Leupold Mark 4 LR/T??
- Thread starter 308cal
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
HARPERC
Well-Known Member
My limited experience response would be Leupold Mark 4 is comparable with the standard Nightforce, but not with the ATACR.
Each time this question comes up there are a lot of contradictory opinions. I think the variables in test conditions and individual eyes make it something you have to evaluate for yourself, very difficult to do, more so side by side.
Most of the brands you listed should have enough glass quality to perform in the field. Making some of the other features maybe more important to the individual.
Each time this question comes up there are a lot of contradictory opinions. I think the variables in test conditions and individual eyes make it something you have to evaluate for yourself, very difficult to do, more so side by side.
Most of the brands you listed should have enough glass quality to perform in the field. Making some of the other features maybe more important to the individual.
6.5shaggy
Well-Known Member
Leupold Mark 4 scopes are very good products, and if you buy one you can use it with confidence knowing that it will get the job done and you have Leupold"s warranty behind it as well.
That said, until you have seen first hand the step up in quality of Nightforce's mechanics or the glass quality of IOR Valdada, or Zeiss, it's hard to fathom the real gap in overall user satisfaction.
As to possibly answer your question. I do feel that the Leupolds fall in line with the Vortex Viper, Sightron SII, Bushnell 6500 series, but not the Zeiss Conquest as it has NOTICIBLY better glass than any Leupold I've ever used.
That said, until you have seen first hand the step up in quality of Nightforce's mechanics or the glass quality of IOR Valdada, or Zeiss, it's hard to fathom the real gap in overall user satisfaction.
As to possibly answer your question. I do feel that the Leupolds fall in line with the Vortex Viper, Sightron SII, Bushnell 6500 series, but not the Zeiss Conquest as it has NOTICIBLY better glass than any Leupold I've ever used.
brentc
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2009
- Messages
- 2,635
The Mark 4 is an excellent scope. My favorite features are the 23 oz weight, accurate adjustments, and available alumina scope covers. The glass is better than the PST and SIII when comparing the scopes at their highest power. They are not on the same level as the NXS but they are as solid as any scope in the $1000 price range.
bruce_ventura
Well-Known Member
The optical design of the objective lens differs between the NXS and Huskemaw and the other scopes mentioned by the OP. The Mark 4 and PST, for example, use a simple doublet objective lens, while some NXS and Huskemaw models use a triplet objective lens. The triplet lens gives the scope better resolution at high internal adjustments of over +/-30 MOA. I don't know what objective design the Nightforce HSV uses, but it seems unlikely it has a triplet objective at that price point.
Some of the Mark 4 models have internal adjustment ranges of +/-45 or 50 MOA. If you need more than +/-30 MOA of adjustment to get to long range, you will suffer a loss of resolution with a Mark 4 that you might not with either the NXS or Huskemaw scopes (depending on the model). This is a more significant issue for the higher magnification (>10X) scopes, because the aberrations in the objective lens are magnified by the erector tube optics. For magnification settings below 10X, the aberrations in the objective lens are hardly noticeable.
You can overcome this issue to a large extent by using a 20 MOA rail or Burris Signature rings with offset inserts. That way you can get 40 MOA of bullet drop with the scope internal adjustment set to about 20 MOA of bullet up. Your zero will be at about 20 MOA of bullet down adjustment. At these settings, both doublet and triple lenses will have similar resolution.
Otherwise, the Mark 4 scopes have good stray light management that gives them high image contrast. In that regard their performance is similar to NXS scopes. Huskemaw scopes have good contrast, although not quite as good as the other two, IMHO. The Viper PST scopes have below average image contrast for their price point. For big game hunting, I would recommend getting the high contrast scope.
Some of the Mark 4 models have internal adjustment ranges of +/-45 or 50 MOA. If you need more than +/-30 MOA of adjustment to get to long range, you will suffer a loss of resolution with a Mark 4 that you might not with either the NXS or Huskemaw scopes (depending on the model). This is a more significant issue for the higher magnification (>10X) scopes, because the aberrations in the objective lens are magnified by the erector tube optics. For magnification settings below 10X, the aberrations in the objective lens are hardly noticeable.
You can overcome this issue to a large extent by using a 20 MOA rail or Burris Signature rings with offset inserts. That way you can get 40 MOA of bullet drop with the scope internal adjustment set to about 20 MOA of bullet up. Your zero will be at about 20 MOA of bullet down adjustment. At these settings, both doublet and triple lenses will have similar resolution.
Otherwise, the Mark 4 scopes have good stray light management that gives them high image contrast. In that regard their performance is similar to NXS scopes. Huskemaw scopes have good contrast, although not quite as good as the other two, IMHO. The Viper PST scopes have below average image contrast for their price point. For big game hunting, I would recommend getting the high contrast scope.
6.5shaggy
Well-Known Member
Now that was a useful post! Thank you, I learn something every day.
+1 to what Brentc says. The lighter weight of the Mark 4, depending on how you use your rifle, can be a huge factor in making a decision.
and another +1 for Bruce_Ventura's post.
From my own experience I have used the Mark 4 4.5-14x50, Viper PST 4-16x50 and the NF ATACR. Based on my own eyes, the Mark 4 has better glass than the PST, where the PST eye box at 16x gets finicky. Lower power settings the PST is great. From a mechanical standpoint, I like the turrets/clicks of the PST over the Mark 4, they feel more crisp/solid, but that is subjective and my Mark 4 tracks just as accurately. I have not had any durability issues with any of these scopes and I have used them all backpack hunting where they get bumped around quite a bit. The ATACR has the best glass, but is so dang heavy.
The MOA reticle on the PST, in my opinion, is much better than anything that Leupold offers, as I am an MOA guy. All of my Leupold's just have simple duplex reticles.
So compared to a PST, overall I think the Mark 4 is a better scope, but you also pay more for it. I am going to be looking for a new scope within the next year and I want to see the HSV and see how it compares to the NXS and ATACR. It's going to have a great blend of features and a handful of ounces lighter than the NXS. Hoping to read some more HSV review in the near future too.
krummarine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2006
- Messages
- 723
I have both and wouldn't get rid of one for the other. The Mark 4 is a good, solid optic with very crisp optics; the NF NXS is built like a tank, has nice glass and offers tactile knobs that you can spin to your heart's content. Both are backed by exceptional warranties and CS. I don't think you could go wrong with either.
