Testing the Mark 5

The .94" seekins height rings were fine. With the 44mm objective, you can go even lower, there just aren't many lower options
View attachment 480580
That's the only photo I have showing the height with the seekins rings
How does the reticle do on low power, like when you're in dark timber and low light? Been wondering if the illumination might help/be needed?
 
How does the reticle do on low power, like when you're in dark timber and low light? Been wondering if the illumination might help/be needed?
Basically there no FFP reticles that do good on low power in low light. It's not a thing to even consider being usable. You would have to have illumination in order to use a FFP in that setting honestly. I don't use illumination because I don't really hunt in those situations, but if I did, and wanted a FFP, I would 100% get one with illumination
 
Basically there no FFP reticles that do good on low power in low light. It's not a thing to even consider being usable. You would have to have illumination in order to use a FFP in that setting honestly. I don't use illumination because I don't really hunt in those situations, but if I did, and wanted a FFP, I would 100% get one with illumination
That's what I was worried about. Really like the features of the Mark 5. Onto look into the illuminated versions.
 
That's what I was worried about. Really like the features of the Mark 5. Onto look into the illuminated versions.
I made the mistake of not looking at the subtensions on the mark 5 illuminated scope. I ordered one assuming it was the same and it is not. The illuminated version is a very heavy subtension and makes long range accuracy more difficult.
 
I made the mistake of not looking at the subtensions on the mark 5 illuminated scope. I ordered one assuming it was the same and it is not. The illuminated version is a very heavy subtension and makes long range accuracy more difficult.
If I'm taking longer shots, I'll be dialing the scope and not using the subtensions. Thanks for the heads up though, can never get to much information.
 
Subtensions also refer to the thickness of the reticle lines/dots themselves. The illuminated version is very thick for long distance in my opinion.
I'll definitely get my hands on one before buying. Just hard to find the illuminated version in the stores.
 
I made the mistake of not looking at the subtensions on the mark 5 illuminated scope. I ordered one assuming it was the same and it is not. The illuminated version is a very heavy subtension and makes long range accuracy more difficult.
100%!! I made the same mistake. the subtensions in the Mark 5 illuminated are horrible. I sold that scope as soon as it showed up. Might be usable for 1.5-2 Moa targets but my preference is to have a good subtensions for 1/2 Moa targets at a minimum.
 
Last edited:
I just took these photos 26 minutes after sunset. 7:52 PM

View attachment 295076View attachment 295077View attachment 295078
200w.gif
 
Hahaha they do have good glass and good lowlight. But this thread is 2 years old now and you couldn't pay me to put a Mark 5 on my rifles now due to their lack of reliability and holding zero lol
What was your issues? What did you change to?
 
Curious to see what you switched out to. I have a couple NXS 5.5-20 MOAR T and was going to upgrade my SAUM. I have been debating between picking up a Mark 5, NX8 2.5-20 or ATACR 4-16 for a new build.
 
Top