve owned tenebraex caps & I think the Aadmount caps are just as good. One thing I really like about the Aadmount caps is the tension screw makes it easy to adjust or take off & rock solid when finally set
My scopes close enough to the bore that an aadmount prob wouldn't fit. The few tannebrex don't protrude out any wide that the objective it screws into.
 

khuber84

Aim small, miss small
Belligerents
Minuteman
Nov 29, 2008
282
119
49
36
Montana
In english?
An Aadmount objective cover goes around the outside of the scope housing. A tenebraex obj cover has an insert that screws into the threads that a sunshade would. The actual cover itself mounts to the insert and fits into that. It doesn't protrude much, it at all, from the od of the obj housing of the scope.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MarinePMI

LAW-DOG

Sergeant of the Hide
Belligerents
Minuteman
Dec 14, 2018
340
99
34
An Aadmount objective cover goes around the outside of the scope housing. A tenebraex obj cover has an insert that screws into the threads that a sunshade would. The actual cover itself mounts to the insert and fits into that. It doesn't protrude much, it at all, from the od of the obj housing of the scope.
1581547920268.jpeg
Here’s a pic of a tenebraex on the tract Toric. It protrudes just as much as Aadmount.
 

LAW-DOG

Sergeant of the Hide
Belligerents
Minuteman
Dec 14, 2018
340
99
34
An Aadmount objective cover goes around the outside of the scope housing. A tenebraex obj cover has an insert that screws into the threads that a sunshade would. The actual cover itself mounts to the insert and fits into that. It doesn't protrude much, it at all, from the od of the obj housing of the scope.
1581549024022.jpeg
If your scope is that close then you might think about the leupold alumina caps. They are as flush fitting as it gets but expensive. If your scope is that close do you have trouble getting behind it? You might need higher rings
 

ChrisAU

Sergeant of the Hide
Belligerents
Minuteman
Apr 8, 2019
182
61
34
SE Alabama
If low light performance is the deciding factor, is the 5-25 significantly better than the 3.6-18 at a given mag? Would like the weight savings and compactness of the 3.6-18, but if the 5-25 is noticeably better in low light I would probably lean to it.
 

khuber84

Aim small, miss small
Belligerents
Minuteman
Nov 29, 2008
282
119
49
36
Montana
View attachment 7248018
If your scope is that close then you might think about the leupold alumina caps. They are as flush fitting as it gets but expensive. If your scope is that close do you have trouble getting behind it? You might need higher rings
I have Hawkins 35mm medium rings(only 35mm rings he makes atm). The barrel is a proof sendero 338, so it's slightly larger than a standard proof sendero. It's tight. My face always sits low on a comb due to my bone structure. I like the height as is. I could probably modify a Aadmount cover with a dremel to slip on without contacting the barrel. Maybe I could just run a neoprene scope condom till I figure something out. It's just a long range hunting/target rifle.
 

elmuzzlebreak

Sergeant of the Hide
Belligerents
Minuteman
Oct 15, 2018
356
124
49
So now that this thread has gone on for some time how are people feeling about them? Also how do these do in lower light?
 

MarinePMI

Ban Cat Handler
Staff member
Commercial Supporter
Online Training Access
Belligerents
Jun 3, 2010
5,688
5,470
219
San Diego, Ca
Had mine for two years now. Still pretty satisfied with what I got, for the price I paid. Solid scope IMHO. Really good in low light (5-25x).
 

Genin

Sergeant
Belligerents
Feb 18, 2004
570
120
49
38
Bloomsburg, Pa
I’m happy with mine. Very good in low light. Will be shooting a lot more in the upcoming months so I’ll get more time behind it as well, but so far happy.
 

Nittynate

Sergeant of the Hide
Belligerents
Minuteman
Mar 16, 2018
201
77
34
If low light performance is the deciding factor, is the 5-25 significantly better than the 3.6-18 at a given mag? Would like the weight savings and compactness of the 3.6-18, but if the 5-25 is noticeably better in low light I would probably lean to it.
I’m curious as well. Any feedback guys?
 

tikkashooter88

Private
Belligerents
Feb 14, 2017
26
10
6
Oregon

LAW-DOG

Sergeant of the Hide
Belligerents
Minuteman
Dec 14, 2018
340
99
34
You will notice the brightness difference when conditions are darker or at higher mag but not much in the bright conditions. An 8x56 conquest hd binocular is a lot brighter than the 8x42 at night looking at stars but in the day it’s hard to tell a difference. 56m will be brighter than the 44mm.
 

LAW-DOG

Sergeant of the Hide
Belligerents
Minuteman
Dec 14, 2018
340
99
34
So now that this thread has gone on for some time how are people feeling about them? Also how do these do in lower light?
For the $$ these non illuminated scopes are tough to beat. The mk5 25/35x has good brightness, nice turrets, & clear image. Only thing I don’t like about them is the parallax isn’t that nice vs other high end scopes & it has a small fov but I can live with that vs paying $3000+ for better. If you get them on sale a non illuminated 5-25x can be bought for around $1600. The xrs2 can goes for $1600 & DMR pro $13-1400 but I like the mk5 25x better mainly because the turrets are better, but the optics are very close. I would still like to compare the mk5 with a trijicon 30x ffp. Anyone here get to compare the trijicon 30x with the mk5 25x?
 

Pcola

Private
Minuteman
Feb 20, 2020
26
4
6
I have 2 mk5hd, illuminated 3.6-18x44 and a non illuminated 5-25x56. The 5-25 outclassed the smaller scope in all ways but the obvious size/weight/fov #s. Both scopes have the same pr1-moa reticle, yet it's noticeably thinner in the 25x scope at max power vs the 18x scope at max power. I wonder if this has to do with the illumination or if they set it up to make the reticle more usable at the lower end the power range for hunters. Regardless I really like both scopes, the 5-25 more though. Ive recommend this scope to a few people now, especially at the 1700$ price point, not a lot going to compete with it. Nx8 is close but has unforgiving traits due to 8x erector, and the xtr3 IMHO has a little clearer glass in bright weather, however the mushy turrets and questionable reliability(had one already fail) put it down in rank.
I am looking at the 3.6-18 for a hunting scope in southern Arizona. What do you think of it's light gathering ability and clarity compared to an shv.
 

khuber84

Aim small, miss small
Belligerents
Minuteman
Nov 29, 2008
282
119
49
36
Montana
I am looking at the 3.6-18 for a hunting scope in southern Arizona. What do you think of it's light gathering ability and clarity compared to an shv.
Pretty sure the mk5 will be a step above the shv in all categories. It does great in low light. Clarity is very good. It's a very versatile optic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pcola

USP45

Private
Belligerents
Dec 21, 2013
46
14
12
McKinney, TX
I just bought a Razor GenII 4.5-27 for an AR10 6.5 Creedmore, thinking the either the Mk 5HD 5-25 or 7-35 with the CCH would be a good match for a 7-300WM I just had made. Probably two of the most return on the dollar scopes out there right now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hardpan

Anton.S

Private
Minuteman
Dec 9, 2019
1
2
6
Charlotte, NC
Bought a Mark 5 5-25x56 for my back up PRS rifle. Main rifle has a Kahles K624i on it. Took both out to a 600 yard range this past Sunday and Mark 5 optically bested my Kahles, which is very upsetting to me considering Kahles is $1K more. Had a friend look through both and he also agreed that Leupold had noticeably better image quality. I doubt anything is wrong with my K624 as it just came back from Austria where it had a reticle changed. Kahles still had a better eye box and was IMHO superior in every other way. Not a fan of Leupold turrets but they tracked fine. These MK5’s seem to be very good for the money.
 

Attachments

Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Pcola and MarinePMI

.300Wins

Private
Minuteman
Feb 1, 2020
3
0
2
Hello,

I've been looking at the MK5 3.6-18 with much interest to put on a new LMT MWS I just picked up. I was curious if anyone can comment on the Tremor3 non-illuminated vs the Tremor3 illuminated options if they happen to have used one or both? I'm mostly curious how usable this reticle is at the lower 3.6x range if not using an illuminated version of the Tremor3 reticle? As an example scenario, if you were attempting to bang steel (or fillintheblankhere with any object) at under 50yrds in a Red-Dot like scenario.

Also, I'm also curious of peoples thoughts on if the seemingly very few illumination dots offered on the illuminated version of the Tremor3 are even worth the extra price? It appears they have gotten a bit stingy on the illumination of this version of the optic given the up charge compared to say the illuminated TMR which lights up like a Christmas tree.

I probably wouldn't even consider the Tremor3 if I didn't know any better about how useful all those windage marks are as distance increases but since I still own an older Horus Vision scope (Falcon 4-16 x 50 Scope w/H25 Reticle) from back in the day. I've come to really appreciate the reticle design over the years of using it but the difference here is that it appears that my older scope lights up in a much more usable way unlike what this Tremor3 appears to offer on the MK5HD.

Current H25 Reticle Illumination on my Falcon

newb.jpg

If folks say that they have no issues seeing the reticle without illumination in a more up close and personal situation then I can sleep better just skipping that extra cost.

Thanks for your thoughts
 

msstate56

Private
Belligerents
Jun 12, 2017
207
84
34
Mississippi Delta
To all the questions about low light performance:
I have posted several times about how good the Mk5 is in low light. Both the 5-25 and the 3.6-18. For a hunting rifle, I think the 3.6-18 with illuminated TMR is the best scope out there. I have 2 of them and have carried them on elk and mule deer hunts out west, as well as whitetails in the south. I’ve taken both 5-25 and 3.6-18 out at the same time, and compared them side by side in the same conditions. At last light (30 minutes after sunset) I can easily make out deer 600 yards out in a soybean field with either scope. No illumination needed. The 5-25 really only started showing a slight low light advantage well past legal shooting time. I like the illuminated TMR because it is thicker, and works just like a duplex at low power.

The 5-25 has a better optical picture if you’re staring at a paper target at 100 yards. But while actually shooting- I never notice a disadvantage with the 3.6-18, unless I need more magnification.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IronOperator87

Mike2763

Private
Minuteman
Jan 18, 2020
13
0
2
Hello,

I've been looking at the MK5 3.6-18 with much interest to put on a new LMT MWS I just picked up. I was curious if anyone can comment on the Tremor3 non-illuminated vs the Tremor3 illuminated options if they happen to have used one or both? I'm mostly curious how usable this reticle is at the lower 3.6x range if not using an illuminated version of the Tremor3 reticle? As an example scenario, if you were attempting to bang steel (or fillintheblankhere with any object) at under 50yrds in a Red-Dot like scenario.

Also, I'm also curious of peoples thoughts on if the seemingly very few illumination dots offered on the illuminated version of the Tremor3 are even worth the extra price? It appears they have gotten a bit stingy on the illumination of this version of the optic given the up charge compared to say the illuminated TMR which lights up like a Christmas tree.

I probably wouldn't even consider the Tremor3 if I didn't know any better about how useful all those windage marks are as distance increases but since I still own an older Horus Vision scope (Falcon 4-16 x 50 Scope w/H25 Reticle) from back in the day. I've come to really appreciate the reticle design over the years of using it but the difference here is that it appears that my older scope lights up in a much more usable way unlike what this Tremor3 appears to offer on the MK5HD.

Current H25 Reticle Illumination on my Falcon

View attachment 7268540

If folks say that they have no issues seeing the reticle without illumination in a more up close and personal situation then I can sleep better just skipping that extra cost.

Thanks for your thoughts

I have an illuminated Tremor 3 on a 3.6-18. Great scope, but I don’t love the illumination pattern. It’s not red dot-like. The entire reticle is lit under the right conditions. Disclaimer- I have not had it against a cluttered background in low light yet, so take my opinion for what it’s worth.

Non illuminated, the reticle crosshairs are usable at low power, but the drop/windage are not, in my opinion.
 
Last edited:

ChrisAU

Sergeant of the Hide
Belligerents
Minuteman
Apr 8, 2019
182
61
34
SE Alabama
Seems when looking at the TMR reticle for hunting and if the ability to see the reticle in low light at low mag is a concern then one should lean towards the illuminated model, not for the illumination but because the non-illuminated thin lines are 0.05 MILs and the thins lines on the illuminated model are twice as thick at 0.10 MILs, correct? Holy run on sentence batman, but can anyone poke holes in that logic?
 

carbonbased

1 MOA = 2 AAF
Online Training Access
Belligerents
Minuteman
Jul 26, 2018
317
196
49
Minnesota
You are correct, it seems.

Illuminated front focal TMR has .1 mil stadia (and a central dot).
Main page
https://www.leupold.com/reticles/reticle-illuminated-front-focal-tmr-mk-190

Pdf Subtensions
https://cdnp.leupold.com/content/do..._sheet_190422_070639.pdf?mtime=20190422070638

=========

Non-illuminated front focal TMR has .05 mil stadia (and an open center).
Main page
https://www.leupold.com/reticles/reticle-front-focal-tmr-mk-189

Pdf Subtensions
https://cdnp.leupold.com/content/do..._sheet_190422_070640.pdf?mtime=20190422070640
 

TangoSierra916

Gunny Sergeant
Hessian
Belligerents
Minuteman
Oct 11, 2017
939
241
49
Madison, WI
@carbonbased thanks for posting the tmr reticle specs.

for those using the mk5 in PRS or other dynamic competitions what reticle would you recommend on the 5-25? I’m torn between the T3 and tmr (I know basically opposites) both with illumination as a hunting/prs reticle.

thanks in advance!
 
  • Like
Reactions: carbonbased

khuber84

Aim small, miss small
Belligerents
Minuteman
Nov 29, 2008
282
119
49
36
Montana
@carbonbased thanks for posting the tmr reticle specs.

for those using the mk5 in PRS or other dynamic competitions what reticle would you recommend on the 5-25? I’m torn between the T3 and tmr (I know basically opposites) both with illumination as a hunting/prs reticle.

thanks in advance!
I'd recommend cch, as it's the least busy of the trees. H59 and T3 are Uber cluttered. At SHOT show leupold hinted at a new Mk5hd reticle coming. Who knows if it'll be better than current offerings or worse.
 

msstate56

Private
Belligerents
Jun 12, 2017
207
84
34
Mississippi Delta
I've got a 5-25 with the CCH. I use it for PRS matches; but, I've taken it hunting and killed deer at last legal light. No illumination needed, as long as you keep it above 10x or so. It's not my ideal hunting reticle, but for a match rifle that might occasionally go hunting- it works. I'd image you will spend way more time at matches and practicing on steel than you will hunting. If that's the case, I would go with the CCH as that's pretty much what it's designed to do.
 

Punkur67

Private
Minuteman
Oct 11, 2019
91
93
24
I just ordered a Mark 5 5-25 with Tremor 3 reticle. Excited to shoot with the new glass
 

redneckbmxer24

Merica!
Belligerents
Jan 15, 2005
6,837
2,220
219
Gulf Coast, FL
@carbonbased thanks for posting the tmr reticle specs.

for those using the mk5 in PRS or other dynamic competitions what reticle would you recommend on the 5-25? I’m torn between the T3 and tmr (I know basically opposites) both with illumination as a hunting/prs reticle.

thanks in advance!
T3 all day. And no it’s not “Uber cluttered” 😂
 
  • Like
Reactions: TangoSierra916

Commander Shepard

Sergeant of the Hide
Belligerents
Aug 3, 2004
181
11
22
NC
@carbonbased thanks for posting the tmr reticle specs.

for those using the mk5 in PRS or other dynamic competitions what reticle would you recommend on the 5-25? I’m torn between the T3 and tmr (I know basically opposites) both with illumination as a hunting/prs reticle.

thanks in advance!
T3 hands down for PRS. The wind dots are actually highly useful on rapid stages.

Edited to add that T3 Mk5 3.5-18 is in my opinion pretty hard to beat for PRS, especially if you can get it at the mil/LEO discount price. I rocked a T3 S&B 5-45 for a while during the 2018 season and rarely found myself going over 15x.
 
Last edited:

TangoSierra916

Gunny Sergeant
Hessian
Belligerents
Minuteman
Oct 11, 2017
939
241
49
Madison, WI
T3 hands down for PRS. The wind dots are actually highly useful on rapid stages.

Edited to add that T3 Mk5 3.5-18 is in my opinion pretty hard to beat for PRS, especially if you can get it at the mil/LEO discount price. I rocked a T3 S&B 5-45 for a while during the 2018 season and rarely found myself going over 15x.
that’s awesome and that 3.6-18 is a solid compact setup.Did you go with illumination?
 

dirthead1

I Like BBQ
Belligerents
Feb 11, 2017
1,121
441
189
Phoenix, AZ
Are the included scope caps decent?
They aren't bad. Just basic plastic flip covers. They are pretty similar to Butler Creek I guess. They are good enough that I'm not going to spend a bunch of money replacing them on my 3.6-18, at least not until I break one.