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.

With the mounts that are available nowadays, that shouldn't be too much of an issue:

http://stores.homestead.com/Laruetactical/Detail.bok?no=40

You can have huge amounts of eye relief while still staying on the receiver.

the 1.5-5 MK4 has 3.6" (4.4") vs. 3.7" (4.4") for the VX3

about the same. i couldn't tell the diff. i had to look it up on Leupold's web site

I like it but stand by my comments. Doesnt mean it applies to you, but it certainly does to some people i know around here.

Glad you are happy with yours - hope the full auto 50 doesnt tear it up!

Sorry i Got involved in this thread. I thought i was pretty knowledgable about leupold scopes (except the mk versions) but clearly i'm not. Carry on

Seriously, what evidence is there that the glass itself is actually better in the VX-7 vs. VX-3?

http://www.opticstalk.com/new-leupold-vx3-vx3_topic14792.html

"The VX3 has VX7 glass"

Ok - admitting i am wrong for the third time now

Cant believe i'm getting schooled on optics by 2 guys with "fairly high end mid-range AR, going for a recon/recce/spr type" (whatever that is) and a "375 AI, which is kinda my SHTF rifle"

Seriously?

Seems rather presumptuous. You've admited you know little to nothing about the optics. I would think it's safe to assume you know even less about the people you write about.

Terry

Terry-

by "around here" i mean where i live, not the campfire. one of the things i like about the campfire is that most of the threads are about things that appeal to me and we are generally folks who are every day people and not extremists.

If someone came to the range where i shoot and saw some of the guys and their gear, they'd agree with my "tacticool" and "toy soldier" comments. It is really quite entertaining to watch these guys. I haven't shot an AR for over 20 years but guarantee you i could break down their rifles faster than they could.

I will give you an example - while i can think of many this is one i find the most entertaining. A couple of years ago one of my colleagues was doing some consulting work for one of the private military contractors based here in NC. This is a guy that i witnessed on his first duck hunt load the shells in the tube of his pump shotgun backwards. Anyway, some of the operators at this company used to let him shoot with them when he was onsite between meetings. I am sure he was good entertainment on the range knowing this guy personally. His office had several pictures of himself in full battle gear, AR slung across his chest and gargoyle sunglasses on, with the other real operators. Mind you this is a guy that voted for clinton twice and if you knew him, you would appreciate that he missed the day in school where they handed out man-cards.

Even though he readily admitted he was a poor shot with the rifle and pistol and had no use for one whatsoever, he went out and bought himself an AR - actually paid a premium for it so he could get one through this well known private contractor (all legally done) with their logo engraved.

He bought a mark AR for it (thank god he didn't drop the $ on a mark 4) and i let him take it to my hunt club one afternoon to sight it in. I offered to help him at every step along the way but he refused as he didn't want to admit he didn't have a clue what he was doing.

Upon his return, he was complaining the rifle wouldn't shoot straight - everything grouped left of the bull. I asked him if he took the cap off the windage knob and adjusted and he gave me a blank stare - no idea what i was talking about.

That is what i call "tacticool" and "toy soldier". So i may be ignorant, arrogant and presumptuous in your eyes, but I base my comments on what i have witnessed with my own two eyes. I think if you go back and look at my posts here at the 'fire i generally shy away from topics i know nothing about. I've admitted several times i know very little about the Leupolds Mark 4 line of scopes several times now - and frankly wish i'd never attempted to answer the OPs question with what i incorrectly thought was the right answer.

To my other point about the military not always using the best, all you have to do is see how the gear is different that the our soldiers use in the US military vs. the private contractors to appreciate that.

I think we can all agree if you go read a few threads in the custom rifles section that there are plenty of people with more money than sense that will pay a premium for stuff they have no practical use for whatsoever.

While i am sure the mark 4, which apparently is a much better scope than i ever appreciated, makes sense in a lot of practical applications (especially on a "SHTF 375ai", of course), i'm confident based on what i have seen with my own eyes that there are people that buy them for the look and the name ("Mark 4") no matter the price that have no idea what they are buying.

No different than someone who spends $12k+ on a Jarrett or similar "turnkey" rifle system and then turns it into a safe queen.

If people get defensive about broad brush comments i can't help that. Maybe the fact they get defensive about it says something right there.

I've yet to see a VX-3 but own a few VX-III's and 2 MK4's. Without a doubt the MK4 is clearer, the turrets work, the side focus is nice and the 30MM tube is 30MM.

I got a regular duplex in both but did mount them on an SPR and a RECCE in LaRue mounts. I got both of these for about the same price as the VX3 models were with added turrets. I wouldn't use the tactical reticles or even the illuminated reticle but I do use the turrets and the 30mm tube gives me more adjustment.

Matters not what some writer thinks.

i'll have to stand by my 'ignorance and arrogance statement'

the .375 AI SHTF rifle that amuses you, perched in it's happy place at sunrise...



and it's baby brother with the VXIII 1.5-5



and here is an example of the "S" in my SHTF



and let's see, this must be the 3.5-10 VX3



and the MK 4 variant...




and this concludes today's lesson in tacticool play toy soldiery...

I was actually hoping you'd explain, because I thought you might actually know what you're talking about, but the defensive snappy comeback just shot that out of the water. Apparently if a scope costs more, that must mean it has better glass. No way it could be anything else, right?

Toad, you've got some good stuff and appear to spend some time in some nice places. How much does that 375 weigh? it looks like, well, a toad.

Corndogggy - sorry if i offended you. I don't have anything to add to your knowledge of Leupold scopes. Clearly it is greater than mine. That isn't meant to be a smart ass reply but sincere.

Hope you both have a good weekend - i'm heading to the keys for spring break with the family

When Leupold came out with the VX-3's they never said they updated the Mk 4's with the same glass and dual erector springs.
I'd love to believe they did but never saw Leupold say they did or anyone else that was able to back it up.

shortmag - not offended, takes much more than that, it was kinda snappy though. sorry if I sounded abrasive.

For future reference, if you're even interested... a recon build, aka. "recce", basically means a 16" really accurate stainless steel barrel usually with a 1/8" twist, with a long handguard, usually firing heavier projectiles such as 77 grain. Much easier to say "recce" than all that.

An SPR is the evolution of that, basically a miniature sniper rifle with an 18" barrel, and usually with a Leupold Mark 4 MR/T scope. The general idea is a sniper rifle that doesn't weigh 15 pounds and can use the same ammo as everybody else if they had to.

Both basically denote a longer, more accurate, and more powerful rifle than a typical 2 MOA carbine firing 55 grain projectiles, but without getting into the huge varmit rifles, usually used for accurate shots at mid-range distances while still being maneuverable, hence my comment that I'm going for a "fairly high end mid-range AR, going for a recon/recce/spr type".

9#, 8 oz as pictured. pretty porky. i'm wringing out an 8# .375 RUM now to see how light i can go in .375 and still keep my retinas attatched.