March scopes

[johnk]

...or even something approaching 1.047197580733"

[Barry Davies]

1/8 moa is not an imperial measurement it is a universal measurement of angle which equals 0.1308 inches ( imperial measurement ) at 100 yards ( imperial measurement )

[OuttaAmmo]

Breathing air is old fashioned, so I just soak it in through my skin. I find it is less disruptive to my sight picture that way as well!!


The US Navy's new scope has MOA adjustments, they must think it is ok for their purposes.
Just whatever you know I suppose. Or were taught.
Another thing, Schmidt and Bender's 12-50 scope has an option for .25 cm(MRAD) clicks at 100m. That is finer than 1/8 MOA.

I wouldn't mind having a look through the 5-40 FFP march someday.
It looks the goods.

[ecomeat]

I recently sold a Schmidt & Bender 5-25 x 56 PM11 to mostly fund the second March 5-50 x 56 that I got my hands on.. The S & B is possibly the finest FFP fair dinkum military quality scope , tough as nails, unbelievably brilliant glass. It was Mil/MIL(Mil dot reticle, and Mil Radian adjustments which are fairly coarse, at 3.4 graduations to the inch approx. ) It really did screw with my head, switching backwards and forwards between Mil Radian and M.O.A . when I changed rifles. Also, even with the P4 Fine Reticle, it just covered way too much of the target to allow enough precision for F Class, or at least for me, it did.
Having two March 5-50 scopes on two different calibred F Class rifles might seem like a luxury to some, but from the perspective of the nut behind the butt, it's pretty close to paradise.
To my eye, there was very little between the S & B, and the March, as far as simple optical clarity goes, but for shooting F Class the March in 5-50 power , with 1/8 moa adjustments is my idea of perfection.
Tony

[OuttaAmmo]

I do believe that the march line of scopes is a better proposition for target shooting for most people. Especially since the target is conveniently configured for MOA thinking.
But I bought my Schmidt and bender 5-25 (mil clicks, mil reticle, FFP) before I joined f class, so that is what I use.
I shot a 60.9 at 500m in the 2012 NT Queens with this scope.
I just keep my thinking in mils all the way. Wind calls, shot corrections, elevation, etc.

But maybe the 5-40 FFP March would make a better f class scope, at least for me.
I think I have to break into the stud cattle business

[AlanF]

To any new shooters reading this thread, particularly those who have not yet bought a scope: Don't overspend on a scope if its going to make you skimp on other things e.g. if you need an action and a scope and have $3000, get a $2000 action and a $1000 scope, not vice versa. If your scope is mechanically reliable with reasonable capability in all aspects, then its going to be very rare to be beaten because someone else had an optically superior or more powerful scope. In fact if you're on the same shooting budget as them then you've probably been able to spend bigger on something that will really make a difference to your score e.g. an extra barrel, better quality dies, etc. I doubt you'll find many shooters with a March or S&B whose other gear isn't also top quality because their budget allows it.

Alan

[OuttaAmmo]

Wise words Alan.
For me with the S&B it was a case of "just gotta try this to see what the hype is about"

[RichardW]

@ Bruce.

NF is about to release three new models. The 15 - 55 power (target oriented), the 5 - 25 power BEAST (tactical) and the ATACR 5 - 25x which appears to be more geared at the hunting market.

Now the March 5 - 40x is a First Focal Plane scope that weighs 890 grammes bare and the reticle pattern (FML-1) has a floating dot that is smaller than the Xring on an Australian ICFRA target - and remains so at all zoom powers. The reticle is fine (not coarse or thick like old style patterns) and works very well on our targets.

Check out the pictures on the March website.

[DaveMc]

To any new shooters reading this thread, particularly those who have not yet bought a scope: Don't overspend on a scope if its going to make you skimp on other things e.g. if you need an action and a scope and have $3000, get a $2000 action and a $1000 scope, not vice versa. If your scope is mechanically reliable with reasonable capability in all aspects, then its going to be very rare to be beaten because someone else had an optically superior or more powerful scope. In fact if you're on the same shooting budget as them then you've probably been able to spend bigger on something that will really make a difference to your score e.g. an extra barrel, better quality dies, etc. I doubt you'll find many shooters with a March or S&B whose other gear isn't also top quality because their budget allows it.

Alan

Yes very wise words - and don't look through one or there will be no turning back

[ecomeat]

Fully agree with your comments, Alan.
I saved for two years to buy the S&B , as I had read mountains of literature and finally deciided that I wanted it, coz it was the best. Had the scope sitting in the cupboard for well over a year before I had the rifle finished......took that long to squirrel enough away to pay for the stock, action and barrel.
Then realised that I had the wrong scope AND the wrong stock, for this F Class that I had discovered, and got quickly hooked on.
I thought i knew what I was doing, so had jumped in boots and all. The S&B probably is the best sniper scope generally available, and the McMillan A5 tacticool stock with all of the bells and whistles is a beautiful thing......just that neither of them worked for me, for F Class. I can actually remember thinking that the F Class stock shape was the ugliest thing that I had ever seen.
Now i can see very clearly that i would have been a long way in front to have asked several experienced F Classers for their recommendations for rifle/scope/stock combinations suited to F Class.
Tony

[macguru]

It has now been explained to me that March scopes use ED glass and as an amateur astronomer i know that that would account for the differences I could see......

There is a Nightforce target model coming with this glass but it looks like being as expensive as a march anyway !

http://www.opticstalk.com/ed-glass-for- ... 19330.html

http://www.accurateshooter.com/featured ... ion-scope/

[CEW]

Lots of talk about lots of scopes where it seems to be very common on every forum in the country these days.

Well I was present at a little independent showing of glass just a little South of where Dave did his with Pete. Our findings were a little different.

This was a day of bright sunshine at around 1pm with the normally horrid mirage for that time of year here in NQ.

It was decided after a little debate to do a very simple test where it sort of eliminated the bias out of it as each person present owned at least one of the scopes present. One of the ladies wrote a word in pen on the reverse side of a target and she then placed it at 100 yards. Only two scopes were able to read the word. Each person was given each scope in turn and manipulated it whichever way they wished to and wound them through any power they wished. The Swaro Z6 5-30 and Zeiss Diavari 6-24 could clearly make out the word. The S&B was fifty percent of the people could make it out. The rest were not able to make out the word at all. So to be fair the process was done in reverse order, another word and same result.

Now you would think that a handwritten word at a 100 yards could be seen by virtually any scope of quality. Well not up here in summer. Actually many were only just able to make out where the word was. The more some scopes wound on power the worse it got. That is the nature of mirage here and the likes of a 50x or more is a WOFTAM but for a very few rare days in winter. Around 25x was the best viewing for virtually every scope present but if i had to keep to a budget the scope i would say was the pick was the 6x20 Zeiss Conquest. Not the most common on the range, but virtually everyone was stunned by how good this scope is.

This is where you could say, but hey what if the owner of a scope read the word with another scope and then waited for his to be handed to him? Simple fix, anther word and each owner had to identify it with their own scope(s) Same result Swaro and Zeiss.

If it was one person and the 10 scopes, it would be plausible to think that one scope may suit that persons eyesight better than another. But for 12 people and ten scopes to narrow it down to two only, then I find that a little more credible for my own mind.

This trial was posted recently on another forum and has a youtube link for the whole thing as it was filmed entirely. Some of the comments about certain scopes are very funny and some scope manufacturers might be somewhat embarrassed. But I reckon it is about as fair as it gets and does show a very wide cross section of current target scopes.

Now what annoys me about this is I own a NF and a couple of Leupolds. Lots of money invested, but I want the Z6. Or for Zeiss to come out with a bigger player.
This little exercise was done up here in the north. Down south well I don't know what the end result would be but if mirage is a test of extremes, then one might have to reconsider their choice. I have and I never even thought of a Euro scope before except for a very fleeting glimpse of an S&B.

I leaned a lot from that day. Power is secondary to resolution and resolution is not a factor of power. It is in the construction and i believe the Euros might still be doing it a little better.

Peter De.

[CEW]

I just recalled something. The three scopes, Z6, Diavari and Conquest were not originally scopes set out for the trial. Only the S&B was from the Euro clan.

How these others got there was because the owner of the private property had them. He has long held the belief that there is nothing like Euro scopes. This from a guy that shoots crows, rabbits and the like and never shoots competition. He reckons he has to see the eye of a crow. White eye is a raven, black eye is a crow. Illegal to shoot ravens. Apparently. I never knew that. I thought a crow was a crow.

[AlanF]

Peter,

Before you get rid of your NF or Leupolds, I'd do some research more on the Swarovski and Zeiss models you mentioned. The Zeiss clicks are 1cm at 100m i.e. coarser than 1/4min. We had a Swarovski on the range (cost very big $) for a short while and I think it had the same problem. It also had quite low windage/elevation adjustment range and the shooter was running out of windage in a strong westerly at 1000yds. The Zeiss looks like it has 25min vert and hor, also barely enough for F-Class.

You could well be right about optical quality, but that's not much use if the scopes are unsuitable in other ways.

Alan

[macguru]

The March would have read it, and i dont need to be there to be sure, after what i have seen.... The question is how often we really need that resolution and where each of us choose to spend our money.....

and as for that extremetech video.... I would like to see some of those wildebeast armed and fighting back...