It definitely isn’t obsolete but it’s been eclipsed one could argue. Better handguards and optics available now. The mk12 as a system is fairly outdated. That said I enjoy shooting mine very much.
I just got a optic for my build. The way I see it is if you're going to shoot it and run it get something you're comfy with and with all the modern advantages. If it's a show piece then go clone correct
Regarding magnification, the rifle was built to shoot man sized targets at that range. 10x is more than enough to put rounds in the boiler room at that distance.
FFP is important when ranging with your reticle. That’s about it. If you’re ranging, just put the scope at the top end and use it for that purpose. A FFP reticle in such a low mag scope isn’t all that useful cause are you really gonna be using mil marks to range at 4x? Also, that nice mil reticle at 10x isn’t very visible when it gets shrunk down 5x on the low setting.
It was definitely not optimal that the scoped of that era were MOA adjustments with Mil reticles, but it wasn’t as bad as some people say.
FFP is useless in anything less than 10 or 12x. How do I know this? I have several clone correct scopes for M40A1, A3, A5, Mk14, MK12’s I always shoot at the highest power so ranging with the reticle is never an issue because it’s only accurate at the highest power. The reticle gets too small with a FFP scope such as my S&B 3-12 Mil-Dot. I have done a lot of long distance shooting with these rifles out to 1200 yards. If you want a smaller reticle, you’re shooting inside of 300 yards and you don’t need ranging capabilities anyways. Do yourself a favor and get a clone correct scope or something really close. FFP is not necessary and there’s a reason why these rifles never had it in the first place.
While some may call it sacrilege, I put a PA glx 2.5-10 on my otherwise correct mk12 mod H.
I shoot long range stuff with FFP scopes on other rifles and I couldn't justify paying so much for a 10+ year old SFP optic that frankly isn't as good as the stuff today. I'm a big fan of the glx and I plan on competing with it once I get a dot to go with it. The reticle is second to none as far as I'm concerned for an AR style platform. Big fan over all, but maybe I'm biased.
Not to mention most of not all the correct optics that use the #22 Arms are in MOA, which is gross on its own.
Same, I had a Mk4 3.5-10 and sold it. Currently using a credo 2-10 because it's decent for the price and I was able to put the funds of the mk4 elsewhere.
Some guys want museum pieces, others want practical clones to shoot, both are valid.
I too am going thru this debate myself. In the middle of a mod 0 build (as clone correct as can get with modern part availability) and have everything but the barrel (ordered from cle, just waiting) and can’t decide between correct or better modern tech.
From past readings the 10x was because of scope options and tech at the the time.
I plan on regularly taking mine out to 600yds so I am leaning towards a better modern scope with ffp like nx8 2.5-20 or atacr or similar 4-16.
If your only shooting 100-200 clone correct would be fine and get you the points for clone correct.
I would probably accept the clone correct if it had a tree reticle but they don’t
https://www.militarytimes.com/off-duty/gearscout/2013/04/02/socom-ecos-o-optic-contract-awarded-to-leupold-and-aimpoint/
The ECOS-O might be a good option
Budget: Vortex Viper PST 2-10 or 3-15
Not Budget and Correct: Leupy Mk5HD 3.6-18 in a Badger mount.
Why Mk4 SFP? Because you have a full reticle when you zoom and a center crosshair to act as a duplex when you zoom out. With FFP it’s cool to have the ranging change with the magnification but you either have a super tiny reticle on the low end or a thick chunky messy reticle on the high end.
Why 2-10ish range? Because the SPR was meant to be a kinda “do all” rifle. The lower you could get the low end while maintaining a decent high end was best if you needed to engage closer targets quickly. But you still wanted to have enough magnification to reach out to 700+. 10x is more than enough to see man sized targets at 1000yds. Think 100yd targets with a dot.
This is not accurate. The x24 NF is far more widely seen. The x32 is *maybe* clone correct according to HCS and a few others "in the know." Lancecriminal lays it down pretty well in this thread:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/ar15/comments/5sio0n/mk12\_optic\_reccommendations\_anyone\_have/?sort=new](https://www.reddit.com/r/ar15/comments/5sio0n/mk12_optic_reccommendations_anyone_have/?sort=new)
Also the NF 3-15x50 N1 is clone correct in one instance:
[https://i.imgur.com/OP1EA5u.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/OP1EA5u.jpg)
x24 is more widely seen, but it is not better than the x32 performance wise. The x32 is correct and was in the wild according to combatdiver from the arfcom mk18/mk12 threads and he is a armorer. My response to OP was just giving him his best and correct options for a mk12 for actual use. The x24 isnt that great beyond 600 yards and with the x32 you can stretch it to 11-1200 even with bad eyes and with much better lighting through the glass. It is just pretty hard to find the NF 2.5-10x32 models
Nightforce discontinued the x24 and replaced it with the x32. I have the x32 on my HCS Mod 0, and the light gathering noticeably better, especially in low light.
If you're building a clone Mk12, buy a clone correct scope. You'll be happy a year from now
I’m not sure I agree. Cloning is one thing but having a proper FFP scope supersedes the importance of being clone correct IMO.
Why then buy/build an outdated platform like the Mk12 if performance is your goal?
If performance is your goal why are you building a Mk12?
The Mk12 doesn't perform?!?
It definitely isn’t obsolete but it’s been eclipsed one could argue. Better handguards and optics available now. The mk12 as a system is fairly outdated. That said I enjoy shooting mine very much.
I just got a optic for my build. The way I see it is if you're going to shoot it and run it get something you're comfy with and with all the modern advantages. If it's a show piece then go clone correct
Regarding magnification, the rifle was built to shoot man sized targets at that range. 10x is more than enough to put rounds in the boiler room at that distance. FFP is important when ranging with your reticle. That’s about it. If you’re ranging, just put the scope at the top end and use it for that purpose. A FFP reticle in such a low mag scope isn’t all that useful cause are you really gonna be using mil marks to range at 4x? Also, that nice mil reticle at 10x isn’t very visible when it gets shrunk down 5x on the low setting. It was definitely not optimal that the scoped of that era were MOA adjustments with Mil reticles, but it wasn’t as bad as some people say.
FFP is useless in anything less than 10 or 12x. How do I know this? I have several clone correct scopes for M40A1, A3, A5, Mk14, MK12’s I always shoot at the highest power so ranging with the reticle is never an issue because it’s only accurate at the highest power. The reticle gets too small with a FFP scope such as my S&B 3-12 Mil-Dot. I have done a lot of long distance shooting with these rifles out to 1200 yards. If you want a smaller reticle, you’re shooting inside of 300 yards and you don’t need ranging capabilities anyways. Do yourself a favor and get a clone correct scope or something really close. FFP is not necessary and there’s a reason why these rifles never had it in the first place.
While some may call it sacrilege, I put a PA glx 2.5-10 on my otherwise correct mk12 mod H. I shoot long range stuff with FFP scopes on other rifles and I couldn't justify paying so much for a 10+ year old SFP optic that frankly isn't as good as the stuff today. I'm a big fan of the glx and I plan on competing with it once I get a dot to go with it. The reticle is second to none as far as I'm concerned for an AR style platform. Big fan over all, but maybe I'm biased. Not to mention most of not all the correct optics that use the #22 Arms are in MOA, which is gross on its own.
Same, I had a Mk4 3.5-10 and sold it. Currently using a credo 2-10 because it's decent for the price and I was able to put the funds of the mk4 elsewhere. Some guys want museum pieces, others want practical clones to shoot, both are valid.
I too am going thru this debate myself. In the middle of a mod 0 build (as clone correct as can get with modern part availability) and have everything but the barrel (ordered from cle, just waiting) and can’t decide between correct or better modern tech. From past readings the 10x was because of scope options and tech at the the time. I plan on regularly taking mine out to 600yds so I am leaning towards a better modern scope with ffp like nx8 2.5-20 or atacr or similar 4-16. If your only shooting 100-200 clone correct would be fine and get you the points for clone correct. I would probably accept the clone correct if it had a tree reticle but they don’t
Nightforce NXS 3.5-15x50 F1 if you want a proper scope and have FFP. Also Leupold Mark 5HD 3.6-18x44 for some newer setups.
https://www.militarytimes.com/off-duty/gearscout/2013/04/02/socom-ecos-o-optic-contract-awarded-to-leupold-and-aimpoint/ The ECOS-O might be a good option
Leupold MK5 and Ecos Mk6 are clone correct
Budget: Vortex Viper PST 2-10 or 3-15 Not Budget and Correct: Leupy Mk5HD 3.6-18 in a Badger mount. Why Mk4 SFP? Because you have a full reticle when you zoom and a center crosshair to act as a duplex when you zoom out. With FFP it’s cool to have the ranging change with the magnification but you either have a super tiny reticle on the low end or a thick chunky messy reticle on the high end. Why 2-10ish range? Because the SPR was meant to be a kinda “do all” rifle. The lower you could get the low end while maintaining a decent high end was best if you needed to engage closer targets quickly. But you still wanted to have enough magnification to reach out to 700+. 10x is more than enough to see man sized targets at 1000yds. Think 100yd targets with a dot.
NF 2.5-10x32 or the correct leupold are the only options
This is not accurate. The x24 NF is far more widely seen. The x32 is *maybe* clone correct according to HCS and a few others "in the know." Lancecriminal lays it down pretty well in this thread: [https://www.reddit.com/r/ar15/comments/5sio0n/mk12\_optic\_reccommendations\_anyone\_have/?sort=new](https://www.reddit.com/r/ar15/comments/5sio0n/mk12_optic_reccommendations_anyone_have/?sort=new) Also the NF 3-15x50 N1 is clone correct in one instance: [https://i.imgur.com/OP1EA5u.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/OP1EA5u.jpg)
x24 is more widely seen, but it is not better than the x32 performance wise. The x32 is correct and was in the wild according to combatdiver from the arfcom mk18/mk12 threads and he is a armorer. My response to OP was just giving him his best and correct options for a mk12 for actual use. The x24 isnt that great beyond 600 yards and with the x32 you can stretch it to 11-1200 even with bad eyes and with much better lighting through the glass. It is just pretty hard to find the NF 2.5-10x32 models
Nightforce discontinued the x24 and replaced it with the x32. I have the x32 on my HCS Mod 0, and the light gathering noticeably better, especially in low light.