Leupold Mark AR 1.5-4X anyone?

D

Dex

New member
I just purchased a new AR and plan to do some yote hunting with it.

I wanted to see if anyone was using the Leupold Mark AR 1.5-4X and to see what your thoughts of the scope was?

I'm a big Leupold fan. I keep going back and forth on the 1.5-4X and the 3-9X. I don't plan on taking shots more than 150yds. I know the question has been asked often, and many say they have a 3-9X and hardly take it off 3 power.

For what it's worth, I plan on purchasing with the firedot reticle. I figured it would help greatly in lower light conditions.

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!
 
I've got one on my AR and love it. I usually have it set to 4x all the time and only dial it down if I set up in tighter surroundings. It's a great little scope, you will like it.

I didnt get a scope cover with mine so I used a Butler Creek Bikini cover then zip tied it to the scope tube. I stays attached so I don't loose it. It works perfect on that scope and it was 6 bucks.
 
Thanks Furhunter. I was also curious about the scope cover. I know my Leupold on my slug gun came with a nice rubber one. I will look up the Butler Creek cover you mention.

Do you have the Firedot or the Duplex version?
 
I have the 3-9 with the TMR firedot and really like the scope. After owning the previous version (Mod 0) of these scopes, they made some really nice improvements IMO. After running the 3-9 for a while, I bought a 6-18X40 with the fine duplex for a bolt 223 that has worked out great too. I don't think you would be disappointed in either of those two scopes.
 
Originally Posted By: DexSmokin Barrel - After running the 3-9, do you think the 1.5-4x would be enough?

If you are only hunting out to 150 yds, I think the 1-4 would be plenty.
 
Originally Posted By: DexThanks Furhunter. I was also curious about the scope cover. I know my Leupold on my slug gun came with a nice rubber one. I will look up the Butler Creek cover you mention.

Do you have the Firedot or the Duplex version?

Regular ol duplex here.
 
When I ordered my new AR rifle I was thinking about getting the Leupold Mark AR for it and in the store I handled one looking though it and everything seemed fine. The salesman told me to take a look though the Nikon P-223. I could not believe how much clearer and sharper it was than the Mark AR. In fact I had to pick both of them up going back and forth adjusting them and looking though the store, we ever went to the window and the Nikon still beat out the Mark. I ended up with the P-223 and a M-223 mount and could not be happier. just check it out and decide.
 
Originally Posted By: Ky ColWhen I ordered my new AR rifle I was thinking about getting the Leupold Mark AR for it and in the store I handled one looking though it and everything seemed fine. The salesman told me to take a look though the Nikon P-223. I could not believe how much clearer and sharper it was than the Mark AR. In fact I had to pick both of them up going back and forth adjusting them and looking though the store, we ever went to the window and the Nikon still beat out the Mark. I ended up with the P-223 and a M-223 mount and could not be happier. just check it out and decide.

I had the opposite reaction. I feel the glass in the Nikon P series scopes is considerably inferior to the Mark AR scopes. This is evidence by the fact that the P-Series is a Pro Staff in "tactical" garb, while the Mark AR is VX-2 glass. Further, I think the turrets and overall ergonomic design of the Mark AR Mod 1 scopes is much, much more refined than the Nikons.

I dont, by any means, think the P-Series Nikon is a bad scope, but its entry level glass, and the price indicates that. The M-series scopes have Monarch glass, which is considerably better, at a considerably higher cost.
 
Originally Posted By: liliysdadOriginally Posted By: Ky ColWhen I ordered my new AR rifle I was thinking about getting the Leupold Mark AR for it and in the store I handled one looking though it and everything seemed fine. The salesman told me to take a look though the Nikon P-223. I could not believe how much clearer and sharper it was than the Mark AR. In fact I had to pick both of them up going back and forth adjusting them and looking though the store, we ever went to the window and the Nikon still beat out the Mark. I ended up with the P-223 and a M-223 mount and could not be happier. just check it out and decide.

I had the opposite reaction. I feel the glass in the Nikon P series scopes is considerably inferior to the Mark AR scopes. This is evidence by the fact that the P-Series is a Pro Staff in "tactical" garb, while the Mark AR is VX-2 glass. Further, I think the turrets and overall ergonomic design of the Mark AR Mod 1 scopes is much, much more refined than the Nikons.

I dont, by any means, think the P-Series Nikon is a bad scope, but its entry level glass, and the price indicates that. The M-series scopes have Monarch glass, which is considerably better, at a considerably higher cost.

Thanks for the input guys. With this said, which would you pick between the Mark AR and the M -series?
 
As a personal choice, the Leupold, easily. The glass quality is a wash between the M and the Leupold, but I like the turrets much, much better on the Mark AR. BDC reticles and turrets are useless for me, and the Nikon Turret is marked in yardage, whereas the Leupold's turret is co-designated with yardage and mils. The Leupold is a mil/mil scope, while the Nikon has the choice of a duplex or BDC reticle with 1/4 MOA turrets.
 
Like I said, look them over yourself and decide. only you will be happy with it.

I own 7 different Leupolds and wanted the AR until the salesman showed me a different one.
 
Originally Posted By: DexThanks for the input guys. With this said, which would you pick between the Mark AR and the M -series?

That is going to have to be a decision based on your preferences and observations. That is a question that could quickly turn into a Savage vs. Remington discussion.
 
Originally Posted By: FurhunterI wouldn't trade my Mark AR for nikon anything...



I had to edit above for clarity. Its now correct. The way my auto correct had it.. Made it sound like I wanted the Nikon and that's NOT the case at all.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: FurhunterOriginally Posted By: FurhunterI wouldn't trade my Mark AR for nikon anything...



I had to edit above for clarity. Its now correct. The way my auto correct had it.. Made it sound like I wanted the Nikon and that's NOT the case at all.

+100
 
I've beat on a couple of Mark ARs in 3-9 and 4-12... even on some pretty big guns. They have all performed well, tracked perfectly, and have been tough as nails. For hunting glass, I'd definitely go 3-9....

4-12 Mark AR on a 6.5x47 Lapua


3-9 Mark AR on a .260




3-9 Mark AR on a 20" .243


3-9 Mark AR on the 7 Rem. Sendero
 
Originally Posted By: 6mmI don't like the new ones.... to each their own.

Out of curiosity, why not?

For me, it boils down to the turrets. I despise non matching turrets and reticles, and have zero use for BDC anything. With the new scopes, they are mil/mil, with the BDC as an afterthought. I ignore the yardage indicators on the turret, and use the mil markings. I keep meaning to contact Leupold for a mil only turret, just keep forgetting.
 
Last edited:


Write your reply...
Back
Top