Looking for Opinions on the Current State of Leupold, Specifically the New Mark4HD

[stomridertx]

Leupold recently unveiled a line of Mark4HD optics that really caught my attention. I'm really interested in the 1-4.5 LPVO and the 2.5-10 variants to replace some AR optics. I haven't bought any Leupold optics since running the old discontinued VX-R Patrol many years ago. I'm extremely tempted to do some selling to get into these optics, but I would like to hear some unbiased opinion. I've seen rumblings over the years of Leupold having tracking problems, but I'm unsure if those rumors are warranted. I've looked through a 5HD scope and was impressed with the glass. I know their warranty and customer service has a great reputation. Tell me about Leupold in 2024.

[okie john]

I have heard those rumors going back about 15 years. Unfortunately, they come from people I trust so I've shied away from Leupold. For me, the biggest cost of shooting is time since I only have a certain amount of it for my entire life. I hate wasting it only to learn that an expensive optic won't do what it was designed to do. The cost of ammunition is also a factor. I don't shoot rifles in competition any more but I do hunt, and the chance of blowing an expensive trip or wounding an animal is also a huge consideration.

Today I own three Leupolds, all fixed 4s. The youngest is ~20 years old. One is on my 22, one on my Tikka Compact, and one on my son’s 30-06. The last one I bought new (2017) was a VX-R 3-9x40 with a Ballistic Firedot reticle (PN 111236). I had it on several rifles but I never dialed with it. The reticle worked well for holding over, which fit with the kind of shooting I was doing at the time.

When I worked in the gun business 30 years ago, optic makers were pretty much Leupold and "Other." Now we have many excellent challengers. The first differentiator seems to be whether the glass is made in Europe, Japan, the Philippines, or China. The second is where the scope is assembled.

In the Leupold's price range, I like Nightforce. I have two of their 3-10x42 SHVs. Every time I look at one, I think, "Leupold should be making this." Right now, I'm in the market for a 1-something with an illuminated reticle, which will likely end up being an NXS 1-8. I also use an NSX 8-32x56 that I took off of an F-class rifle of my father's for load testing. In my experience, Nightforce scopes just do what they're supposed to do.

Even in the glory days, I felt there was a fair amount of voodoo required to zero a Leupold. I can zero a Nightforce in 2-3 shots and go on about my business confident that it won't shift and that I can dial as needed and everything will work as advertised.

To steel-man that argument, I offer this: https://precisionrifleblog.com/2024/...oogle_vignette The first few paragraphs go into the use cases for theses scopes, which definitely vary from mine. Similar here: https://precisionrifleblog.com/2018/12/21/best-scope/ except that it's several years older and the results are completely different.

This shift could reflect a lot of different things. For one thing, F-class and PRS are apples and oranges. For another, even Nightforce's biggest fans have to admit that Leupold's reticle game is far superior. It could reflect evolutions within specific brands over those years that affect how they design and build scopes. Or it could reflect excellent marketing initiatives on the part of several brands to put essentially hand-picked scopes into the hands of sponsored shooters, who then win big and drive sales.

Schmidt & Bender is a bellwether--any survey where they don't show up well indicates that the survey considers things other than sheer quality, usually a feature set that's optimized for a specific use case.

Any brand that shows up in both surveys is likely solid. Find the model and feature set that meets your needs, then go from there.


Okie John

[zcap]

I own the Leupold Mark 4HD 2.5-10x42 SFP with illumination (model 183737). I have also owned similar scopes in the Nightforce NXS 2.5-10 and Trijicon Credo 2-10. The glass on the Mark 4HD is definitely better than the NXS and I would say comparable to the Credo on low magnification but better on high magnification. With the Mark 4HD you also get a zero lock elevation turret, although it "only" has 15 MILs of usable elevation given how the locking mechanism works. Tracking is excellent, at least on my sample within 1% error. I don't know of a better lightweight 2.5-10 optic on the market right now than the Mark 4HD. However, I personally dislike Leupold's thick stadia FFP TMR reticles though as I find them to lack strong visual distinction between the half-mil and mil marks, especially at lower magnifications. The SFP TMR reticle, however, has quite fine and crisp 0.05 MIL lines (at 10x) and being SFP with full length stadia allows for fast deadholds at 2.5x and precise usage at 10x.

I prefer the Steiner P4xi 1-4x P3TR over the Mark 4HD 1-4.5x BDC. The P3TR reticle has 5 MIL hash marks (or 20 MIL at 1x) at 3, 9 and 12 o'clock which provide more range estimation features in addition to width estimation provided by the BDC stadia. The Mark 4HD BDC reticle doesn't provide any great range estimation features. The build quality on the Mark 4HD seems better than the P4xi, though not enough to warrant the price difference ($600 vs $850 if you know where to look).

[HeavyDuty]

I just picked up a Mk4HD 6-24 from [MENTION=12312]CS Tactical[/MENTION], no rounds through (under) it yet but I’m impressed with the clarity and mechanical build. Not very useful, I know.

[stomridertx]

I just picked up a Mk4HD 6-24 from [MENTION=12312]CS Tactical[/MENTION], no rounds through (under) it yet but I’m impressed with the clarity and mechanical build. Not very useful, I know.

It's useful, I know that you've been shooting a long time so your initial hands-on impression is going to say a lot.

[stomridertx]

I own the Leupold Mark 4HD 2.5-10x42 SFP with illumination (model 183737). I have also owned similar scopes in the Nightforce NXS 2.5-10 and Trijicon Credo 2-10. The glass on the Mark 4HD is definitely better than the NXS and I would say comparable to the Credo on low magnification but better on high magnification. With the Mark 4HD you also get a zero lock elevation turret, although it "only" has 15 MILs of usable elevation given how the locking mechanism works. Tracking is excellent, at least on my sample within 1% error. I don't know of a better lightweight 2.5-10 optic on the market right now than the Mark 4HD. However, I personally dislike Leupold's thick stadia FFP TMR reticles though as I find them to lack strong visual distinction between the half-mil and mil marks, especially at lower magnifications. The SFP TMR reticle, however, has quite fine and crisp 0.05 MIL lines (at 10x) and being SFP with full length stadia allows for fast deadholds at 2.5x and precise usage at 10x.

I prefer the Steiner P4xi 1-4x P3TR over the Mark 4HD 1-4.5x BDC. The P3TR reticle has 5 MIL hash marks (or 20 MIL at 1x) at 3, 9 and 12 o'clock which provide more range estimation features in addition to width estimation provided by the BDC stadia. The Mark 4HD BDC reticle doesn't provide any great range estimation features. The build quality on the Mark 4HD seems better than the P4xi, though not enough to warrant the price difference ($600 vs $850 if you know where to look).

I have a P4Xi on my wife's AR, it is a badass scope. I actually prefer a straight mil reticle over BDC or any ranging stuff as I have that figured out pretty well. I'm actually thinking of getting the Mark 4HD 1-4.5 to replace my Razor 1-6, for weight savings and the motion sensor. I can come out ahead in price too without a perceived downgrade.
I'm looking exactly at the 2.5-10x42 to replace my Burris XTRIIIi 3.3-18x50. I'm starting to feel that the 16" AR it's on is over-scoped and it seems the 10x eyebox is really good on the Leupold. Your writeup on your experience helps quite a bit.

[littlejerry]

I own the Leupold Mark 4HD 2.5-10x42 SFP with illumination (model 183737). I have also owned similar scopes in the Nightforce NXS 2.5-10 and Trijicon Credo 2-10. The glass on the Mark 4HD is definitely better than the NXS and I would say comparable to the Credo on low magnification but better on high magnification. With the Mark 4HD you also get a zero lock elevation turret, although it "only" has 15 MILs of usable elevation given how the locking mechanism works. Tracking is excellent, at least on my sample within 1% error. I don't know of a better lightweight 2.5-10 optic on the market right now than the Mark 4HD. However, I personally dislike Leupold's thick stadia FFP TMR reticles though as I find them to lack strong visual distinction between the half-mil and mil marks, especially at lower magnifications. The SFP TMR reticle, however, has quite fine and crisp 0.05 MIL lines (at 10x) and being SFP with full length stadia allows for fast deadholds at 2.5x and precise usage at 10x.

I prefer the Steiner P4xi 1-4x P3TR over the Mark 4HD 1-4.5x BDC. The P3TR reticle has 5 MIL hash marks (or 20 MIL at 1x) at 3, 9 and 12 o'clock which provide more range estimation features in addition to width estimation provided by the BDC stadia. The Mark 4HD BDC reticle doesn't provide any great range estimation features. The build quality on the Mark 4HD seems better than the P4xi, though not enough to warrant the price difference ($600 vs $850 if you know where to look).

Thanks for the write up. I'm a current owner of an NXS 2.5-10x32 and I've been looking at the Mark to go on another rifle, but I'm tempted by the FFP version. The SFP reticle does look nice and fine. The illuminated FFP TMR looks quite chunky. The non-illumunated FFP is a little better...

I'm excited to see this scope exist.

[HeavyDuty]

It's useful, I know that you've been shooting a long time so your initial hands-on impression is going to say a lot.

Thank you, but undeserved - I’m mostly unskilled when it comes to optics. Luckily we have great SMEs here that are generous in sharing their knowledge.

My impression of the optical quality comes from being a lifelong photographer.

[stomridertx]

I read through the Sniper's Hide thread. Once the migraine subsides I'll probably have a couple of really nice scopes for sale.

[zcap]

I have a P4Xi on my wife's AR, it is a badass scope. I actually prefer a straight mil reticle over BDC or any ranging stuff as I have that figured out pretty well. I'm actually thinking of getting the Mark 4HD 1-4.5 to replace my Razor 1-6, for weight savings and the motion sensor. I can come out ahead in price too without a perceived downgrade.
I'm looking exactly at the 2.5-10x42 to replace my Burris XTRIIIi 3.3-18x50. I'm starting to feel that the 16" AR it's on is over-scoped and it seems the 10x eyebox is really good on the Leupold. Your writeup on your experience helps quite a bit.

I like my MILs too but the TMR reticle in the Mark 4HD 1-4.5 is quite difficult to use. This image shows the TMR reticle vs Vortex's VMR-2 reticle vs Steiner P3TR reticle, scaled so that 5 MILs is roughly equal in each reticle, against a white background. I own or have owned scopes with all three reticles, and against most backgrounds the stadia are more difficult to discern than the reticle diagrams in the specs would lead you to believe. In my experience, Vortex's VMR-2 is the easiest to actually MIL something with, followed by the P3TR using the 5 MIL mark and estimating a percentage of 5 MILs, and finally I can struggle to try to count the MIL marks on TMR at 4.5x.