Printable View
I bought a Mark 6 3-18x44 with the M5C2 turrets and TMR reticle. Here's a short overview of the features of the scope, and an admittedly, obviously, poorly designed and executed tracking test that nonetheless was rather illuminating.
http://youtu.be/OKC_KnVVxFo
Stink about the diagonal drift, especially for what you probably payed for it
How did you ensure the scope was mounted level at the range mate?
Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
mk1 eyeball, but that doesn't matter too much when lining the reticle up vertically with a plumb line while shootingQuote:
Originally Posted by R93
For reference I shot the same tracking test today using my PMII, set up the same and it tracked dead straight up the plumb line.
As you said there is significant amounts of error in your testing method, but no where near enough to account for that much horizontal drift.
How did you find the scope other than the tracking?
How's it compare to the likes of the PM2, and what do you make of the TMR reticle?
I'm quite keen on the new Mark 5HD, but not totally thrilled by the reticle options.
I am confused as to what you are saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimp
If you have mechanical cant from mounting it will only get worse as you dial no matter what you line it up with as the error is at the rifle not the image?
Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
I like it besides the tracking issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beetroot
The parallax/focus is more finicky than the PMII and doesn't zero out as close (can't get parallax free at 50)
The elevation/windage adjustments feel "different" but not worse, the Zerolock is neither here nor there but not intrusive.
I think the CCW turret makes more sense than the CW PMII turret to turn with the left hand from behind the rifle, and the magnification ring is easier to turn.
The optics are worse than the PMII but clear enough for me. It will likely only get used on 18x as a spotting scope for assessing stags, most shooting will be on lower magnifications. Have not done any serious comparison/assessment of the optical quality though.
I really like the TMR reticle; I've had it before in 2 or 3 Mk4 scopes and it's good stuff. It's slightly thicker than the P4F in the PMII which I don't mind. I doubt I will miss not having illumination, given that I never used it in the PMII with the thinner reticle.
It has enough elevation that I might be able to shoot the 19 inch .260 to a mile...
It is very light and compact for what it is.
Mechanical cant from mounting doesn't matter if you have the reticle vertical when shooting (if the reticle is aligned correctly with the erector/turrets so that it tracks exactly vertically) because it's not actually canted in that case. The rifle may be but the scope is not, if the reticle is vertical on a plumb line.Quote:
Originally Posted by R93
I generally only ever mount my scopes level by eyeball anyway & have never found it to be an issue - the human eye is good at detecting very small angles off square.
Ok?Quote:
Originally Posted by gimp
Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
The E turret is a HUGE improvement over the older higher style.
I’ve always thought the scope had potential and it’s clearly getting better. 3-18 is pretty much the perfect all round mag range. Especially with a generous eyebox.
I've seen another Leupold tracking test video where the scope showed a similar problem, it was reported to be fixed by Leupold without any hassle (except being in NZ you'll have to wait quite a long while as it travels back and forth at the importers whim).
So as you point out in the Video - send it back!
It’s not going anywhere near the NZ importers, I’m sending it back direct to Leupold. No need for a middleman
Should have brought a march
Sent from my F5321 using Tapatalk
Maybe for the .223