Not seeing too much on Leupold tactical scopes...

1899

1899

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
34   0   0
Location
West
I have never owned a tactical scope and have been doing some research and reading up before I spring for one. I see lots of talk about Vortex, Sightron and especially Nightforce, but not so much on Leupold Mark 4 and other variants.

Of course there is the higher end stuff like S&B and Hensoldt, but I am talking more in the under $1500 range. Are the optics and tracking in the new Leupolds still very good? Are the others offering better product for the money?
 
I only know about the one I have which is the Mark 4 1.5-4x. It is cheap and the reticle is quite clean (simple cross hair) and glass is clear. The switching from 1.5 to 4 is a bit slow but otherwise no complaints at all. Nice clicks in the windage and elevation. I don't fiddle with it much and don't know much else about optics really.
 
I like my 6.5-20 MK 4 just as much or better than my Nightforces. More compact and just as clear. Adjustment are bang on. There are just less options for turrets and reticles.
 
6mm Shooter said:
I like my 6.5-20 MK 4 just as much or better than my Nightforces. More compact and just as clear. Adjustment are bang on. There are just less options for turrets and reticles.
Click to expand...

I guess they are kind of like the .30-06 of scopes - works very well, but not new and cool.
 
They work, Its stupid that you cant get a tactical retical that matches your turret.

ex , Mil Rad cross hairs + MOA Turret = Mathmatical nightmare

NF #1 for this guy. 20 moa turrets with zero stop is fantastic when you add in the other features that you want. NF is heavy but once you start shooting with one you wont care.

In my opinion and theres plenty of people, Exspecially military personel and LR shooters... That would not put Leupold in the same class as NF. Leupold is not as durable. Having said that they are mil spec.

I would also add that i would take S&B way before a leupold.
 
I have a 8.5-25x50 mark 4 and it is great. It tracks flawlessly and is crystal clear. I'm really happy with my leupold. I'm in the market for another long range scope and the only thing stopping me from getting another leupold is wanting the reticle and turret to match. Preferably in MOA.
 
Leupold is moving more and more into the professional market and serving Uncle Sam.

Because of that, less and less is available for export.

Then there is/was a rather dismal level of performance vs price allowing such upstarts as NF to take over huge market share. This was a decade back and not much has changed.

Leupold just doesn't seem to have any interest in winning foreign customers back.

New companies like Sightron and Vortex are filling the void brands like Leupold, Bushnell Elite, Nikon, and Burris are leaving wide open.

The times they be a changing and so are the companies shooters look towards for the best performance and value.

Sort of like Savage taking over the torch from Remington and Winchester.
Jerry
 
I have both and my next scope will be a NightForce. The clicks on the NF feels more positive then my Leupold. My Nf is also clearer and has a much nicer reticle plus moa turrets with moa reticle is very handy and easy to use. The NF also seems to be more robust and can take a beating the Leupold seems a little dainty but still good quality.

My NF is a 8-32x56 NXS and the Leupold is a 4.5-10X40 M1 Mk4.
 
I enjoy my mark 4. It's an 8.5-25x50mm.
I can spot my impacts at distance quite well with it. It's a very clear scope. At 1000+ yards the clarity is as good as most. I am not a fan of the actual clicking feeling of the turrets (vortex, NF feel much nicer) but that doesn't effect the tracking at all. In fact, the turrets track flawlessly. I love the glass and the TMR reticle. It is not bulky and doesn't block much at extended range.

I saw a comment about a Leupold not being as "durable" as a NF?? I don't think any research has been done to prove that. They are both very durable and robust pieces of glass.

That being said, I thoroughly enjoy the quality of the Sightrons and Vortex vipers. They can also be had for quite a bit less.

6637652925_efabb68ddc.jpg


A pic for your viewing pleasure.
 
Jeromeo said:
I enjoy my mark 4. It's an 8.5-25x50mm.
I can spot my impacts at distance quite well with it. It's a very clear scope. At 1000+ yards the clarity is as good as most. I am not a fan of the actual clicking feeling of the turrets (vortex, NF feel much nicer) but that doesn't effect the tracking at all. In fact, the turrets track flawlessly. I love the glass and the TMR reticle. It is not bulky and doesn't block much at extended range.

I saw a comment about a Leupold not being as "durable" as a NF?? I don't think any research has been done to prove that. They are both very durable and robust pieces of glass.

That being said, I thoroughly enjoy the quality of the Sightrons and Vortex vipers. They can also be had for quite a bit less.

6637652925_efabb68ddc.jpg


A pic for your viewing pleasure.
Click to expand...

Do a google search of reliability issues with leupold , then night force,then Bushnell elite 4200,sightron etc.
There are a hell of a lot of complaints about leupold's reliability.A hell of a lot.
 
Jeromeo said:
I enjoy my mark 4. It's an 8.5-25x50mm.
I can spot my impacts at distance quite well with it. It's a very clear scope. At 1000+ yards the clarity is as good as most. I am not a fan of the actual clicking feeling of the turrets (vortex, NF feel much nicer) but that doesn't effect the tracking at all. In fact, the turrets track flawlessly. I love the glass and the TMR reticle. It is not bulky and doesn't block much at extended range.

I saw a comment about a Leupold not being as "durable" as a NF?? I don't think any research has been done to prove that. They are both very durable and robust pieces of glass.

That being said, I thoroughly enjoy the quality of the Sightrons and Vortex vipers. They can also be had for quite a bit less.

6637652925_efabb68ddc.jpg


A pic for your viewing pleasure.
Click to expand...

There actually has bin alot of research on NF vrs MK4 on durability. Maybe not when used on smaller caliburs, such as 308 or 300 win mag. But when jumping up to 408,416 and 50 cal, exspecially when those caliburs are used on a semi auto action. The MK4's do not hold up. MK4's will stop holding zero after as little as 1000 rounds, not being able to hold up to the recoil. I have read articals where British and U.S snipers have put 10 and 20,000 rounds through NF, moving the scope from gun to gun calibur to calibur with out any issues.

Just from whatching sniper school on military channel i know the U.S uses the MK4's on 50's when training. But if you see photos of snipers and personel in the field, when they can choose there own equipment. I would say NF is on 90% of the larger caliburs.

Im not trying to bash Leupold into the ground. I think its still a good product. I just think its its at the lower end of the mil spec products right now.

I dont know Jerry from Mystic Precision, But from what ive read about him he knows his sh*t. If he posts on here i wouldnt over look what he say's.

i will take a look and try and find some of the links to articals about MK4's not holding up on larger caliburs.
 
pilot2001 said:
They work, Its stupid that you cant get a tactical retical that matches your turret.

ex , Mil Rad cross hairs + MOA Turret = Mathmatical nightmare

NF #1 for this guy. 20 moa turrets with zero stop is fantastic when you add in the other features that you want. NF is heavy but once you start shooting with one you wont care.

In my opinion and theres plenty of people, Exspecially military personel and LR shooters... That would not put Leupold in the same class as NF. Leupold is not as durable. Having said that they are mil spec.

I would also add that i would take S&B way before a leupold.
Click to expand...

They now have the Mil-Mil M5 Turret available now for the Mark 4.

The Mark 4 is an excellent scope, I have one on my .308 and it performs wonderfully. IMO the Glass quality is around the same as on the NF Scopes, durability wise the NF is better. Frankly though none of us here are chasing terrorists through the mountains where our lives depend on the scope (even then the Mark 4 could still do it), so if it does break we send it back. I do prefer Nightforces though for the high Magninfication, but for my uses a Mark 4 works just fine.
 
pilot2001 said:
There actually has bin alot of research on NF vrs MK4 on durability. Maybe not when used on smaller caliburs, such as 308 or 300 win mag. But when jumping up to 408,416 and 50 cal, exspecially when those caliburs are used on a semi auto action. The MK4's do not hold up. MK4's will stop holding zero after as little as 1000 rounds, not being able to hold up to the recoil. I have read articals where British and U.S snipers have put 10 and 20,000 rounds through NF, moving the scope from gun to gun calibur to calibur with out any issues.

Just from whatching sniper school on military channel i know the U.S uses the MK4's on 50's when training. But if you see photos of snipers and personel in the field, when they can choose there own equipment. I would say NF is on 90% of the larger caliburs.

Im not trying to bash Leupold into the ground. I think its still a good product. I just think its its at the lower end of the mil spec products right now.

I dont know Jerry from Mystic Precision, But from what ive read about him he knows his sh*t. If he posts on here i wouldnt over look what he say's.

i will take a look and try and find some of the links to articals about MK4's not holding up on larger caliburs.
Click to expand...

You might want to let Rob Furlong know that Mark 4's don't work on .50's :)
 
US forces use a variety of scopes from various manufacturers largely because no one supplier can keep up with their demand. If a manufacturer is near capacity fulfilling an order for one branch, and another branch needs scopes, then they'll go to another source. Sometimes they'll resort to buying small quantities at the unit level.
 
pilot2001 said:
They work, Its stupid that you cant get a tactical retical that matches your turret.

ex , Mil Rad cross hairs + MOA Turret = Mathmatical nightmare

NF #1 for this guy. 20 moa turrets with zero stop is fantastic when you add in the other features that you want. NF is heavy but once you start shooting with one you wont care.

In my opinion and theres plenty of people, Exspecially military personel and LR shooters... That would not put Leupold in the same class as NF. Leupold is not as durable. Having said that they are mil spec.

I would also add that i would take S&B way before a leupold.
Click to expand...

Leupold has rectified the MIL/MOA problem with their M5 turrets.

I like both for different reasons.

NXS - Likes: Illumination comes standard, Turret is lower profile, rapid adjustment turrets, Zero Stop
NXS - Hates: Entire eyepiece turns for magnification adjustment

Leupold - Likes: Power ring independant of eyepiece, Lighter, 40mm objective available
Laupold - Hates: Limited Reticle Selection, Limited Power Selection
 
wheels said:
and you might want to research the difference in reliability between a fixed 16x Mark4 and a variable power Mark4, they are 2 different animals.
Click to expand...
Good point, I was trying trying to point out how there is nothing wrong with a Mark 4 on a .338/.50, though if there is a credible source that says otherwise then I am all ears.
 
youthshooter said:
Good point, I was trying trying to point out how there is nothing wrong with a Mark 4 on a .338/.50, though if there is a credible source that says otherwise then I am all ears.
Click to expand...

If you go to benchrest central and 6mmbr you will see that if a competitive shooter is using them they often have them "frozen". Also many of these shooters have stopped using leupold in favour of other scopes. Many top shooters on those sites are no longer happy with Leupold but don't take my word for it.Go to those sites and do a search or ask what the top shooters are using and if they modified anything.
 
Canuck525 said:
If you go to benchrest central and 6mmbr you will see that if a competitive shooter is using them they often have them "frozen". Also many of these shooters have stopped using leupold in favour of other scopes. Many top shooters on those sites are no longer happy with Leupold but don't take my word for it.Go to those sites and do a search or ask what the top shooters are using and if they modified anything.
Click to expand...

Alright, I'm not trying to bash other companies, I personally believe that NF/S&B, etc. are superior scopes, but for most uses the Mark 4's work fine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom