Mark IV 6.5-20

[284stak]

I am ready to purchase a scope for my 338 Lapua improved. Is there any reason not to purchase the Mark IV 6.5-20 for long range applications compared to comparably priced scopes? Have thought about the NXS, but weight and price sway me back to the Leupold. The Zeiss Conquest and Sightron were considered, but I like the aspect of a 30mm tube with solid/audible clicks that the Mark IV offers. I currently have an IOR on another rifle which I love, but that rifle is not braked, while the 338 is ---- and recently learned that IOR's can fail with brakes. Any input is welcomed.

 

[J E Custom]

I am ready to purchase a scope for my 338 Lapua improved. Is there any reason not to purchase the Mark IV 6.5-20 for long range applications compared to comparably priced scopes? Have thought about the NXS, but weight and price sway me back to the Leupold. The Zeiss Conquest and Sightron were considered, but I like the aspect of a 30mm tube with solid/audible clicks that the Mark IV offers. I currently have an IOR on another rifle which I love, but that rifle is not braked, while the 338 is ---- and recently learned that IOR's can fail with brakes. Any input is welcomed.

Leupold makes the mark 4 6.5x20x50 in both the standard models and the front focal Plane
models with a wide selection of reticules. The ffp models are a little higher in price but some
people swear buy the Front focal plane scopes.

They weigh just over 2 pounds and have lots of eye relief.

The glass in these scopes is very good and for the money they are hard to beat.

Every scope I buy nowadays has a 30mm tube and side focus With very few exceptions
because of strength and overall length Plus the side focus is quick and easy to use.

J E CUSTOM

 

[Deadman's Pointers]

The biggest difference I've been able to notice is the ruggedness of dials and internals between the Leupold and Nightforce. I also had some lash issues with one of my Leupold MK4s. Leupold fixed it no questions asked, but I haven't ever had to send back my NXS.

I'm pretty hard on my stuff though; both are more than adequate choices. An interesting thing though, I'm sure this stir up a mess of 'you're crazy' responses...

I lent my Leupy MK4 6.5 to my buddy for his .338LM for the last few months while he scope shopped. He brought a Millett LRS along with him and put it through the paces from 800-1200 yards. My guess is the average Joe would see little difference between the two; eye relief was a bit worse. Just an opinion, but maybe the heat got to me...

 

[grit]

I have used the Mark 4 and NXS side by side, several times. Simply put, the mark 4 is my second choice scope for LRH, after the NXS. I doubt you'll be dissapointed with the mark 4.

If weight were an issue, I'd use the mark 4.
Using cost as a factor, the mark 4 is priced too close to the Nightforce.

Couple other observations / impressions:
The NXS has slightly better glass.
The size and weight of the NXS is apropriate for a long range rig.
The NP R1 is a tremendous asset and worth the price difference by itself.
The NXS offers the impression of extreme ruggedness and accuracy. I beleive it delivers.

The mark 4 is a nice scope.
It is perfectly servicable.
It is 10 oz lighter.
It is a few hundred dollars cheaper.
It does have a reputation for some backlash.

It's obvious which I prefer. But, we are talking about #1 and #2. It's personal preference and application... If you'd like to handle the NXS, I'll be happy to bring it up.

 

[CS T]

We sale both and I use both Leupold and Nightforce myself and I will say that the Nightforce is a better scope for reliability, tacking, and the glass is better. With this said I have been happy with the Leupold and trust it for the most part. I cannot afford to put Nightforce, USO, S&B, and Premier Reticle scopes on all my rifles and Leupold does the job well.

If you go with a Nightforce I recommend getting it with the turrets matching.

Mike @ CSGW