Leupold Mark AR for 600 yd 6.5 Creedmoor?

[Gatorgrizz27]

I just ordered a Weatherby Vanguard in 6.5 Creedmoor yesterday, so I will need a scope for it.

I'm trying to keep it fairly light as it will be a hunting rifle I plan to use both for deer and hogs here in FL, as well as out west for Aoudad and Pronghorn. Our local range only goes to 400 yards, and 600 yards seems to be the longest expected shot in a hunting situation, so that's where I'm limiting it for this gun.

I'm a fan of the Leupold scopes I have on my other rifles, and I've been looking at their Mark AR's. They have a 3-9 mil dot, 3-9 with illuminated hash mark milling reticle, and a 4-12 mil dot.

The illuminated dot reticle seems like it would be handy, but I've never used them, and I'm not sure if the 4-12 would be a better choice. Are illuminated reticles worthwhile, or would I be better served by the higher magnification of the 4-12 scope?

Spending a little bit more money isn't out of the question, but a Nighforce or even a VX-6 or Mark 4 is, for the time being. I've seen the Zeiss Conquest HD5 3-15, and the new Vortex Razor LH, which are in the $700-$800 range.

Honestly, I'd probably rather just run the Mark AR for now if it will be sufficient, and then use it on a different gun if I decide to upgrade the scope on my 6.5 in the future.

Thoughts on this or other things I should consider? Thanks for any input.

 

[Jerry M]

I'd pick the 4-12 mil dot. It will give you a little more range than the other models listed.

Good luck

Jerry

 

[graywolf]

I have been debating a similar setup, for a new .260 rem. Tikka CTR. I like the light weight simple 3-9 illuminated mildot/ mil turrets. It seems like a nice hunting scope for that range, good reliability and low cost. It is easy to modify the parallax setting to 300 or 400 yd and the mag range is fine, so that is not an issue for me. I prefer its simple design and weight and low cost and sight picture to the AO 4-12. I'm not sure about whether to change out the turrets though. The .223 BDC markings are worthless but they also have mil markings. You could make some custom tape covers and keep the mil marks or send it to Leupold to get M4 turrets or maybe some other options for about $100 I think.

 

[Gatorgrizz27]

I have been debating a similar setup, for a new .260 rem. Tikka CTR. I like the light weight simple 3-9 illuminated mildot/ mil turrets. It seems like a nice hunting scope for that range, good reliability and low cost. It is easy to modify the parallax setting to 300 or 400 yd and the mag range is fine, so that is not an issue for me. I prefer its simple design and weight and low cost and sight picture to the AO 4-12. I'm not sure about whether to change out the turrets though. The .223 BDC markings are worthless but they also have mil markings. You could make some custom tape covers and keep the mil marks or send it to Leupold to get M4 turrets or maybe some other options for about $100 I think.

I agree, I'm leaning towards the illuminated 3-9 at the moment. One big reason for the purchase of this rifle is to take it on an aoudad hunt. I read two different articles yesterday where the hunters mentioned them moving into shadows from the canyons/brush, and how helpful the illuminated dot was to line up the shot.

The 4-12 has an adjustable objective, but it seems to be a toss up as to whether or not people like having one on a mid-range hunting scope. I understand what parallax does, but having to range the target, adjust the dial, factor for wind, line up the shot, and then move around behind the scope to see if the crosshairs move while turning the AO until it stops seems chaotic when you're undergoing an adrenaline dump and pressed for time.

I have a VX-II 3-9 on my .30-06, I guess I need to play with it at the 400 yd range and see how much parallax I can induce.

I've read that Leupold will make you a custom dial for the Mark AR's that swaps right on without changing anything, but I ran the numbers and Hornady's 143 gr ELD-X at 2,700 fps is within an inch of the factory turret markings out to 400 yards. Beyond that, it starts differing significantly, but I may just use a drop chart and the mil marking on hunts, as the elevation and temperatures will vary drastically from where I live. I need to run the numbers and see how much of an effect they have at 600.

 

[graywolf]

I agree, I'm leaning towards the illuminated 3-9 at the moment. One big reason for the purchase of this rifle is to take it on an aoudad hunt. I read two different articles yesterday where the hunters mentioned them moving into shadows from the canyons/brush, and how helpful the illuminated dot was to line up the shot.

The 4-12 has an adjustable objective, but it seems to be a toss up as to whether or not people like having one on a mid-range hunting scope. I understand what parallax does, but having to range the target, adjust the dial, factor for wind, line up the shot, and then move around behind the scope to see if the crosshairs move while turning the AO until it stops seems chaotic when you're undergoing an adrenaline dump and pressed for time.

I have a VX-II 3-9 on my .30-06, I guess I need to play with it at the 400 yd range and see how much parallax I can induce.

I've read that Leupold will make you a custom dial for the Mark AR's that swaps right on without changing anything, but I ran the numbers and Hornady's 143 gr ELD-X at 2,700 fps is within an inch of the factory turret markings out to 400 yards. Beyond that, it starts differing significantly, but I may just use a drop chart and the mil marking on hunts, as the elevation and temperatures will vary drastically from where I live. I need to run the numbers and see how much of an effect they have at 600.

It's lucky that the ballistics match up to 400yd (but not if you are 450 yds away). I agree its nice to avoid a parallax dial if possible on a hunting scope for speed and simplicity sake unless you are at long enough ranges to involve significant possible error. It's easy to lengthen the fixed parallax setting on a Leupold, but if you aren't comfortable adjusting it, Leopold will do it for you for a small charge. If you have a smaller objective and take care to center your pupil, the error is insignificant out to relatively long distances. E.g. I changed my ultralight 3-9x36 parallax setting from 100 yd to 300 yd. That gives me a maximum error at 600 yds of about +/- 1 inch, a lot less than my accuracy at that range.