Over my many years of hunting and target shooting, I have owned several Leupolds and never had the issues that I have now.
A few years back I purchased a Leupold Mark IV M1 with lit reticle. I wanted a second tactical scope with a lit/thin reticle. I already had a Nightforce. I should have purchased a second Nightforce. . Since my Nightforce is on my bolt gun and a sub-minute tack driver, I didn’t want to remove it. I also own a steel Swarovski and Schmidt Bender scope (both fixed Objective), whose glass is second to none, but their reticles are very thick and almost cover a 3” bull’s eye at 200 yds. I mostly use 3” “shoot-n-see” bull’s eyes.
If I really take my time, M1A and Swarovski combination keeps 150 SMKs inside the 3” bull’s eye at 200 yds. If it is windy, of course, the groups open up or elongate, depending on wind. Since, the Mark IV was supposed to provide me a finer reticle; I was hoping to reduce my M1A’s groups.
I also own an older Leupold LPS which was and is a very clear scope, but not a tactical one. I don’t recall ever having any issues with it. I requested a reticle change out a couple of years back. Leupold completed the task in a timely manner.
Immediately, after mounting the Mark IV on my SA M1A, I notice clarity issues. So, I sent Mark IV back to Leupold and remounted my Swarovski. Leupold returned the Mark IV in the same condition. Clarity sucked. Using side focus, the bull’s eye was never as crisp compared to other scopes mentioned above. In addition, if I adjusted black part of “shoot-n-see” bull’s eye to be as clear as I could adjust it, I could not see orange center spot. Dialing out parallax caused the image to go fuzzy too, but x hairs didn’t “dance.” I had to compromise. I sent it back again. Same old -CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED-..... In fairness to Leupold, I wear prescription bi-focals, so I am definitely at a disadvantage and this might cause issues with parallax adjustments, but then a Leupold tech informed me, with words to the effect, that the LPS was a clearer scope and way ahead of its time. Hum… I left Leupold in box and stored it inside my safe. $1000+ pissed away!
My Swarovski "fogged” so I sent it back to Swarovski and remounted Mark IV. My M1A's groups went to hell. POI shifted or tracked. I couldn’t adjust and maintain POI. I have shot my M1A many times so I became suspicious of possible barrel issues, never dreaming the Mark IV's maintaining adjustment was the issue. I sent about 200 Sierra’s down range reworking 8208 and 4895 for pet loads, but the results were the same. I suspected I needed a new Krieger barrel. NOT SO!
Before -CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED- away several hundred bucks on a new barrel, I waited for Swarovski to return and remounted. Pet load of both 8208 and 4895 returned. Hum… Not only did Mark IV lack clarity, but its adjustment feature was below PAR. I suspect that I had bought a “lemon.”
To prove my point, I sent several 150 SMKs (pet loads) down range using Swarovski and then Mark IV, using the same M1A at 200yds. It was a windy day but the results showed a 50% wider group using the Mark IV vs. Swarovski. I photo'ed group differences and included them in an email to Leupold along with my complaints of this scope being a “lemon.” I resent, and resent again, and again. As of 2/24/16 no response…..
A few years back I purchased a Leupold Mark IV M1 with lit reticle. I wanted a second tactical scope with a lit/thin reticle. I already had a Nightforce. I should have purchased a second Nightforce. . Since my Nightforce is on my bolt gun and a sub-minute tack driver, I didn’t want to remove it. I also own a steel Swarovski and Schmidt Bender scope (both fixed Objective), whose glass is second to none, but their reticles are very thick and almost cover a 3” bull’s eye at 200 yds. I mostly use 3” “shoot-n-see” bull’s eyes.
If I really take my time, M1A and Swarovski combination keeps 150 SMKs inside the 3” bull’s eye at 200 yds. If it is windy, of course, the groups open up or elongate, depending on wind. Since, the Mark IV was supposed to provide me a finer reticle; I was hoping to reduce my M1A’s groups.
I also own an older Leupold LPS which was and is a very clear scope, but not a tactical one. I don’t recall ever having any issues with it. I requested a reticle change out a couple of years back. Leupold completed the task in a timely manner.
Immediately, after mounting the Mark IV on my SA M1A, I notice clarity issues. So, I sent Mark IV back to Leupold and remounted my Swarovski. Leupold returned the Mark IV in the same condition. Clarity sucked. Using side focus, the bull’s eye was never as crisp compared to other scopes mentioned above. In addition, if I adjusted black part of “shoot-n-see” bull’s eye to be as clear as I could adjust it, I could not see orange center spot. Dialing out parallax caused the image to go fuzzy too, but x hairs didn’t “dance.” I had to compromise. I sent it back again. Same old -CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED-..... In fairness to Leupold, I wear prescription bi-focals, so I am definitely at a disadvantage and this might cause issues with parallax adjustments, but then a Leupold tech informed me, with words to the effect, that the LPS was a clearer scope and way ahead of its time. Hum… I left Leupold in box and stored it inside my safe. $1000+ pissed away!
My Swarovski "fogged” so I sent it back to Swarovski and remounted Mark IV. My M1A's groups went to hell. POI shifted or tracked. I couldn’t adjust and maintain POI. I have shot my M1A many times so I became suspicious of possible barrel issues, never dreaming the Mark IV's maintaining adjustment was the issue. I sent about 200 Sierra’s down range reworking 8208 and 4895 for pet loads, but the results were the same. I suspected I needed a new Krieger barrel. NOT SO!
Before -CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED- away several hundred bucks on a new barrel, I waited for Swarovski to return and remounted. Pet load of both 8208 and 4895 returned. Hum… Not only did Mark IV lack clarity, but its adjustment feature was below PAR. I suspect that I had bought a “lemon.”
To prove my point, I sent several 150 SMKs (pet loads) down range using Swarovski and then Mark IV, using the same M1A at 200yds. It was a windy day but the results showed a 50% wider group using the Mark IV vs. Swarovski. I photo'ed group differences and included them in an email to Leupold along with my complaints of this scope being a “lemon.” I resent, and resent again, and again. As of 2/24/16 no response…..