Thumbs down on Leupold MK 4

[Iron Worker]

Am I out of my mind ? Today I just mounted a Bushnell elite 6500 2.5x16 x50MM onto my rifle. Last week I mounted my new IOR 2.5x10x42MM on another rifle. IOR is better then the 6500. Shooter next bench over had a 3.5x10x 40MM Leupold MK4 . That scope wilted in comparison to my 6500 elite. IOR made it look like the MK4 came out of a Cracker jacks box. Totally un impressed by the MK 4.

 

[Boss Hoss]

My comment is that you are becoming educated. Personally I came to the conclusion about the line of optics you refer to many years ago. That being said I still have 2 of them that work very well for the purpose (truck guns for the ranch during daylight one a Clark 77/22 and a Ruger 18 in 308) the rifles they are on.

On serious dedicated hunting rifles no.

 

[B23]

I'm sure many will disagree with me and that's ok but I have been kinda impressed with the 6500. Especially considering what I paid for it. Don't get me wrong it's no NF but it cost me alot less too. I think the SIII and 6500 are better than the Mk4 and this is coming from someone who used to ONLY buy Leupold.

 

[ZSteinle]

Throw all of them against a brick wall and see which is still in one piece after a few throws. I know my Mk4 took more abuse than any other scope I have had

 

[Senderofan]

Am I out of my mind ? Today I just mounted a Bushnell elite 6500 2.5x16 x50MM onto my rifle. Last week I mounted my new IOR 2.5x10x42MM on another rifle. IOR is better then the 6500. Shooter next bench over had a 3.5x10x 40MM Leupold MK4 . That scope wilted in comparison to my 6500 elite. IOR made it look like the MK4 came out of a Cracker jacks box. Totally un impressed by the MK 4.

You have experienced the difference between Schott glass ( European ) with Zeiss coatings ( IOR ) versus the rest. It is an unbelievable difference....but one that's starting to get pricey.

Wayne

 

[J E Custom]

For every person that likes the brand of scopes that you mention there are at least 10
more that like the Leupold better !

I have tried lots of brands of scopes and my eyes like the Leupold Best

Keep in mind that everyone's eyes react differently to different types of lens coatings so if
you like a particular scope go for it .

As for durability I still have the first Leupold scope I purchased many years ago and have tried
other brands of scopes that were under $600.00 and they have all failed in the end .

As to the MK4 it is one of the best scopes on the market for the money (More than I like to
pay) I know the high end scopes ($1200.00+) are supposed to be better but with very few
exceptions, I cant see the difference for the difference in price. there are features on the
high end scopes that are nice and in some circumstances are a must so it boils down to
what you like and what you can afford/justify.

Just because you like Chevy's doesn't mean fords are a piece of junk.

J E CUSTOM

 

[FEENIX]

For every person that likes the brand of scopes that you mention there are at least 10
more that like the Leupold better !

I have tried lots of brands of scopes and my eyes like the Leupold Best

Keep in mind that everyone's eyes react differently to different types of lens coatings so if
you like a particular scope go for it .

As for durability I still have the first Leupold scope I purchased many years ago and have tried
other brands of scopes that were under $600.00 and they have all failed in the end .

As to the MK4 it is one of the best scopes on the market for the money (More than I like to
pay) I know the high end scopes ($1200.00+) are supposed to be better but with very few
exceptions, I cant see the difference for the difference in price. there are features on the
high end scopes that are nice and in some circumstances are a must so it boils down to
what you like and what you can afford/justify.

Just because you like Chevy's doesn't mean fords are a piece of junk.

J E CUSTOM

+1 ... well said!

 

[Boss Hoss]

Loopy makes a good mid line product no doubt but to compare them to the best Euro and US made scopes is not fair.

 

[woods]

Sounds to me like Iron Worker gave an honest assessment of what he actually experienced. The Leupolds are a functional optical sight but are not considered best in their class by a growing number of experienced shooters.

If you still like and buy Leupold then I certainly have no problem with that. Loyalty is a very good quality and they are as close to American made as any except US Optics (I have heard they are American made 100%). I assist in the reloading of more than 40 rifles and mount all the scopes for my friends. Typically after a short talk and demonstration (usually at the range), they are removing their Leupolds and buying Zeiss Conquests. Personally I have a lot of Kahles, Zeiss Diavaris and Zeiss Conquests.

 

[FEENIX]

Sounds to me like Iron Worker gave an honest assessment of what he actually experienced. The Leupolds are a functional optical sight but are not considered best in their class by a growing number of experienced shooters.

If you still like and buy Leupold then I certainly have no problem with that. Loyalty is a very good quality and they are as close to American made as any except US Optics (I have heard they are American made 100%). I assist in the reloading of more than 40 rifles and mount all the scopes for my friends. Typically after a short talk and demonstration (usually at the range), they are removing their Leupolds and buying Zeiss Conquests. Personally I have a lot of Kahles, Zeiss Diavaris and Zeiss Conquests.

Am I out of my mind ? Today I just mounted a Bushnell elite 6500 2.5x16 x50MM onto my rifle. Last week I mounted my new IOR 2.5x10x42MM on another rifle. IOR is better then the 6500. Shooter next bench over had a 3.5x10x 40MM Leupold MK4 . That scope wilted in comparison to my 6500 elite. IOR made it look like the MK4 came out of a Cracker jacks box. Totally un impressed by the MK 4.

Where's the honest assessment?

 

[Iron Worker]

Where's the honest assessment?

Its in there ! I was honest in reporting what my 52 year old eyes that need glasses saw. I was impressed with the one poster saying each others eyes react differently to various coatings.... When I looked through the MK 4 I saw a fuzzy image along with my eye had to be dead center plus it was a 3.5x10 x40mm with a side focus ???? Why does it need that ? My IOR doesn't have one and it in focus on any distance 10yds out. Trijicon 2.5x10x56MM doesn't have a side fucus either.

 

[MSLRHunter]

I own a mark 4, and so far it is my all around favorite scope. I have a swarovski and kahles, and while there glass quality may be slightly better than the mark 4, the mark 4 has lots of other features that IMHO make it the better scope for my type of shooting.

 

[Michael Eichele]

Its in there ! I was honest in reporting what my 52 year old eyes that need glasses saw. I was impressed with the one poster saying each others eyes react differently to various coatings.... When I looked through the MK 4 I saw a fuzzy image along with my eye had to be dead center plus it was a 3.5x10 x40mm with a side focus ???? Why does it need that ? My IOR doesn't have one and it in focus on any distance 10yds out. Trijicon 2.5x10x56MM doesn't have a side fucus either.

Sounds like you need to 'focus' the scope. When you use the side 'focus' this has more to do with paralax and less on focus. If you need to focus it, you adjust the REAR eye peice.

Focus it properly, then compare.

 

[FEENIX]

Quote:
Originally Posted by FEENIX
Where's the honest assessment?

Its in there ! I was honest in reporting what my 52 year old eyes that need glasses saw. I was impressed with the one poster saying each others eyes react differently to various coatings.... When I looked through the MK 4 I saw a fuzzy image along with my eye had to be dead center plus it was a 3.5x10 x40mm with a side focus ???? Why does it need that ? My IOR doesn't have one and it in focus on any distance 10yds out. Trijicon 2.5x10x56MM doesn't have a side fucus either.

I guess we have a difference in the definition of being "honest". Most posters I know here that makes an honest effort to share a constructive evaluation of a product that we can all use (esp. when it is done accordingly, no bias, not apples-to-oranges comparison, varying situations, etc ...) at least start off with IMHO, ....

Having said that, with all due respect IMHO, your evaluation was inconclusive and has no merit to recommend any of the scopes you mentioned over each other, just because your 52 old eyes (no pun intended) did not work when you look into the MK4 without any effort of adjustments, doesn't deserve your kind words.

BTW, I don't own a MK4.