Does anybody use the leupold mark 4 8-25x50 with TMR reticle for fclass.Whats your take on it. I currently use the mark 4 4.5-14x50 with TMR reticle. I would like to get into fclass with a little more magnification. The reason i am settling on this scope is because i am familiar with the operation and really like the open center cross hair. Is the 25 magnification good enough?
Mark 4 optic question for fclass
- Thread starter R700
- Start date
rnbra-shooter
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- New Brunswick
It has been a number of years since I shot F-Class so hopefully a more current F-Class shooter can chime in here. I have shot F-Class with 15X, 20X and 25X scopes, and in that range I always found that "more is better". I would say that the 25X is good enough, but I will also say that if I were buying a new scope I would want 35X or 40X.
I'm not a real F-class shooter, I just show up once in a while.. The matches will be won by whoever reads the wind the best, not the guy who sees the target lines the clearest. A 8.5-25 Mark 4 is a great choice, a lot of the guys top out at 20. More power wouldn't hurt anything.
I own and use an 8.5-25X50 LRT for F-Class. The scope has some of the nicest glass going and has many advantages such as the side focus, its weight and size are not excessive, and did I mention the glass???
It is not without its significant down-sides though. The 1/4 MOA adjustments are not optimal for F-Class. 1/8 MOA would be far better. Also, Leupold had a fine target dot reticle as an option and I love this, but the standard 1/4 dot is too large for me.
The TMR Reticle is um, ok. It is ok because it looks like the crosshairs don't meet. Otherwise it is a very cluttered reticle. When it comes to target shooting, KISS. If the crosshairs do converge, I would not suggest it. Why? Because the dot is a better system for centering on a circular target, and you get a very good feel for where you place the dot when holding-off. That is just my own opinion, but I can tell you that Mil-dots and other ranging reticles are not popular for target shooting at known distances.
Have a look at the nightforce NP2-DD reticle. This is the quinessential F-Class reticle.
In spite of whatever negatives I may have asserted, my LRT scope is one of absolute favorites and can be had for just over a grand. That is a good deal.
Sightron has some very good scopes with more power at a lower price point than the M4 4, but again, the reticles would be my only concern.
Win-Win would be a Nightforce 8-32 or 12-42X56 for the same or less than a Mk4
Maybe take some time to look at other guys' rifles and see what they are using. Remember what you paid for your advice here
It is not without its significant down-sides though. The 1/4 MOA adjustments are not optimal for F-Class. 1/8 MOA would be far better. Also, Leupold had a fine target dot reticle as an option and I love this, but the standard 1/4 dot is too large for me.
The TMR Reticle is um, ok. It is ok because it looks like the crosshairs don't meet. Otherwise it is a very cluttered reticle. When it comes to target shooting, KISS. If the crosshairs do converge, I would not suggest it. Why? Because the dot is a better system for centering on a circular target, and you get a very good feel for where you place the dot when holding-off. That is just my own opinion, but I can tell you that Mil-dots and other ranging reticles are not popular for target shooting at known distances.
Have a look at the nightforce NP2-DD reticle. This is the quinessential F-Class reticle.
In spite of whatever negatives I may have asserted, my LRT scope is one of absolute favorites and can be had for just over a grand. That is a good deal.
Sightron has some very good scopes with more power at a lower price point than the M4 4, but again, the reticles would be my only concern.
Win-Win would be a Nightforce 8-32 or 12-42X56 for the same or less than a Mk4
Maybe take some time to look at other guys' rifles and see what they are using. Remember what you paid for your advice here
I think he means the benchrest model which i know am considering. It is 1499.99 at Grouse River and the Mark 4 8.5-25 is 1699.99. The benchrest model does not have a side parallax adjustment. It uses a fine focus instead.
Nope, still not even close.
I bought the nightforce np-2dd benchrest 8-32x56 optic for the target/precision avenue i want to get involved with instead of the Mark 4-8.5-25x50 TMR. Ideally, i would have wanted the 12-42 power but i could not track one down on the westcoast.I guess the plus side of the 32 mag and the 56mm objective is that I get (about) 1.2mm more of field of view and more light intake on max power if i were have gone with the 42x and the fact that i would have to wait until who knows when to get it.Mounted the scope on the TRG and ranged some trees at 257 yards with the range finder and on 24 power it has amazing detail and nice and clear on 32 power on a overcast day looking out my window. Very nice parallax adjustment even though it is on the front bell. The scope has 0.125 moa clicks and i have to say they are a bit better than my mark 4. The mark 4 clicks are real nice but these are a little more crisp. I am rained out this weekend out of my long range spot so i am going to do the tracking test and i will post the tracking target on here. I paid $1275 before taxes and put a set a rings on it. I kept the mark 4 for long range HITS only because i like it for that and will just swap out scopes on my TRG for the conditions i want to shoot. My gunclub is only 220 yards so i will play around a bit this weekend. thanks for all the tips. This post helped me make my decision with your input.Thanks.
