Leupold/Scope Recommendations

[fractal7]

So I recently picked up a Remington 700 5R .308 and now have to start shopping for optics. More or less I have decided on a Leupold Mark IV. I have been looking at the 4.5-14x50 and the 6.5-20x50. I would like to eventually try some 1000 yard shooting with it but nothing specific. Does anyone have an opinion if the extra 6 power is worth it?

Also does anyone have any thoughts on the TMR reticle over the Mil-dot and how much benefit the illuminated reticle gives for the money.

 

[pat86323]

if you are hunting with the rifle i strongly advise against the 6 as in a thicker area it can be a real hinderance at shorter ranges. Cant go wrong with a leupold.

 

[pgeleven]

pat86323 has some sound advice, but do you only plan on long range shooting, or will you be taking it out into the woods? scope choices will differ greatly with your intentions.

TMR versus MIL-Dot differs from person to person, everyone has their own preference on reticles, its just a matter on if you know how to use your given reticle to your advantage. if you are hell bent on purchasing a Leupold, and wish to just use your rifle for long distance marksmanship, then by all means, go all out. Leupold is one of many brands you will not go wrong with. but like stated above, if you plan on taking this gun into the brush for hunting, then hang tight for a bit and see what the others will recommend....

 

[DRYHUMOR]

I've got 2 4.5-14X50 Mark 4's. One is a TMR one a Mil Dot. I like them both. The slight benefit of the TMR would be the lines take up less space than the dots, as far as what you are looking at. And are a bit more precise as far as ranging and holdover.

I also have a Mark 4 4.5-14X40 PR with mildot. This scope has floated between target rifles and hunting rifles. Currently it's on a hunting rifle. It works good for me for this use, I'm thinking mostly because of the slightly smaller size.

All of them have 30mm tubes, which I would recommend.

If you are going to hunt with your rifle, there are a lot of choices there as well. I have a VX3 8.5-25X50 with varmint hunter reticle. Very nice, you do lose some field of view for closer shots. The upside is you can really dial in the edges and shadows really well out to 300 yds.

For shorter range hunting the 4.5-14 X 40 or 50 is hard to beat.

I don't have any experience with Leupold's illuminated scopes. I only have one that illuminates, and it's a Kahles.

 

[MCMXI]

I have a number of Leupold Mark 4 scopes, three of which are illuminated and one of which is a front focal plane model so I feel that I know what I'm talking about when it comes to Leupold Mark 4s. I also have a Vari-X II and used to have two other Vari-X III scopes and have owned Tasco scopes in the past so I have some experience with scopes of different quality levels. This is what I have in Mark 4 ...

8.5 - 25X M1 Illum. TMR 30mm
6.5 - 20X M1 Illum. TMR 30mm
3.5 - 10X M1 TMR FFP 30mm
3.5 - 10X M3 Illum. TMR 30mm
1.5 - 5X SPR 1"
1.5 - 5X SPR 1"

I'm currently using one of the 3.5 - 10X scopes for 200 and 300 yards and the 6.5 - 20X and the 8.5 - 25X at 600 yards. I know I may not be objective (no pun intended) but I think the Mark 4 scopes are outstanding so I think you're making a good choice. A Nightforce or US Optics would be a good choice too ... maybe even a better choice. We can spend hours, days, weeks or months arguing about whether or not high $ scopes are worth it, but all you have to do is look at the equipment that successful, competitive long-range shooters are using and you'll soon realize that there's a correlation between cost, performance and success. The top competitors are using either Leupold, S&B, Nightforce or US Optics. As for your needs, what do you mean by 1000 yard shooting? Do you mean F-Class shooting where MOA accuracy or better is required or do you mean a tactical type of shooting where 2 MOA is sufficient? To be honest, a 3.5 - 10X will work great on your .308 all the way out to 1000 yards for practical "tactical" shooting where your objective is to hit a steel plate. If you're tying to win an F-Class match where the X ring is 0.5 MOA then I'd highly recommend the 6.5 - 20X or the 8.5 - 25X. I wouldn't bother with the FFP model unless you're shooting long-range tactical matches where holdovers are used on a regular basis. Holdovers on SFP scopes are only accurate at maximum magnification or at a specific magnification. If you are planning on doing ANY form of tactical shooting then a FFP model is the way to go. It won't make a difference for target shooting but it's a big deal for quick shots at different ranges using holdovers. As for the illuminated reticle, I've used mine during a match to get better contrast between the black bullseye and the reticle so they're a nice feature to have. If you plan on doing any shooting in low light then the illuminated reticle can really help. As for the type of reticle, the TMR reticle is the way to go. It's more accurate for holdovers and it can be quite accurate for ranging if you know the size of the target. I think its a better choice for aiming too given that the center is open compared to having a solid center but that's just my personal preference. Another thing to consider is the type of elevation/windage adjustments that you want. For F-Class type matches I'd recommend M1 adjustments which are 1/4 MOA each. For tactical applications, the M3 adjustments are faster but not as fine if you're dialing in elevation or windage.

 

[lipadj46]

If you plan on doing any deer hunting with the rifle both are probably a bit too high, I like the 3.5-10x. Of the 2 you want if you are just bench shooting or varmint hunting might as well go with more magnification. If you want the real deal military scope check out the mk4 fixed 10x that is a nice scope. Also whatever mk4 you get spring for the m3 knobs.

I am not sure what your budget is but if you are looking for a step up from the Leupold look at IOR (a bit more money) or the Sightron SIII (a little less money):

http://www.swfa.com/c-292-ior-valdada-tactical-rifle-scopes.aspx

http://www.swfa.com/c-1512-sightron-siii-riflescopes.aspx

I'm not knocking the Leupolds they are great but the Sightron offers a better scope for less money and the IOR will give you one of the better scopes you can buy with Euro glass.

 

[JWarren]

I have the Leupold Mark IV 3.5-10x40 with TMR, M3 Knobs, and Illuminated Recticle. I have it on an LR-308 that I hunt with.


There are advantages to the TMR recticle over the Mil-dot, but I'm not an expert on those benefits at this time. I read enough to know that it was the recticle that I'd rather learn. Ask this question on Snipershide.com and you'll get some very good responses.

I can comment, however, on the illuminated recticle. I've used other illuminated recticles and I find that the Mark IV one is the best that I've used. On its low settings, the crosshairs have a soft glow to them. At the lowest setting, you can barely see them.

However, when you turn them up to the lower-middle settings, they are clearly visible with none of the harshness or "jaggedness" I've seen on some cheaper optics. At the highest setting, they are VERY bright-- to the point that I'd not want to use those settings in any practical application.

I find that the illuminated recticle is a big help as I am getting into the darker times of my dusk and dawn hunting.

I'd spring for the illuminated option if I were getting one.



-- John

 

[codybrown]

I'm really happy with the Leupold VXIII 6.5-20 LR models that I have. I still have one on my 22-250 and I had another one on my 220 swift. Since I'm selling quite a few guns to fund a house, the one scope had to go.

 

[Lazuris]

I have the MK4 4-14 on my 308's and the MK4 6-25's on my 300wm's+. I Find that the 4-14 is perfect for .308 but the 6-25 is way to much for the .308. Remember unless you get the front focal plane scope you have to range in the higest power. So trying to range @ 25x at 400 yards is way too much scope.

My second reason for the 4-14 is field of view. In a possible zombie invasion the 4-14 is more versital due to greater field of view versus the 6-25.

On the other hand its eaiser to see your holes on paper with the 6-25.

 

[MCMXI]

I have the MK4 4-14 on my 308's and the MK4 6-25's on my 300wm's+. I Find that the 4-14 is perfect for .308 but the 6-25 is way to much for the .308.

Does Leupold make a Mark 4 6-25X? I have a 6.5-20X and an 8.5-25X and wasn't aware that 6-25X was an option.

Remember unless you get the front focal plane scope you have to range in the higest power. So trying to range @ 25x at 400 yards is way too much scope.

The TMR reticle "can" be used for ranging in a pinch but let's face it, most serious shooters or competitive shooters will be using a rangefinder anyway. However, if you are using it for ranging, (your RF battery died perhaps) the TMR reticle has 10 mils of elevation for "accurate" ranging and 20 mils for coarse ranging. 10 mils at 400 yards is 144" so how the heck is 25X "too much scope" at 400 yards? Do you plan on ranging a giraffe perhaps? Furthermore, the whole FFP/SFP issue has nothing to do with ranging. The only issue with a SFP scope is when using holdovers that will only be valid/accurate at a specific magnification .... usually the highest magnification. As I mentioned before, if you plan on doing a lot of tactical shooting then a FFP scope is definitely a big plus.

but the 6-25 is way to much for the .308.

I don't agree with that at all. I have a 6.5 - 20X on my .308 and it's perfect for what I use it for i.e. shooting at a 0.35 MOA X ring and 0.77 MOA 10 ring at 600 yards.

 

[Lazuris]

I ment the 8-25 my bad.

 

[MCMXI]

I ment the 8-25 my bad.

Or did you mean the 8.5-25X?

 

[DRYHUMOR]

Don't forget a good set of rings and bases also.

 

[USASA]

fractal7,

Don't know if you made a decision yet...but, the repies you received are really good information.

Just a little story about the Leupold Mark 4 scopes. I shoot long range matches with a Savage FP10 LE (.308)with a Nightforce 8-32x56 Benchrest Scope. Beautiful scope! Lot's of elevation adjustment and really clear glass.

I also shoot a Remington 504-Target .22 Bolt in 100 & 200 yard matches. Problem with the .22 is that at 200 yards there is a lot of bullet drop. I've been through several Nikons and none have had enough "comeup's" for 200 yards. Out of deperation, the last match I shot, I "refitted" my Nightforce on the 504-T.

Now here you have a .22 Bolt rifle with a hugh 56mm scope on it. It looked a like a bit of overkill...but I needed the elevation adjustment that the Nightforce had. By the way, I came in first out of about a dozen shooters...365 out of a possible 400.

The reason I'm elaborating on this so much is that over the winter I've looked at just about every scope available, from the least expensive on up to the more expensive.

I finally decided to buy the Leupold 4.5-14X40 LR/T Target model with Duplex reticle. I expect it in tomorrow. Main reasons...Quality & 100 MOA adjustment.

This little story may not be of any help for you in selecting your scope. I just thought I'd pass along that we all seem to go through a lot of thought when selecting a scope.

Good luck......