New Leupold HAMR: High Accuracy Multi-Range Mark 4 Tactical

Leupold’s newest tactical scope, the Leupold Mark 4 HAMR (High Accuracy Multi-Range), is aimed squarely at a product category dominated by Trijicon1 . The Leupold HAMR is a compact, lightweight, fixed 4x power scope designed specifically for the AR-15 and similar 5.56mm chambered rifles.

Like many of the Trijicon ACOG scopes, the HAMR is available is a red dot sight mounted on top of it. This allows the operator to quickly switch from 4x zoom of the main scope to the 0x zoom of the Leupold Deltapoint red dot when engaging in close quarters combat, where a zoom scope if undesirable. The Deltapoint is available with a 3.25 or 7 MOA red dot.

The scope uses Leupold’s CM-R² reticle, ballistically calibrated for the 5.56mm round. Leupold’s premium Xtended Twilight Lens System and DiamondCoat 2 coating ensure good light transmission. The optics should perform well at medium ranges out to 800 yards.

The below table compares the Leupold HAMR with a similar Trijicon ACOG, the TA01NSN-RMR. Neither are a clear winner in terms of features. Both cost about the same. The Trijicon with its battery-less operation and a bigger Objective Aperture lens could make it the winner if you need these features. The HAMR, on the other hand, is lighter, shorter and has much better eye relief. Ultimately the decision to purchase one or the other will come down to personal needs.

Leupold HAMR Trijicon ACOG 4×32 (TA01NSN-RMR)
Magnification 4x 4x
Objective Aperture (OA) 24mm 32mm
Red Dot Sight Delta Point (3.5 or 7 MOA) Trijicon RMR (3.25 MOA)
Weight (without Red Dot) 12.9 oz. 14.96 oz.
Length 5.5″ 5.8″
Night Illumination source Battery Tritium
Day Illumination source Battery None
Bullet Calibrated Optic Yes. 5.56mm Yes. 5.56mm
Eye Relief 2.71 1.5″
Price (inc. Red Dot) Approx. $1500 Approx. $1700
Product Info

  1. Other competitors include the Elcan C79 optical sight and SUSAT L9A1, but neither sell to civilians. 

Steve Johnson

Founder and Dictator-In-Chief of TFB. A passionate gun owner, a shooting enthusiast and totally tacti-uncool. Favorite first date location: any gun range. Steve can be contacted here.


  • Peter Ball

    So….I’m going to buy an $850 M4 clone and slap a $1500 optic? Yeah right! I’ll stick with cheap red dots and basic iron.

  • Nater

    No, but the Elcan SpecterDR is sold to civilians and it’s not terribly more costly than the optics featured here, at least in it’s 1x/4x form. There is no switching to a secondary optic with different bore offset for close quarters work. As far as I am concerned, it’s the best multi-purpose optic that money can buy.

  • Jeff

    Just one problems I’d see with the leupold:
    $1500 is a bit pricey for a battery powered scope.

    The battery life would have to be worth my money, any info on that?

  • Andrew

    Alright! Always nice to see some competition in an area that previously had none.

  • cy

    way too much money.

  • Davey

    Why are they trying to penetrate a market that’s dominated by Trijicon? Instead, Leupold should try to penetrate a market that’s dominated by Schmidt & Bender. Leupold has been losing a lot of military contracts for telescopic sights lately. That should be a clue.

    • Davey, what makes you think they have been losing contacts. They recently got contracts for a machine gun scope and for the XM2010 rifle.

  • Leup has actually been doing pretty darn well with MIL contracts recently.

    I’ve spent some time with the HAMR, and it is very very nice. Easily as bright and clear as an ACOG and like mentioned has awesome eye relief.

    It’s a good option. That said, I do hate piggy-backed MRDS and would skip that version.

  • ThomasD

    In that price range the Elcan sure seems the wiser choice. It is smaller overall, with cleaner lines (less of those silly armor cosmetics that only do a bang up job of catching dirt, dust, and grime) and the Elcon has a built in backup ghost ring sight.

  • JIM J

    Looks is belongs on a fully TAPCO’d out Rifle.

  • Andy from West Haven

    Okay, a bit of a noob question but it’s pre calibrated for 5.56? So anything else couldn’t be dialed in on this thing? I like my AR’s in anything BUT 5.56/.223 so is this thing (along with an ACOG) not an option for me?

  • Joe Schmoe

    Israeli Army for example, Nightforce now has the contracts for the sniper scopes instead of Leupold.

  • Sid

    The price is only high if you are not aware of how much these items cost. When you see the price, you must keep in mind that it is in the ball park of competitors. Having recently deployed, I can tell you that the ACOG is treated as more sensitive than the weapon.

    I came in when we were switching from M16A1 to M16A2. I used iron sights in the Invasion of Panama. Within reason, iron sights are okay. But at distance, soldiers need optics. That is where these systems fit in. An optic has to be useful at distance but not get in the way of CQB. A system that has 4x capability but then can be flicked off and used at short range is exactly what is needed on a battle rifle.

    Cost is an issue. But the cost on this system is not out of line with what an optic system currently goes for.

  • Joe

    Seems like a nice competitor to the ACOG. I still cant see spending that kind of money on an optic though. If you have a long range rifle get a nice hunting scope, If you want short to medium range get a red dot. Either option will cost you half of this this and be just as good for it’s application.

  • Lance

    Leopold is a great scope maker and I like there sniper scopes and the CQ-T scope. But this dosnt look as durable or as tactical than a ACOG. Im a BIG Trijicon and ACOG fan and this dosnt scream to me all that much. Its just attempt to copy a TA-01 scope. And since they cost the same amount of money it makes sense to stay with the tried and true ACOG.

  • Sean

    Real world prices seem to be around $1100-1200. For that price you can get a new S&W M&P sport, and Eotech and a few hundred rounds of ammo. Or a C-More, and a case of ammo. And lunch

  • Komrad

    I’m sorry, but I could buy several guns that have been on my wish list for a while for that price.

    • joe bob

      you must be into cheap guns or 22’s then..

  • Bryan S

    If they have so many military contracts, then wouldn’t the scale of manufacturing push prices down? Or is it because the military will shell out that sort of money that they will price it the same for the rest of us?

    I know good glass costs, but you would think there would be a break at some point.

  • Pedro C.P.

    It’s quite interesting that since its launch the G36 already comes with a similar combo of magnifying scope and red dot sight. The picatinny rail is a great invention, but I`m can’t help to think it made weapon manufacturers a little lazy in terms aiming devices (optics, irons, etc…), ones that are designed and fine tuned to work on that weapon. Or the aiming devices manufacturers themselves to develop devices that work under a great scope of missions.

  • Jeremiah

    Mark this day on your calendar people, this very well may be the first time Leupold has ever manufactured an absolutely useless product. This thing is just screaming knockoff, and it’s battery powered unlike the ACOG. Fail Leupold, absolute fail.

    • Ray D

      i wouldnt call it useless at all. the reticle is crystal clear in the day, not needing the battery. should you so choose, or if you are shooting into dark, you can turn on the illumination to make it crisper if youd wish. ive had an ACOG as well, and i prefer the leupold. at night time, you can choose your illumination, unlike hoping for decent illumination with an ACOG. if you did use night vision, you can fix the illumination to function along with the reticle, unlike the ACOG. light transmission is also much higher quality at night than compared to the ACOG. looking at the eye relief, the leupold is much better. if youre thinking in terms of a doomsday event, and youll chuckle at how i may need new batteries once i year, i will chuckle when you need new tritium. there are pros and cons to any optic, and leupold is just another good choice in the market.

  • Mark

    Those who are complaining about it don’t realize how important eye relief is when you’re actually running around and shooting stuff…

    It’s advertised eye relief alone warrants a real hard look.

    • Mark, I agree, many people don’t appreciate good eye relief because they have never used a decent scope. It is incredibly important.

  • Nater

    Andy, Trijicon offers a 4×32 ACOG with a 6.8 SPC reticle.

  • charles222

    Unless it has the same near/far flexibility as the ACOG (which is why the ACOG is prevalent in SOF units, and indeed, Army-wide now; unless you’re a sniper, your optic is almost always going to be an Aimpoint or an ACOG) this is a waste of time and effort.

  • Davey

    So Steve (The Firearm Blog) sez:
    Davey, what makes you think they have been losing contacts. They recently got contracts for a machine gun scope and for the XM2010 rifle.
    OK, fair enough. I shouldn’t have jumped to the conclusion that Leupold lost contracts. They might not have submitted proposals for the $34 million USMC PSR contract that Schmidt & Bender just won. Then there’s the fact that they weren’t the incumbent for the Marine’s Scout Sniper Day Scope, which is supplied by Premier Reticles. And there’s Nightforce, who got the NSWC Crane contract last year.

    I’m not bashing Leupold and I’m glad for the XM2010 scope. It demonstrates that that Leupold is aware that its Mk4 line is dated and needs a top to bottom redesign. That’s what I was alluding to in my original post.

  • Griffin

    I’m very happy with my (somewhat cheaper) Eotech 557.G23FTS. It does require you to physically press a lever to swing the magnifier out of the sight picture but I would personally prefer that to having to change my cheek weld.

    Eotech no longer makes the 557.G23FTS but instead has much similar products using non-AA batteries.

  • Griffin

    I should also mention the other benefits of the Eotech 557.G23FTS and the newer MPO III:

    1) Lower profile

    2) Modular – you can entirely remove or attach the magnifier with a quick release lever

    3) Only one thing to zero – the red dot

    4) With the magnifier out of the way (swung aside or removed entirely) can perfectly co-witness with any standard flip up iron sights. Personally I prefer having iron sights as a back up instead of having all my sights in one device that can be banged out of alignment. Perhaps co-witness is possible with the Leupold but the red-dot is so high up I doubt it.

    As far as I can see the primary advantage the Trijicon and Leupold both share is that they have a 4x instead of 3x. The Trijicon also has the dubious advantage of not needing a battery (I prefer the adjust-ability of the holographic Eotech).

    Are there other advantages I’ve missed for any of these scopes (beyond peoples loyalty to one brand vs another)?

  • Griffin

    @Andy from West Haven. I believe the answer is no, it won’t work for you, as the ballistic drops would be different distances for you. You could, however, memorize what the distances the ballistic drops are for your preferred caliber and ignore the distance labels.

    I’m happy to be corrected though.


    you have to be outta your mind to buy this….I love the concept but the price is an absolute non starter for me

  • Between the two, I’d have the HAMR. Reason being, it has better glass, clearer, brighter, and it doesn’t have that right side distortion the ACOG’s have. And it has better eye relief. Almost 3 inches instead of one and half with the ACOG.
    The batter thing isn’t a real issue because when it’s off, you still have a reticle. You only need to turn it on when it gets dark. And come on, how many other things do you have with batteries anyway? GPS, Radio, Lights, but your going to poo-poo the HAMR because you have a batter for night shooting? Please. For better optical clarity, I’ll deal with a once a year battery change.

  • Bob Z Moose

    One word: Meh.

  • Lance

    no one uses 6.8mm my 4x 5.56mm calibatred ACOG is all I need.

  • JOHN C

    Just ordered one. I have a comp 3 and an acog and after spending some time with one on a friends rifle i ordered one for my scar 17 (i know thw reticle is setup for 5.56) . It’s expensive but you have to pay for quality.

  • Cruz

    I have to laugh at all the wannabe warriors rating and spewing opinions here. Nobody uses 6.8 ??? Are you nuts?? and other trijicon snobs worried about battery life?? Bring an extra with you??? Have you had your tritium replaced yet??? WHen you do it is about $600. Nothing wrong with batteries, nothing wrong with 6.8 (I like 6.8 much better for killing game), and when it comes to spending money on optics, it is not uncommon for shooters to spend more on the optic than the delivery platform. Go talk to a real sniper and LISTEN to what they say. Learn your rifle, practice practice and more practice. If all you want it to look cool then get this optic. After all when you are in COMBAT in the woods you can always go to delta point for the CQB when the deer is attacking. I am just sayin I think alot of the verbage in these reviews is coming from safe queen museum curators and not active duty, or avid hunters. Quite obvious. Pick one, learn it, and love it they are all badass. BTW, I shot approx 600 yd buck with 6.8 and a bushnell 3-9×50 cheapie. But then again I didn’t look as cool as yall-just sayin. Now, if you have one of these let everyone know how it works. We don’t need to hear shameless plugs for Trij or Browe or US Optics etc. OUT!

    • Sgt. Boots

      Cruz, ya know that the airgun kiddies are everywhere doncha?

  • $?1500?
    Way too much money!
    Will it work with 300BLK?

    • Chase

      Short answer: No.
      Real answer: Yes, but it will have you aiming too low.

    • Sgt. Boots

      yeah, $1500.00.. what did your airgun scope cost ya? $15.00 ?

  • brenden

    I like that’s it’s shorter and lighter than an ACOG, and I like the eye relief, and have no problem with the batteries, I would actually prefer that over having to put duct tape over my fiber optic on a ACOG to keep the reticle from being too bright in direct sun. My only problem with this is what barrel length/ load of 5.56 is the reticle calibrated for? I may have missed it but I haven’t seen anything that said. Is it for a 16 inch barrel and 55 grain ammo? That would make a lot of difference if you had it on a 14.5 inch barrel and are using 77 grain ammo. Trijicon tells you what length barrel and what load it’s calibrated for. I understand the price, ACOGs are expensive too but I want to spend my money on something that will work properly for my rifle.

    • Brenden

      I emailed leupold and in their Tactical milling manual it states the reticle is calibrated for M855 (62 grain bullet)out of an M4 carbine (14.5 inch barrel)

      • LJ

        Wrong, they posted it is for 16″ barrels and 55 grain.

  • I used the HAMR on my Tavor TAR-21 for 3 months. I liked it . . . but I wound up selling it. The delta point ends up being really too high for that rifle.

    I have a short 3 minute review on it with some run and gun footage.

  • Jordan Bear Pollard

    800 yards, with a .223? From a 4x scope? Am I reading this right?
    Not that I’m trashing Leopold or anything- it’s an otherwise pretty solid concept. But 800 yards? I invite someone to prove me wrong, but it seems outlandish.

    • joe bob

      with today’s rifles, 800 meters from a 5.56 is not unheard of. not its definitely outside of comfortable operating ranges, but it’s for sure doable. hell, if youre a good shot and have a good freefloated barrel, 1000 meters is “doable” but youre talking .22 lr ballistics at that point. My 16″ noveske barrel stays within 1 and 1/4 inch at 300 yards using green tip 62 grain surplus ammo. then again, it was a 450 dollar barrel, so it should. throw some mk262 in any 1/7 high quality barrel and you’re gonna shoot damn good. my rifle outshoots me every time. she has a mind of her own.

  • Micah

    Has anyone else noticed that the optic is mounted backwards in the bottom picture?