March scopes

Get or give advice on equipment, reloading and other technical issues.

Moderator: Mod

Message
Author
DannyS
Posts: 1032
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2010 10:33 pm
Location: Hamilton
Contact:

March scopes

#1 Postby DannyS » Sun Jan 06, 2013 2:58 pm

Considering laying out the dollars for a March scope, anyone have one? And are they worth the dollars.

bully_eye
Posts: 307
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 8:45 am
Location: Wollongong

#2 Postby bully_eye » Sun Jan 06, 2013 3:57 pm

I have a March FX 5-40x56mm FFP scope. While being a 'tactical' scope and maybe not an obvious choice for F Class or the scope you're considering, the reticle is fine enough to not obscure the centre of the target, the glass is top notch, clicks repeatable and BRT are brilliant to deal with to boot. Only down side is the price but since when has good glass been cheap? I'm sure that in the target scope world their scopes are the equal or better of any other brand. I love my NF 12-42x56 BR model but would swap it for a March if I had the money left in my 'black' budget to do so.

Regards,
Michael

bruce moulds
Posts: 2900
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 4:07 pm

#3 Postby bruce moulds » Sun Jan 06, 2013 4:58 pm

look at the nightforce website for a new model with e.d. glass.
hopefully it will not have a wind arm on the elevation turret like a march i have seen, and will also be more reasonably priced.
this elevation turret makes coaching a shooter using one a pain in the proverbial.
it looks like it is designed as a competition scope to go head to head with march.
keep safe,
bruce.
"SUCH IS LIFE" Edward Kelly 11 nov 1880
http://youtu.be/YRaRCCZjdTM

TOM
Posts: 381
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 9:35 am

#4 Postby TOM » Sun Jan 06, 2013 5:10 pm

Warranty may be a consideration for you, 5 years on the March, versus lifetime on a Nightforce or Leupold for mechanical failure and workmanship.

Sounds like a buy once deal with a Nightforce or Leupold and You find yourself on your own with the March after 5 years, as with anything mechanical it will probably fail at some stage, personally I'd prefer the confidence of never having to buy again when forking out big money.

DannyS
Posts: 1032
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2010 10:33 pm
Location: Hamilton
Contact:

#5 Postby DannyS » Sun Jan 06, 2013 8:33 pm

Thanks guys, yes the new nightforce does look interesting

Matt P
Posts: 1512
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 8:22 pm

#6 Postby Matt P » Sun Jan 06, 2013 9:04 pm

Cost for the N/F looks like it will be about the same as a 10-60 March, and 5 moa per revolution on the N/F is a disaster waiting to happen IMO, I have a March 10-60 and if I could afford/needed another would happily pay the money. I've had them all and the March is the best !!!

Matt P

bruce moulds
Posts: 2900
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 4:07 pm

#7 Postby bruce moulds » Sun Jan 06, 2013 9:47 pm

matt,
when coaching, i would like 10clicks to the minute, 10 minutes to the turn.
this is because it is easier to record sight settings with minimal thought, a thing which i find hard at the best of times.
i don't know what your elevation turret has on it, but i know of one with zero in the middle, not at the bottom. another h.f. for a coach.
in this respect, probably the best team scope currently available is the nxs 1/8 minute.
march had a golden opportunity to provide a purpose builf fclass tool here, and instead of doing their homework, went off and built short range br scopes. this comes back to the people involved in the development. being br shootere, they assumed that br is the pinnacle of accuracy. interestingly there are probably now more fclass shooters in the world than short, mid, and long range benchresters combined. anyone supplying the optics market could capitalize on this.
all the marches i have looked through seem no better to my eyes than nightforce or leupold. could be good optics wasted on old eyes!
keep safe,
bruce.
"SUCH IS LIFE" Edward Kelly 11 nov 1880

http://youtu.be/YRaRCCZjdTM

DaveMc
Posts: 1453
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2011 6:33 pm

#8 Postby DaveMc » Sun Jan 06, 2013 10:23 pm

I was fortunate enough to partake in a scope review recently. This was a private review and was not done for a magazine nor commercial gain but did involve someone I would call an optics expert (some of you will know who I mean). Armed with collimators and optics charts we set about reviewing the following. NFBR 12-42, NFBR8-32, NF NXS 8-32 (1/8 click) (unfortunately no 12-42 NXS), March 8-80, 5-50 and 2.5-25 tactical (also unfortunately no 10-60) and sightron 10-50 and 8-32.

In summary all scopes performed mechanically very well keeping POA through zoom and focus. All also tracked accurately through full range.
Rating of optical performance by 4 independent people (blind ballot) returned almost identical rankings. The March 5-50 won out every time followed by the 8-80 and NFBR 12-42. Sightrons came in last but it is worth mentioning they still performed admirably.

The March 8-80 appears "öptimised" for 60-80 power viewing which let it down in the usable range of 30-50 power. Whereas the March 5-50 is exceptional in 30-50 range.
The march tactical series has 10 minutes per turn, indeed winds up in elevation and has a zero stop. The only criticism was the yellow and white banding to distinguish number of turns.

It is worth noting all scopes scored highly but I purchased a 5-50 Tactical on the spot. :D (and have been paying the cc off ever since :( ).

Another scope worth considering that has exceptional optics apparently to rival or better the MArch is the S&B (10-50)- can't wait to get my hands on one of those suckers.

AlanF
Posts: 7495
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:22 pm
Location: Maffra, Vic

#9 Postby AlanF » Sun Jan 06, 2013 11:19 pm

I try to spend my shooting dollars to get the best performance for the money. On that basis, I would rather have a $1000 scope than a March, and spend the difference on 3 new barrels. I can see the point of super quality optics for seeing the bullet holes in fly shooting, but for F-Class? Did you have some mirage on the test day Dave? I guess the March may see mirage when a lesser brand doesn't?

Alan

DaveMc
Posts: 1453
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2011 6:33 pm

#10 Postby DaveMc » Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:28 am

Alan - Mirage is a whole different topic and was not involved in the original review which was optical (resolution, spherical and chromatic aberrations) and mechanical quality. A quick comment here - seeing minor mirage is not necessarily a factor of optical excellence (although that helps) but seems it is more a function of depth of field and F ratios. Some surprises occur here but the March is excellent. Cutting through severe mirage is really a myth. Better optical quality helps "differentiate" but only in a very minor way - there is no "magic" fix.

I will add that I agree with your comment on budget. If you can afford one then it is worthwhile but there are diminishing returns for your money and perhaps the $ can be spent elsewhere with more effect.

On value for money all reviewers agreed NF 12-42BR was top, followed closely by Sightron 10-50 and both these scopes can take you to the top level of F class shooting. Another obvious missing entrant in our testing is the Leupold??? From what I have seen the Leupolds have excellent optics if they made a higher power entrant I think it would be a serious contender but some are happy with 25 power :D ?

bsouthernau
Posts: 696
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2012 4:31 pm

#11 Postby bsouthernau » Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:36 am

DaveMc wrote:Armed with collimators and optics charts .......
Rating of optical performance by 4 independent people (blind ballot) returned almost identical rankings. The March 5-50 won out every time followed by the 8-80 and NFBR 12-42. Sightrons came in last but it is worth mentioning they still performed admirably.



I'd be interested to now how you went about this - presumably using one of those charts with ever diminishing lines - and whether you kept any numbers comparing the resolution of the varous scopes.

Barry

AlanF
Posts: 7495
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:22 pm
Location: Maffra, Vic

#12 Postby AlanF » Mon Jan 07, 2013 9:15 am

DaveMc wrote:Alan - Mirage is a whole different topic and was not involved in the original review which was optical (resolution, spherical and chromatic aberrations) and mechanical quality. A quick comment here - seeing minor mirage is not necessarily a factor of optical excellence (although that helps) but seems it is more a function of depth of field and F ratios. Some surprises occur here but the March is excellent. Cutting through severe mirage is really a myth. Better optical quality helps "differentiate" but only in a very minor way - there is no "magic" fix.

I will add that I agree with your comment on budget. If you can afford one then it is worthwhile but there are diminishing returns for your money and perhaps the $ can be spent elsewhere with more effect.

On value for money all reviewers agreed NF 12-42BR was top, followed closely by Sightron 10-50 and both these scopes can take you to the top level of F class shooting. Another obvious missing entrant in our testing is the Leupold??? From what I have seen the Leupolds have excellent optics if they made a higher power entrant I think it would be a serious contender but some are happy with 25 power :D ?


Dave,

I'm thinking about times when there's been just a smidgeon of mirage on the edge the target. There have been times when I know its there but can't quite get a handle on it with the Leupold. Of course when you get conditions like that, you run the risk of the mirage disappearing altogether and you have to change to looking at something else.

I may have mentioned it elsewhere, but I've just traded my 8-25X Leupold in on a 10-50X Sightron. For my purposes the Sightron is better in most respects. It has 1/8MOA clicks (important for tweeking vertical), clearer optics, and much more power. I still have a 6-20 Leupold and it will continue to be used on my number two rifle. The Weaver T24 is reliable and adequate in the right conditions as a backup. The major consideration for me is mechanical reliability, and I don't value high magnification as much as some others.

But I'll continue to say that scope preferences such as magnification, reticle type etc. are very much an individual thing. The eye-brain physiology seems to vary, and you'll get top performing shooters with quite different preferences.

Alan

DaveMc
Posts: 1453
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2011 6:33 pm

#13 Postby DaveMc » Mon Jan 07, 2013 9:31 am

Barry - here is a (bad) picture of the charts we used. Some colour ones for chromatic aberations and then a variety of others for resolving, lines, spirals, swirls, numbers, letters etc

Image

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

If you are looking for a simple test we suggest a page with fonts running down as small as you can go. "Type" involves all of the above and is a good indicator of ability to resolve. The colour charts - The Swarovski butterfly is great and will show chromatic aberations (turning greens into purples etc) and you can get "yellowing on edges of black - look towards outer edges of lenses. Another issue is "ghosting".

It is important to compare like for like in these tests. (which is hard) but we did at a range of powers and distances and light intensities. The records are quite complex. So for instance it is unfair to compare a 2.5-25 March at 25 power to one at 80 power in bright light so we went through a range of powers (25-40-50 -80 etc) and indoors, outdoors etc etc.

Yes I do have the records - but they involve four reviewers and were done privately so there are some issues in releasing them. Albeit to say I can give a summary and some of my results for example - font type at 25m 40 power indoors- the March 5-50 could read 4 point (which is amazing - try reading 4 point type at 60 cm with bare eyes). NF and 8-80 were 5-6 and Sightron was 8 point. Then in a low contrast test (grey background, dark grey writing) it was 11, 13,13 and 18 respectively. Nearly all resolution tests returned similar results (indoors and outdoors at longer distances for all reviewers and after testing we decide the font high and low contrast was the best for a simple "resolution test".
Nearly all scopes showed colour aberrations on the fringes of the lenses but in similar order of severity to the resolution testing. It is worth noting here the 60mm front lens of the Sightron is "harder" to get right and when we put a reducer around outside to reduce its effective diameter to 50mm a lot of the chromatic and spherical aberrations improved. A bit of a case of "more is less" - trying to increase light intensity comes at a price if not done to the highest standard. An increase in lens diameter vs accuracy required to maintain clarity is a square function so it gets hard to make big lenses well!

DaveMc
Posts: 1453
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2011 6:33 pm

#14 Postby DaveMc » Mon Jan 07, 2013 10:00 am

AlanF wrote:The major consideration for me is mechanical reliability, and I don't value high magnification as much as some others.

But I'll continue to say that scope preferences such as magnification, reticle type etc. are very much an individual thing. The eye-brain physiology seems to vary, and you'll get top performing shooters with quite different preferences.

Alan


On these two topics Alan - I have 2* 10-50 Sightron (my backup now) and they are excellent really. What impressed us all is the mechanical side. Very firm positive movements that seem well linked. Due to their positrac system I suppose. We haven't heard of any issues re mechanical problems yet (anywhere - please let us know if someone has one) and also think this is due to their positrac system. you can't get "sticking" in their design. I am also happy with the sightrons ability to pick up mirage!! Playing with power and front objective "disc modifiers" can really change the image here.

Yes - all these things are personal preference (power, turrets, reticle, side or front focus etc) but is it due to what you are used to or physiology?? Maybe a bit of both.

Dave

AlanF
Posts: 7495
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:22 pm
Location: Maffra, Vic

#15 Postby AlanF » Mon Jan 07, 2013 10:16 am

DaveMc wrote:...Yes - all these things are personal preference (power, turrets, reticle, side or front focus etc) but is it due to what you are used to or physiology?? Maybe a bit of both.

Dave

Yes - probably some psychology there as well. The one that for me highlights differences is that some very good shooters do not wind down their magnification ever, even in heavy mirage, and others will do so even in light mirage.

Alan


Return to “Equipment & Technical”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 42 guests