brentc
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2009
- Messages
- 2,644
Here you go. Add it to the cart to see the price.
https://lanbosarmory.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=42072
-
If you are being asked to change your password, and unsure how to do it, follow these instructions. Click here
The New Leupold Mark 5
- Thread starter 5RWill
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
Here you go. Add it to the cart to see the price.
https://lanbosarmory.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=42072
5RWill
Well-Known Member
http://forum.snipershide.com/threads/so-what-about-leupold-mark-5.6869995/page-8#post-6917769
Eric took his out and compared it to Kahles, Gen II razor, Minox, and Meopta. Initial impressions are very positive.
Eric took his out and compared it to Kahles, Gen II razor, Minox, and Meopta. Initial impressions are very positive.
I clicked on link it was $1999.00
Farmerbrown
Well-Known Member
You have to add it to the cart to see the discounted price.
Ok now I get it, its FFP . That's a plus no doubt.Now how about the cost of the rings ? How thick is the reticle ? I have a Athlon cronus BTR 4.5x29x56mm . Last weekend I shot in a prone 600 yard match and a shooter on the line had a Razor Gen 2 . (He won the match) he griped how the reticle was too thick,it covered the X . Mine was perfect for that,however I can't use mine under 15x cause I can't see the reticle. Oh but mine is perfect for Montana Prairie dogs. So ring cost and reticle size concern me. Its a beautiful looking scope.
Last edited:
5RWill
Well-Known Member
Got home a little late but had some time to take them out and compare them. I can finally say it's the first scope i've bought that does indeed have better glass than my USO SN-3. I had them both on 9x starting at sunset looking at the deer behind the IPSC which is 800yds away, i'm thinking roughly 1100yds or so. 23 minutes after sunset the Leupold edged it out. Which it should in this category given the specs. I could make out the entire silhouette with the Leupold and couldn't see her with my SN-3 until she started running down the CRP line and her tail was up.
I thought i might of caught a hint of CA at first but i'll give a more definite opinion tomorrow during the day. Eyebox is tight at 25x. Though i might have a bit of work to do on positioning the scope. Edge to edge clarity and resolution are up there for sure. My knobs also don't line up but i've never had an optic that did this perfectly from the factory and as long as i can get them lined up fiddling with it, i'll be fine. Next weekend i should be shooting in laurel at an F class match and put against an ATACR 5-25
Take the pics with a grain of salt as you all know, my iphone SE with me holding it mid air certainly isn't indication of the glass quality
I thought i might of caught a hint of CA at first but i'll give a more definite opinion tomorrow during the day. Eyebox is tight at 25x. Though i might have a bit of work to do on positioning the scope. Edge to edge clarity and resolution are up there for sure. My knobs also don't line up but i've never had an optic that did this perfectly from the factory and as long as i can get them lined up fiddling with it, i'll be fine. Next weekend i should be shooting in laurel at an F class match and put against an ATACR 5-25
Take the pics with a grain of salt as you all know, my iphone SE with me holding it mid air certainly isn't indication of the glass quality
I looked at one at our local Sportsmans Warehouse . Its sweet, love the look. But it was 2K . My Athlon Cronus 4.5x29x56 was cheaper in price only .I'd like to compare the two.
5RWill
Well-Known Member
Alright so finally got to put it through it's paces...well to some degree. I didn't get to see if it was tracking because i chambered a round that was a bit rough to chamber with my Tempest, pulled it out and the case and powder came with it and the bullet stayed put. Didn't have a rod with me so needless to say my gun went down. I was having a hard time getting it zero'd but i'm putting that on myself, because to be frank, i was shooting terrible. Idk how some of you do it but if i'm absent from shooting for a couple of months i basically have to start over. Well it took three hours to calm down and i finally printed some decent groups with dad's 6.5 SAUM (unfortunately his Zeiss V6 isn't holding zero).
Anyhow enough of my rambling here are some updated pics. Scopes to compare it to where again my USO SN-3 and dad's Zeiss V6 3-18. Have to give Zeiss some credit for a scope that is nearly $600-1000 less than the two it's up against it really holds it's own. Though this is nothing new from Zeiss as my Conquest for the money is no slouch for it's price range.
Going back to the clicks while audible and pretty tactile just don't have enough resistance between them IMHO. Don't get me wrong it's not some detriment like the M5B2s were, they're solid knobs but could use a little work. Their windage is much stiffer. I didn't bring the hex allen key to set the zero stop and all either so it could change somewhat. My HDMR II felt better after i had set the zero stop. Though this is all personal preference and completely subjective, i do suggest getting your hands on one if you're considering it and are picky about turrets.
Parallax while smoother than i would prefer as i initially stated worked fine and was pretty generous from 500-800yds. No it doesn't line up quite perfect on the indicating yardage but that is nit picking to me. I've never really used the marking that much, rather i just turn it until the picture looks the clearest to my eye.
The first test was looking at paper at 100yds as i had to zero my rifle and shoot some groups with the 6.5 SAUM. No CA what so ever, again glass continues to impress me. I might have judged the eyebox prematurely while i wont say it's the most comfortable i've been behind it's not as bad as i originally thought. I've had to adjust my cheek weld and am still doing so to try and get it set so it's perfect.
After shooting finally got back to my range to see what it looked like on white steel with the sun beaming down on it. First and foremost maybe it's because i just haven't had a 56mm objective but the thing is ridiculously bright compared to what i'm used to. Very Gen II razor-esque. Colors pop and everything looks vibrant rather than warm like my USO. I set them all on 16x and kept going back and forth between targets to look for CA. This was from 200-800yds in 100yd increments, the Zeiss was the worst at controlling CA. Which was expected. The Leupold came in second, although it's a very close second. It's as mentioned before, almost dependent on cheek weld and where you are in reference behind the scope if you'll see CA. Some viewings i couldn't tell there was any, others i had the faintest smidge.. that is to be fair and honest completely unnoticeable less you were seriously looking for it. When i say faint i mean it's almost completely absent, it was practically unnoticed. Though the USO again has none what so ever, still makes me smile honestly. That scope is approaching 10 years old and it's just been a fabulous piece of glass to me. FWIW i really need a phone skope, what you see below is probably the best i can do holding the phone behind my rifle but good God it takes some patience.
All in all for the money, strictly speaking in terms of glass quality, it is competing above it's price range if you're just going on price alone for the non-illuminated models. Leupold really needs to work on getting the illumination down then i think many more people would consider this a very viable option for those that need illumination. I myself, don't find it necessary. Considering what you can pick up this particular model for at Mile High right now for $1955 it's truthfully the best scope i've been behind in a sub $2000 price bracket, bar none. Yes that includes the Cronus for what short time i spent behind one. I mean if we're being frank it was just a couple of years ago that the ERS was $1999 and there is absolutely no comparison between the two.
Anyhow enough of my rambling here are some updated pics. Scopes to compare it to where again my USO SN-3 and dad's Zeiss V6 3-18. Have to give Zeiss some credit for a scope that is nearly $600-1000 less than the two it's up against it really holds it's own. Though this is nothing new from Zeiss as my Conquest for the money is no slouch for it's price range.
Going back to the clicks while audible and pretty tactile just don't have enough resistance between them IMHO. Don't get me wrong it's not some detriment like the M5B2s were, they're solid knobs but could use a little work. Their windage is much stiffer. I didn't bring the hex allen key to set the zero stop and all either so it could change somewhat. My HDMR II felt better after i had set the zero stop. Though this is all personal preference and completely subjective, i do suggest getting your hands on one if you're considering it and are picky about turrets.
Parallax while smoother than i would prefer as i initially stated worked fine and was pretty generous from 500-800yds. No it doesn't line up quite perfect on the indicating yardage but that is nit picking to me. I've never really used the marking that much, rather i just turn it until the picture looks the clearest to my eye.
The first test was looking at paper at 100yds as i had to zero my rifle and shoot some groups with the 6.5 SAUM. No CA what so ever, again glass continues to impress me. I might have judged the eyebox prematurely while i wont say it's the most comfortable i've been behind it's not as bad as i originally thought. I've had to adjust my cheek weld and am still doing so to try and get it set so it's perfect.
After shooting finally got back to my range to see what it looked like on white steel with the sun beaming down on it. First and foremost maybe it's because i just haven't had a 56mm objective but the thing is ridiculously bright compared to what i'm used to. Very Gen II razor-esque. Colors pop and everything looks vibrant rather than warm like my USO. I set them all on 16x and kept going back and forth between targets to look for CA. This was from 200-800yds in 100yd increments, the Zeiss was the worst at controlling CA. Which was expected. The Leupold came in second, although it's a very close second. It's as mentioned before, almost dependent on cheek weld and where you are in reference behind the scope if you'll see CA. Some viewings i couldn't tell there was any, others i had the faintest smidge.. that is to be fair and honest completely unnoticeable less you were seriously looking for it. When i say faint i mean it's almost completely absent, it was practically unnoticed. Though the USO again has none what so ever, still makes me smile honestly. That scope is approaching 10 years old and it's just been a fabulous piece of glass to me. FWIW i really need a phone skope, what you see below is probably the best i can do holding the phone behind my rifle but good God it takes some patience.
All in all for the money, strictly speaking in terms of glass quality, it is competing above it's price range if you're just going on price alone for the non-illuminated models. Leupold really needs to work on getting the illumination down then i think many more people would consider this a very viable option for those that need illumination. I myself, don't find it necessary. Considering what you can pick up this particular model for at Mile High right now for $1955 it's truthfully the best scope i've been behind in a sub $2000 price bracket, bar none. Yes that includes the Cronus for what short time i spent behind one. I mean if we're being frank it was just a couple of years ago that the ERS was $1999 and there is absolutely no comparison between the two.
5RWill
Well-Known Member
Alright we'll today was basically a make or break day for the MK5 in my eyes at least. I'm happy to report i'm continually impressed and might be going back on my word as far as putting it up for sale, for now anyway. I'm going to shoot at Providence at the end of March and likely run another F-class match next month as i enjoyed it today with the electronic targets. Shot 526 for my first outing with a rear bag and atlas. Really love the electronic system and it's a great way to confirm load data. Load gave me a SD of 6 last 8 shots i ran through it and it appeared that it's solid.
I think it's safe to say someone at Leupold gathered some attention to the tarnished reputation of the Mark 6's tracking and i'm satisfied to say i think that's gone. Given the tracking test we've seen here and the results today it's spot on. Ballistic AE called for 9.3 mils for my load and i dialed to 9.3 and was spot on. I did have to come down 3/10ths after the mirage cleared but that's normal or so they tell me. I'm very inexperienced at shooting past 800yds and the mirage was terrible at first.
Scored 176, 177, and 173. Only got pics of the last two.
Starting with the turrets again, they're growing on me. I've got them lined up perfect and despite the lack of the resistance from click to click they're louder than most i've been around, including the NF, and tactile enough. It's like that's leupold's counter to them being a little "soft" click to click so to speak. The NF i would describe as having better turrets despite my growing affection for the Mark 5. So in F-class you apparently dial for wind, which is news to me. Here we go with the wonky windage hash..You know i've been giving them hell for that hash but i was laughing because for me it actually worked View attachment 93388 From behind the gun slightly picking my head up it's clear how they intend for the shooter to use the windage. It works using it as intended and when you try to use it as a traditional windage knob is when you're left scratching your head. It's not the most precise windage hash, but if we're being honest no windage hash on the scope body is. The angle is always a bit weird less the hash is on the turret body in which case you'll have to shift more to see it. Windage clicks are much more firm than the elevation and if the elevation felt like that i'd have zero complaints about it.
On to the glass...again. Alright so the mirage sort of made it rather difficult comparing the two. That and i couldn't find anything of serious detail that could deliberately separate them. At first i was looking at an outhouse with a white screen door i'm guessing based on the parallax setting 600yds or so away. Here we run into the same faint CA issue i had before. One minute i'm looking at some minor CA on a white, sun lit screen door. I switched to the ATACR, which has none as aspected, then went back to the mark 5 and it's gone. Also found myself uncomfortable today behind it at points. Evidently i've got to keep moving the cheek weld up as it's just not there yet. This is probably the biggest draw back. The eyebox as i've already mentioned is somewhat tight at 25x. It's not detrimental, just rather tight. I'd describe it as similar to a ERS/XRS. The NF in this regard was phenomenal, reminded me of my USO on 17x, just extremely comfortable to be behind. As it's to note it's on a friends rifle, setup for him, and i had no problem jumping behind it.
Parallax goes to NF, hands down it was reminiscent of my SN-3 you could leave it at a mid setting and look all around without inducing much parallax.
Next was resolution. Lacking rather detailed objects of small font to try and compare the two i moved to the American flag on the pole to the left of the 1000yd targets, i'm guessing it was 800yds away. It was really hard to tell the difference between them at least in this setting. Edge to edge clarity in both is superb. The image size on the NF is larger. Note i'm not specifying FOV as i have no metric to measure this. I don't really know the terminology for it but the NF again felt very reminiscent of my SN-3 it's like the eyepiece is just huge where the Leupold feels like you're looking through a smaller tube. I guess it's just the literal size of the rear ocular lens. I don't have the terminology or knowledge to reliably articulate what i'm describing but i'm sure some of you can reminisce. I didn't adjust the diopter on either. I'll also note that i loathe the NF's rotating eyepiece. For the love of God some of us are left eye dominant and use scope caps to cover our dominant eye so we can shoot both eyes open. Literally serves no purpose other than an annoyance as far as i'm concerned.
Next is color/contrast this is where i think NF takes the cake, it's beautiful. It's contrast is superior to the Mark 5 bar none. The easy way to describe it for me is a calibrated versus an uncalibrated TN panel. It's not that drastic for those of you who are thinking how horrid TN panels are out of the box without the proper ICC profiles or calibration with a colorimeter. These pictures would be how i describe it but again not that drastic. Granted i realize that the picture below is not an uncalibrated TN vs a calibrated TN. My point is to illustrate the differences i'm seeing with my eyes to you all, which turns out is inherently difficult without seriously nice cameras to properly capture the IQ of the optics. What it basically translates to though, is deeper blacks and truer color.
Lastly i looked at cows off to the right and couldn't tell much difference between the two at all. Maybe a slight edge to the NF, though Idk it was very close on the last look through. I was hoping i'd find some small letters that could really discern a resolution difference between the two.
All in all yes the NF is the superior optic probably both mechanically and optically. Though to get the NF in the config i'm running (H59) it's literally $1000 more and the same for the non-illum TMR versus the Mil-R. I'm not comparing Illum vs Illum because in that regard Leupold is overpriced IMO but the obvious point is that there is an option which allows you to acquire a mark 5 at 2/3rds the cost of an ATACR. I also consider it rather unnecessary for what most of us are doing less you're running clip on NV or are LEO. Is it a $1000 difference? I don't personally think so but that's a choice that only you can make. I also have heard Leupold has a reticle that was just approved and have to say if they have something like the Mil-C or think a TMR with a center dot and .2-mil hashes and there is no premium for it, i think they'll sell like crazy. Another nod to NF, I really liked the Mil-C reticle. I still prefer a tree, i always will, but the Mil-C is noticeably thinner than both reticles in my optics i run and i appreciated that.
As i said before i can't speak for the 3.6-18, but the 5-25 is an amazing value for the discounted prices going around right now. If they can field a base model at $1999 with a proper reticle be it something reminiscent of the Mil-C or SKMR it would IMHO only be bested by DMR II pro for the money, assuming the DMR II Pro pans out and is $1599.
I think it's safe to say someone at Leupold gathered some attention to the tarnished reputation of the Mark 6's tracking and i'm satisfied to say i think that's gone. Given the tracking test we've seen here and the results today it's spot on. Ballistic AE called for 9.3 mils for my load and i dialed to 9.3 and was spot on. I did have to come down 3/10ths after the mirage cleared but that's normal or so they tell me. I'm very inexperienced at shooting past 800yds and the mirage was terrible at first.
Scored 176, 177, and 173. Only got pics of the last two.
Starting with the turrets again, they're growing on me. I've got them lined up perfect and despite the lack of the resistance from click to click they're louder than most i've been around, including the NF, and tactile enough. It's like that's leupold's counter to them being a little "soft" click to click so to speak. The NF i would describe as having better turrets despite my growing affection for the Mark 5. So in F-class you apparently dial for wind, which is news to me. Here we go with the wonky windage hash..You know i've been giving them hell for that hash but i was laughing because for me it actually worked View attachment 93388 From behind the gun slightly picking my head up it's clear how they intend for the shooter to use the windage. It works using it as intended and when you try to use it as a traditional windage knob is when you're left scratching your head. It's not the most precise windage hash, but if we're being honest no windage hash on the scope body is. The angle is always a bit weird less the hash is on the turret body in which case you'll have to shift more to see it. Windage clicks are much more firm than the elevation and if the elevation felt like that i'd have zero complaints about it.
On to the glass...again. Alright so the mirage sort of made it rather difficult comparing the two. That and i couldn't find anything of serious detail that could deliberately separate them. At first i was looking at an outhouse with a white screen door i'm guessing based on the parallax setting 600yds or so away. Here we run into the same faint CA issue i had before. One minute i'm looking at some minor CA on a white, sun lit screen door. I switched to the ATACR, which has none as aspected, then went back to the mark 5 and it's gone. Also found myself uncomfortable today behind it at points. Evidently i've got to keep moving the cheek weld up as it's just not there yet. This is probably the biggest draw back. The eyebox as i've already mentioned is somewhat tight at 25x. It's not detrimental, just rather tight. I'd describe it as similar to a ERS/XRS. The NF in this regard was phenomenal, reminded me of my USO on 17x, just extremely comfortable to be behind. As it's to note it's on a friends rifle, setup for him, and i had no problem jumping behind it.
Parallax goes to NF, hands down it was reminiscent of my SN-3 you could leave it at a mid setting and look all around without inducing much parallax.
Next was resolution. Lacking rather detailed objects of small font to try and compare the two i moved to the American flag on the pole to the left of the 1000yd targets, i'm guessing it was 800yds away. It was really hard to tell the difference between them at least in this setting. Edge to edge clarity in both is superb. The image size on the NF is larger. Note i'm not specifying FOV as i have no metric to measure this. I don't really know the terminology for it but the NF again felt very reminiscent of my SN-3 it's like the eyepiece is just huge where the Leupold feels like you're looking through a smaller tube. I guess it's just the literal size of the rear ocular lens. I don't have the terminology or knowledge to reliably articulate what i'm describing but i'm sure some of you can reminisce. I didn't adjust the diopter on either. I'll also note that i loathe the NF's rotating eyepiece. For the love of God some of us are left eye dominant and use scope caps to cover our dominant eye so we can shoot both eyes open. Literally serves no purpose other than an annoyance as far as i'm concerned.
Next is color/contrast this is where i think NF takes the cake, it's beautiful. It's contrast is superior to the Mark 5 bar none. The easy way to describe it for me is a calibrated versus an uncalibrated TN panel. It's not that drastic for those of you who are thinking how horrid TN panels are out of the box without the proper ICC profiles or calibration with a colorimeter. These pictures would be how i describe it but again not that drastic. Granted i realize that the picture below is not an uncalibrated TN vs a calibrated TN. My point is to illustrate the differences i'm seeing with my eyes to you all, which turns out is inherently difficult without seriously nice cameras to properly capture the IQ of the optics. What it basically translates to though, is deeper blacks and truer color.
Lastly i looked at cows off to the right and couldn't tell much difference between the two at all. Maybe a slight edge to the NF, though Idk it was very close on the last look through. I was hoping i'd find some small letters that could really discern a resolution difference between the two.
All in all yes the NF is the superior optic probably both mechanically and optically. Though to get the NF in the config i'm running (H59) it's literally $1000 more and the same for the non-illum TMR versus the Mil-R. I'm not comparing Illum vs Illum because in that regard Leupold is overpriced IMO but the obvious point is that there is an option which allows you to acquire a mark 5 at 2/3rds the cost of an ATACR. I also consider it rather unnecessary for what most of us are doing less you're running clip on NV or are LEO. Is it a $1000 difference? I don't personally think so but that's a choice that only you can make. I also have heard Leupold has a reticle that was just approved and have to say if they have something like the Mil-C or think a TMR with a center dot and .2-mil hashes and there is no premium for it, i think they'll sell like crazy. Another nod to NF, I really liked the Mil-C reticle. I still prefer a tree, i always will, but the Mil-C is noticeably thinner than both reticles in my optics i run and i appreciated that.
As i said before i can't speak for the 3.6-18, but the 5-25 is an amazing value for the discounted prices going around right now. If they can field a base model at $1999 with a proper reticle be it something reminiscent of the Mil-C or SKMR it would IMHO only be bested by DMR II pro for the money, assuming the DMR II Pro pans out and is $1599.
jsthntn247
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2009
- Messages
- 887
Good review Will. What bullet and load were you using at the match?
5RWill
Well-Known Member
Thanks man. 6.5x47 running 130gr hybrids over 36.3gr of IMR 4166. SD was solid last i Chrono'd was 6 out of 11 shots. But i've lost about 80fps in the last year. I figured it was because i left that particular pound out in my chargemaster for two weeks. Opened up a pound last night and am still at 2735fps. Sucks, i was at 2815fps with 36.2gr. I'm about to push back up with it again or varget. That or move to RL16.
thewarrior23
Member
Lambo's has good prices
5RWill
Well-Known Member
Chromatic Aberration it's an optical error that usually presents as color fringing around the edges of vibrant targets. Lots never notice it nor care about it, as it wont effect your ability to hit the target. That said i notice it and it annoys me quite a bit. Especially in a $2000+ optic. In the 1000-1500 i expect it. Above $2000 and i expect it be controlled greatly. The Mark 5 had pretty great CA control, wasn't perfect and most scopes aren't but it was good.
Take the K624i from Kahles, it's a $3000 optic that suffers quite a bit from CA for it's price. I now own one because i love everything about the optic except it's CA control. Especially the reticle, which after using it at a match on friends rifle i sold the Mark 5 and found a good priced on a used K624i. Everything else about the Kahles i love and i preordered a K525i, hoping that it rectifies the short comings of the k624i. Simply looking at a light post 200yds or so with mine and it's prevalent.
Here's Bill's picture from his review of the Kahles on top and mine i took at my apartment. Granted it's more exaggerated in the pictures as the Camera induces more CA. It's not that prevalent to my eye as it is in my photo but it is there.
Take the K624i from Kahles, it's a $3000 optic that suffers quite a bit from CA for it's price. I now own one because i love everything about the optic except it's CA control. Especially the reticle, which after using it at a match on friends rifle i sold the Mark 5 and found a good priced on a used K624i. Everything else about the Kahles i love and i preordered a K525i, hoping that it rectifies the short comings of the k624i. Simply looking at a light post 200yds or so with mine and it's prevalent.
Here's Bill's picture from his review of the Kahles on top and mine i took at my apartment. Granted it's more exaggerated in the pictures as the Camera induces more CA. It's not that prevalent to my eye as it is in my photo but it is there.
