Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Leupold Mark 4 vs. VX-3 in the same size?

Need an optic for a fairly high end mid-range AR, going for a recon/recce/spr type thing. The Leupold Mark 4 2.5-8 mr/t in 36mm seems to be perfect. However, it is pretty much the same size with the same glass as the VX-3 2.5-8, and those have a street price of $400 instead of $780-$1,000.

Basically you're paying twice as much for the M1 knobs, the 30mm main tube, TMR or mil-dot reticle, and for the gold crap to be taken off. The Mark 1 is probably stronger too, as it weighs 16 ounces instead of 11.4 on the VX-3, and I can't see the larger turrets alone adding nearly 50% more weight like that. Maybe it's due to the larger tube.

Anyway, I've never had a high end scope before, so my question is if the general concensus is that for the intended purpose if it's worth it? The amount I pay isn't an issue, I just don't like wasting money.

i've 1.5-5 MK4 and VXIII. the MK4 is on my .375 AI, which is kinda my SHTF rifle. the VXIII is on a LW mountain rifle.

i also have 3.5-10s of both persuations, and if size and weight isn't a deal breaker, the MK4 wins.

so if the 2.5-8 follows the trend, i'd run that, again if size/weight isn't a deal breaker.

It's only 4.5 ounces heavier, not really a deal breaker, but still unwanted if not necessary. May I ask what specifically makes the Mark 4's nicer in your opinion?

the TMR retical is my favorite retical of all. that's one reason, and the mechanical repeatability of the MK4s knobs is also superior, and the lit retical is nice on a multi-purpose weapon.

the MK4 optics i have seem superior to their VXIII/VX3 counterparts i have to compare them to. not by a bunch, but enough to notice.

downside is there is no 'off' detent on the retical rheostat so it's easy to bump it on and not know it.

I thought mk4 had vx-ii glass and coatings?

I think the "Mark AR" lineup does. The Mark 4 is top of the line.

you are right about mark ar and vx-ii. i can't tell how the mark 4 glass stacks up - just looking at the website suggests it isn't as good as vx-3 but i've been wrong before and very well could be here too

i dunno. it maybe the 30mm tube or something else, but my eyes prefer the MK4s when comparing side by side.

Not sure why a company would charge over twice as much as a VX-3 for a scope while knowing there are lives on the line then put substandard glass in it. Putting the same glass in a $1,400 scope as is available in a $250 VX-2 then sending it off to war makes no sense. Rumor has it that if you call Leupold they'll admit the VX-3 and Mark 4 has the same glass.

At the minimum, if you read the website, both the Mark 4 and the VX-3 has the XT lens coatings, while the VX-2 does not. There's no way Mark 4's are the same as the VX-2 based on that alone.

I've read the website several times. I agree the glass appears to be better than VX-II - i admitted i was wrong about that in my prior post.

Without getting out a pen and paper i can't keep track of what scope has what lense or coatings and even with a pen and paper i couldn't tell how the glass in a mark 4 stacks up. The website is ambiguous and unclear.

Notwithstanding your comment about lives on the line, the reason they would charge a lot more than the VX3 is because the tacticool crowd will pay for it. In addition, without considering glass quality, the mark's are heavier (which perhaps implies higher materials and construction cost), have the 30mm tube, and have the M1s installed.

While i am a leupold fan and also want nothing but the best for our military, there are many examples where the military has better options than what they choose to utilize and also many examples of civilians paying premiums for "tactical" products so they can play "toy soldier" on their next deer hunt or trip to the range.

all that said, i'll readily admit i have no idea if the mark 4 glass is good, great or just ok as I've never handled one.

One question - If you call leupold and they admit glass is equivalent to the vx3, why do they charge 2x? Why don't they use the glass/coatings from the VX7?

I recently bought a MK4 2.5-8X36 on close out for $699. Mine has the M1 turrets and mildot reticle. I considered just buying a VX3 and having the turrets added and reticle changed but by the time I did that I would have had about the same amount of money in the VX3 as I would in a MK4.

I own two VX 2.5-8X36 scopes already and when comparing them to the MK4 I would say they are very close in clarity and brightness with neither scope having the edge. It's not VX II glass in the MK4's, I'm sure of that. VX3 glass isn't cutting edge technology but it's alway's been good enough to get the job done.


The MR/T 2.5-8X36 is a fantastic optic for it's intended purpose. I think the military choose well on this one. It's a fast and easy to use scope. It's bright enough and should hold up well. I'd take one over an ACOG anyday.

Terry

wow. 'tacticool', 'play toy soldier'. nothing like a combination of ignorance and arrogance from someone that hasn't even handled one. lit etched retical, windage and elevation knobs, more consistant tracking than my VXIII/VX3 models, and tough enough for full auto .50s to name a little bit of return for the buck.

how's this for 'tacticool'? MK4 on a .375 AI in griz turf.

What makes you think that the VX-7 is actually better glass? Both the VX-3 and 7 has the XT and diamondcoat lens coatings. All other mentioned upgrades don't revolve around the lenses. There is no mention of the diamondcoat on the Mark 4's, but I wonder if due to the heavier weight, that a heavier lens is used that makes this unnecessary. Makes no sense that the VX-3 would be tougher than a Mark 4, which would be subject to tons of abuse, and surviving that abuse is the whole point of this line, so it's got to be something along those lines.

For example, my eyeglasses are really powerful, but they are really lightweight due to the composite material. In that material's natural state, it is very prone to scratching. They have to put an anti-scratch coating on it. If I had gone with real glass, that anti-scratch coating would have been unnecessary, but my glasses would be really thick and heavy, although tougher and it wouldn't scratch easily at all. I can only assume that the Mark 4 is something along those lines, having the same XT coating as the VX-3, but not having to rely on an anti-scratch coating due to heavier materials. Since the Mark 4 weighs nearly 50% more than the VX-3, this would probably make sense.

The 30mm tube on the Mark 4 is heavier than on a 30mm VX-3.
The internals are also different as it relates to turret adjustment.
There may be some other things, but that is what I know.

so let's throw this into the mix.
" i think" leupold made a tactical line before the mark 4's.
if this is true, then where does my 3.5-10 x40 tactical work into this ? it has a 1 inch tube and looks just like my other 3.5-10's, cept the gold ring is black and it says "tactical" in the ring.

just a plain jane vari x III with turrets ? no up grades to the internals ?

They did have the Mark 2 before the Mark 4. They were made a few years ago, there is still cheaper "new old stock" products floating around, which may be a consideration at least for me. I know nothing of the specs though. I do know the new ones are supposed to have features that allow faster sight acquisition, such as a larger exit pupil, larger field of view, and more eye relief, as compared to the same size as the old ones.

Of course the newest thing is the Mark 8. Those are like $4,000 though.

They did have a Vari-X III 3.5-10x40 with M1's, blacked out ring, and 30mm tube. I think that is the real precursor and similar build to the Mk 4.

The MRT/Mk.4 was specially designed for the AR line of rifles. Shorter eye relief, alot shorter in fact. 50% more adjustment range than the VX3.
To my knowledge, the VX3 has Diamond Coat 2 coatings and a different gas fill than the Mk.4/MRT. I don't know if that has been changed and if so when. But, to my mind, it would be very desirable in a tough scope like the Mk.4's
Some, and I don't know which, Mk4's are built to a much tougher standard than most of Leupold's scopes.
So, the question is, do you want and need the different eye relief specs and the added adjustment range ? How about the fancy tactical style reticles ? E

Well that's interesting. The Mark 4 has 3-3.7" of eye relief, while the VX-3 has 3.6-4.5". It's not like recoil is an issue with a .223 so I wonder which is better. I'm surprised they are different at all since they're the same size. Maybe the 30mm tube changes things.

The fancy reticles don't appeal to me much. 300 yards will be my max, so small bullet drop marks would be nice but I'm not hung up on any of it. I don't even know what the TMR reticle does but I'd probably get it. The mil-dot looks horrifically gaudy on a small scope in my opinion, especially with illumination, like a christmas tree from the 50's.

Shorter eye relief is a blessing on AR-15s as it allows the scope to be mounted more on top of the receiver and less over the barrel and having to install a longer, add on rail.