Leupold Mark 4, I just don't get it!

[FNFiveSeven]

Why in the name of all that's holy do these scopes cost sooo much? It can't all just be "tactical" marketing hype, can it? It can't be the 40mm objective (kinda on the smaller side), and it isn't the fixed power (fixed power is usually cheaper than variable), and it isn't the illuminated reticle, since the scope doesn't even have one! So what is that makes them worth $1200+? For that much money, you can get a Schmidt and Bender, Swarovski, Nightforce, US optics, etc, and these scopes will sport bigger objectives and variable power.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm sure that for some situations, the size and fixed power of the Mark 4 is exactly what you would want, but that doesn't justify the price... right?

 

[Soap]

The tube of the Mark 4 is signifcantly thicker than a regular scope tube. Thus, it is much stronger. Plus they have a side focus, which allows one to completely eliminate parallax. And it has a greater range of windage and elevation adjustment than many scope. Which is essential for long range shooting.

 

[Chris Rhines]

Optics (not just rifle scopes but binoculars, telescopes, and other optical instruments) are the world's best example of "you get what you pay for."

The Mk4 has the heavy tube body, sturdier controls, and a wider range of MOA adjustment than the M1 or M3 Vari-XIII. It also has the side-focus knob, although some M1s and M3s do as well. I suspect that the optics are better than the Vari-XIII (I have had the chance to compare a Swarovski and a Mk4 side-by-side, and I think that the Mk4 was a bit sharper. Didn't do any formal testing, though.)

BTW, what will $1200 buy you from U.S. Optics? A catalog?

- Chris

 

[280PLUS]

i read somwhere once some grunts used a leupold to bang in some tent stakes and when they put it back on it's rifle it had not lost zero...

didn't see it myself though

m

 

[FNFiveSeven]

Well,

Maybe it is a durability thing, then? I still find it hard to believe that this scope is more durable than say, the US Optics ST-10, a fixed 10 power scope, which is only slightly higher in price (about 1500 bucks). Based on the features of the Mark 4 line of scopes, it would seem that they should cost about half of what the currently do... a Nightforce scope is the exact same price, but offers a larger objective, 4 fold magnification ability, illuminated reticle, and all the durability you could ever want.

And yes, the Nightforce has been used to do the exact same "hammering nails" test without losing zero either... and although I've never heard of it being done, I would be amazed if the US Optics couldn't outdo any Leupold in any durability test, even the hammering nails test.

Anyway, thanks for the responses so far, at least I can see a few of the reasons for the increased price.

 

[Andrew Wyatt]

why are variables so important?


it's not like any one's actually going to set them on a setting lower than their highest one anyway, they cost more, and are more fragile.

 

[FNFiveSeven]

Andrew...

Yes, they do cost more, except, of course, in the case of the Leupold Mark 4!

As far as your other claims, I find myself using the lower power setting on all of my scopes very frequently. When you have a scope with a maximum power greater than 22x, there are plenty of times you might want something else. This is especailly true when you are trying to find your target in the first place, or you are shooting at something at close range, activities which are going to be more difficult at higher power settings. And then there are times when you just need a greater field of view, like when there is more than one target you are concerned about, or you are tracking a moving target. Also, sometimes the higher power can screw up your vision because of mirage, which actaully makes lower power settings preferrable. Oh yeah, don't forget that the image is much brighter at lower power settings, enabling you to find and hit your target in much lower light conditions than you ever could at higher power. So, I think there are quite a few reasons to go with a variable, if you ask me

 

[Onslaught]

For it's intended use, I see no reason why it's any better than one of these:

And at almost HALF the price


PS - oops, OK, I was thinking Mark 4 CQ/T, which is a little different than the standard Mark 4... Geez, 20X scope!

 

[TechBrute]

it's not like any one's actually going to set them on a setting lower than their highest one anyway, they cost more, and are more fragile.

Yes, it is like anyone will set them lower than their highest magnification. The lower magnification offers a wider field of view which leads to faster target aquisition.