Rifle Scopes March Scopes at SWFA, Euro Optics, and Long Range Supply

So essentially we now have multiple distribution channels with big players. This is def a positive thing!

Hi,

@Denys
Is March still looking at setting up repair and maintenance facility in the USA or is one of the importer/distributors going to handle them via:

1. Exporting to Deon and Re-importing?
2. Actually in-house?

Sincerely,
Theis

That’s an interesting development. If EuroOptic starts carrying them I may have to check one out. Been looking at them for awhile, but haven’t pulled the trigger. Good to know.

Be careful Deny, you know you’re not supposed to like anything but S&B, TT, Zero etc on here, and giving facts will make you very unpopular

Great news for March fans. Euro Optic is always pleasant to deal with.

Thanks for sharing Denys, this is great news indeed! Also off that site they have a post on the new 5-42x56 PRS scope, apparently it was seen in the UK recently as the 3rd generation of pre-production, if they can figure out a good reticle in this scope it might shake some things up a bit depending on price point - hopefully with 3 distributors now and potentially more sales March can bring the price down a bit... we'll see.

Also, as we celebrate our Independence Day here in the USA and reflect on one of the best documents ever devised by human minds (the Constitution of the United States), may this picture of the March 5-42x56 mounted on a rifle at a competition in the UK be a reminder to us all why we have the 2nd Amendment



Does anyone notice something missing in this pic? The barrel! It's gotten so bad in the UK they aren't even allowed to own barrels anymore I'm just kidding, this was done to show off the scope, but I did think it was a funny picture. In all seriousness, happy 243rd birthday USA!

Denys said:

I think you're not getting the whole picture, wjm308. The rifle does have a barrel, albeit a very short one. Why else would the shooter be wearing hearing protection? One of the outstanding features of the March 5-42X56 PRS scope is its incredible adjustment range of 140MOA elevation and this is exactly what this picture is showing; someone shooting at 1000 yards with a .308 Winchester using a 110 grain bullet out of a 14 inch barrel. He's got 62MOA of up elevation on the scope, all done internally, no need for any fancy 20MOA ramp.

Click to expand...

I think you're being serious, what am I missing, oh now I see it, it is an optical illusion, the barrel is inside a chassis which is easier seen in the below picture, at first it looked like there wasn't a barrel at all. But that's pretty cool Gary was shooting out of a short barrel (are those allowed in the UK?) with a low BC bullet... nice

The absense of a bolt is also an optical illusion, I think.

ILya

koshkin said:

The absense of a bolt is also an optical illusion, I think.

ILya

Click to expand...

The plot thickens, not only is there no bolt, but in the last image you can see through the vent holes at the front of the action and once again it does not appear to be a barrel in there???

Denys said:

Not an optical illusion; it's more like a rift in the fabric of the space/time continuum. Either that or another example of Schrodinger's cat. It this case it's a bolt. Because of the angle of view, the observer does not know if there is a bolt or not until the trigger is pressed.

The second picture just distorts the whole hypothesis.

Or you can read the whole story here:

Take a peek at the actual testing scene of 5x-42×56 ! | Products | MARCH Scopes | DEON Optical Design CorporationMARCH Scopes | DEON Optical Design Corporation

MARCH Scopes Official Site

marchscopes.com

Spoiler alert: it is Gary Costello in the picture.

Click to expand...

So you were joking, now the joke's on me

Sure wish they’d seriously consider a different reticle, closer to - MPCT2 or SKMR3.

DellaDog said:

Sure wish they’d seriously consider a different reticle, closer to - MPCT2 or SKMR3.

Click to expand...

Della, I have been in communication with them about that very thing, so far they have been very responsive. They realize that they have not received the market share they hoped within the USA and they are pretty open to hearing from the market base as to why. Previously, March only had a sole distributor in Kelbly's and then with Shiraz, both of whom were heavy in F class but not the most knowledgeable in FFP optics, or more specifically with the PRS type crowd. I believe their reticles were influenced by this as well as some of their turret technology (the 5-40 scope had .05/5 mil turrets which just don't cut it - while benchresters and F classers may prefer a 1/8 moa click, I don't know any in tactical long range who need or want that kind of precision). Anyway, hopefully all the feedback from USA shooters asking for a "better" reticle will cause them to go back to the drawing board.

^ The issue with lack of appropriate reticles is a result of the favourite disciplines of the three main distributors
worldwide. Both the UK and US distributors were F Class champions, the Australian distributor ( Asia pacific)
is a World BR champ. Ive been pushing for a tree reticle for 3 years with no luck.

I suspect pressure from the new US distributors will carry more weight than my humble opinion; its pretty simple,
DEONs sales have the potential to at least double with a few small changes like a new reticle or two. March have
always had excellent build quality and been at the sharp end of design, but suffered from a disconnect between
market and manufacture.

WJM 308; the 5-40 FFP is avaliable in 1/10 or 1/20 MIL click value.

They are looking to fix that and they are paying attention to the market. I suspect good things are coming.

ILya

wjm308 said:

Della, I have been in communication with them about that very thing, so far they have been very responsive. They realize that they have not received the market share they hoped within the USA and they are pretty open to hearing from the market base as to why. Previously, March only had a sole distributor in Kelbly's and then with Shiraz, both of whom were heavy in F class but not the most knowledgeable in FFP optics, or more specifically with the PRS type crowd. I believe their reticles were influenced by this as well as some of their turret technology (the 5-40 scope had .05/5 mil turrets which just don't cut it - while benchresters and F classers may prefer a 1/8 moa click, I don't know any in tactical long range who need or want that kind of precision). Anyway, hopefully all the feedback from USA shooters asking for a "better" reticle will cause them to go back to the drawing board.

Click to expand...

Who did you speak with at March? Any way to get in contact with them? I have extensive match experience with mine and just won the Peacemaker NRA DMR 2 day match with the 3-24x42.

I have seen a rendering of one prototype reticle they are working on,i think it will be well recieved.

Any users out there have any feedback on March's tracking? Specifically, tested or quantified tracking on a tall target test, or a correction factor or something?

Been interested in March for some time, but the few available videos / reports seem to cast some doubt on their mechanical accuracy.

What

lennyo3034 said:

Who did you speak with at March? Any way to get in contact with them? I have extensive match experience with mine and just won the Peacemaker NRA DMR 2 day match with the 3-24x42.
[/QUOTE

Well done sir. What reticle did you run? We both may benefit from a PM chat about reticles. Your input
would be well received by DEON.

Click to expand...

Denys said:

Clearlight, I'm sure they would love to hear from you and anyone else with good questions and suggestions.

Click to expand...

Denys if you can PM me some email contacts of the new distributors in the US, I’d be happy to
assist. After having dinner with Mr Shimizu a while ago, I remain very impressed with his talent.

plidenbrock said:

Any users out there have any feedback on March's tracking? Specifically, tested or quantified tracking on a tall target test, or a correction factor or something?

Been interested in March for some time, but the few available videos / reports seem to cast some doubt on their mechanical accuracy.

Click to expand...

Flawless tracking. Lowlight did a great review of the 3-24, it’s on You Tube. One issue that did appear 6 years
ago was that a Euro client of March ordered some optics in NATO 6400 MILs. Guys in the US got a few of
these spec optics, and tested them using USMC 6283 MILs, so,there’s your error. Lowlight was just
about the only guy who tested it and posted a vid that got it right, and explained the calibration difference.

Hard to see in the pictures, but how many mils per revolution? Most likely an MOA turret on the pictured scope?

I hope March only puts 10 to 13 mils per revolution in the turrets. Many people don't like those high density turrets that require a magnifying glass to see what's been dialed.

Man that reticle in the 5-42 has a lot going on. It took me a few seconds to find the center crosshair. Hopefully that changes or they offer a less cluttered reticle option

Clearlight said:

What

Click to expand...

I’m using the FML-1 which I really like on a gas gun. Specifically for the reticle thickness.

Since gas gun matches are often time based, I almost always hold instead of dial target transitions.

I tend to shoot most positional stages at around 8x and have no trouble using the hashes on the reticle for my holds. For mover type stages, I often go as low as 5x, and can still use the hashes for leads. By comparison, I have a Minox ZP5 on a different gun and find the reticle is only useful down to 12x. Anything below and it’s too difficult to make out the individual hashes.

For a gas gun, I like .5 mil holds but I think .2 may be beneficial for bolt guns, which will be the majority of the market share. If going to .2, I highly recommend some way to distinguish hashes next to each other. I like how Steiner’s SCR does this.

This makes the reticle suffer a bit on high magnification, so that’s the trade off. If I were to redesign, I think keeping the center dot size but reducing the thickness to .05-.06 MIL would be ideal. If they do reduce the center dot size, .07 to .08 is still small enough for precision but useable at low magnification.

I really wish the FML-1 had a Christmas tree. Something basic and simple is fine, and the thickness can be significantly thinner than the main reticle. I’ve been eyeing the NF NX8 simply because it will have a Christmas tree when it comes out with the Mil-XT reticle.

In summary:
1. Slightly reduce reticle thickness, .05-.06 for hashes and .07-.08 for center dot.
2. If going to .02 mil hashes, make sure they can be distinguished from one another at low mag.
3. Add a Christmas tree, preferably thinner or with dots, similar to the MR-4.

PS. Here she is. If anyone is near PA, I’ll be at the Geissele gas gun match on July 13.

Kickin45 said:

Man that reticle in the 5-42 has a lot going on. It took me a few seconds to find the center crosshair. Hopefully that changes or they offer a less cluttered reticle option

Click to expand...

Do you have a picture or link? My google abilities are lacking.

Yeah, would like to see a clear defined picture of the Mil based "Christmas Tree" reticle. All I can find is blurry or partly obscured pictures.

lennyo3034 said:

I’m using the FML-1 which I really like on a gas gun. Specifically for the reticle thickness.

Since gas gun matches are often time based, I almost always hold instead of dial target transitions.

I tend to shoot most positional stages at around 8x and have no trouble using the hashes on the reticle for my holds. For mover type stages, I often go as low as 5x, and can still use the hashes for leads. By comparison, I have a Minox ZP5 on a different gun and find the reticle is only useful down to 12x. Anything below and it’s too difficult to make out the individual hashes.

For a gas gun, I like .5 mil holds but I think .2 may be beneficial for bolt guns, which will be the majority of the market share. If going to .2, I highly recommend some way to distinguish hashes next to each other. I like how Steiner’s SCR does this.

This makes the reticle suffer a bit on high magnification, so that’s the trade off. If I were to redesign, I think keeping the center dot size but reducing the thickness to .05-.06 MIL would be ideal. If they do reduce the center dot size, .07 to .08 is still small enough for precision but useable at low magnification.

I really wish the FML-1 had a Christmas tree. Something basic and simple is fine, and the thickness can be significantly thinner than the main reticle. I’ve been eyeing the NF NX8 simply because it will have a Christmas tree when it comes out with the Mil-XT reticle.

In summary:
1. Slightly reduce reticle thickness, .05-.06 for hashes and .07-.08 for center dot.
2. If going to .02 mil hashes, make sure they can be distinguished from one another at low mag.
3. Add a Christmas tree, preferably thinner or with dots, similar to the MR-4.

PS. Here she is. If anyone is near PA, I’ll be at the Geissele gas gun match on July 13.

Click to expand...

I forgot to mention: I don’t have an FML-T1 reticle, but I did have a Kahles AMR, which from what I can tell is the same. The Christmas tree worked well on it, however I hated whatever was going on in the center. I understand they were trying to get the eye to naturally move to the center, but I much prefer a center dot.

Denys said:

We also talked about the 5-42X56 as I wanted to understand how it could have a 140MOA adjustment range and still be a 34mm tube.

Click to expand...

March has always pushed the limits of travel, their 3-24x52 offers 34 mil of travel for a 30mm tube! The engineering behind their 8x erector is pretty revolutionary but there have been compromises (and shall I say missteps along the way) that were made. I absolutely loved my 3-24x52, did not have the issues with eyebox that many complained about, but my biggest gripe was the finickyness of the DOF and parralax, it did need to be set right throughout much of the range more than other scopes; however, I was willing to overlook that if they had a decent reticle for what most of us do, when they announced the FML-T1 I got my hopes up but then I saw it and thought "nope, that ain't it" because it's too busy (not a fan of busy reticles). They ought to be inspired by the MR4, Gen 3XR, MPCT2, SKMR3 et al. Speaking of SKMR3, some may disagree but I believe that Kahles gained such ground among the community with the K624i because of one main thing - reticle, look at their popularity before the SKMR and they had some market share, but after SKMR was released they shot through the roof even with some of the issues the K624i had (mainly CA which March controls amazingly well). At the release of the SKMR reticle with the K624i Gen III there was really no other reticle like it - floating center dot and .2 mil hash marks in an intuitive layout. March already had the floating center dot but done with a plain jane .5 mil hash style and the reticle was way too thick at high mag IMO. I think March has been too influenced by the benchrest/F Class crowd and as such has designed much of their FFP optics based on those principles which has caused them to struggle in this market. This was evidenced once again at SHOT this year when they announced the design of the PRS 5-42x56 scope, a new optical design with High Master glass (another faux pas, what the heck is "High Master", get a new name like UHD or SHD or something like that or shoot, just call it HM but High Master doesn't mean anything to anyone outside of March) that caused quite a stir until we saw the reticle they were designing for it and many here were thinking "what on earth???".

What are my thoughts on the "new" March for USA:

• Get the 5-42x56 out with two good reticles with center dot and .2 mil hash, one tree one no tree (or three reticles if you feel you must have that silly grid) and bring it out at a price point in the low $3k class to compete with the existing outstanding options here.
• Rework the 3-24x52 to be less finicky with parallax and increase DOF and again, offer two new reticles just like the 5-42 above with a better illumination unit standard. EDIT: And rework the turrets, they are too mushy, make them more responsive with better distinct clicks.
• Come out with a 1-6x or 1-7x with 34mm tube and at least a 28mm objective or even a little larger to differentiate yourself from the thousand other 1-6x offerings out there, of course work with the LPVO community to come out with a great reticle that goes from daylight/red dot bright to NV capable and priced in the $2k or less range.
• In all the above scopes - come out with a much better illumination module that can go from daylight bright and make it standard on all your scopes, not a $500 option - the expectation is that illumination is standard and you won't charge an egregious fee for it. Also, get rid of the push button units and come out with a rheostat or off-on-off-on unit that can be twisted with a built in auto-off unit after 30 minutes of no movement or anything above 45 degree angle (see ZCO).

I don't recall ever having a problem with the floating dot in the FML-1 reticle when I had a March, but with my Tremor 2 reticle (S&B), when I have to deal with heavy mirage, I hate the floating dot, especially when shooting groups on paper.

Reticles are a very personal preference, more so than anything else I can think of in the shooting sports outside of ergonomics.
I don't think you will ever please everyone.
My preference would be a Tremor 2 style reticle without a floating dot, little heavier main lines. I had a Tremor 3, and hated it because it was too busy. So e call the wind hold dots gimmicky, but they are useful and do work.

Denys said:

The pictures that I took of the scope at SHOT 2019 show 50MOA per rev, which I believe would be right in the range you mention in mils. I would think since this scope is mainly aimed at PRS, they would concentrate more on mils than on MOA. I would even say that an MOA version is probably not required or desired; put the effort in the mil version. Don't you agree?

Click to expand...

I do agree, but there will always be those people who prefer MOA over Mil, no matter which shooting discipline they are competing in. So I think they would be smart to offer both. I personally prefer Mil based turrets for field style shooting.

Alpine 338 said:

I do agree, but there will always be those people who prefer MOA over Mil, no matter which shooting discipline they are competing in. So I think they would be smart to offer both. I personally prefer Mil based turrets for field style shooting.

Click to expand...

I agree with Alpine here, while tactical/long range sport seems to be dominated by the mil crowd these days, you still have your die-hard moa shooters (who haven't seen the light yet ) and so focusing on the mil and refining that scope (turrets and reticles) should be main priority, but still offering an MOA option is also a good thing.

Denys said:

The pictures that I took of the scope at SHOT 2019 show 50MOA per rev, which I believe would be right in the range you mention in mils. I would think since this scope is mainly aimed at PRS, they would concentrate more on mils than on MOA. I would even say that an MOA version is probably not required or desired; put the effort in the mil version. Don't you agree?

Click to expand...

Denys, the 50moa turrets would translate closely to 15 mil turrets, as long as March can keep the distance between .1 mil ticks spaced out nicely (larger diameter turret) and the clicks very distinct, this would go over very well, but one issue I have with the 3-24 is the clicks are too mushy, I do not have experience with the 5-40 mostly because of the reticle and turrets, Shiraz was mostly selling the .05 mil/5 mil per turn version which was a horrible mistake, get rid of those turrets on a mil scope, nobody needs that level of precision for what we do, if you're trying to shoot bug holes at 1000 yards maybe, but most of us are shooting steel or animals which don't require that and it just becomes a hindrance.

[/QUOTE]

plidenbrock said:

Any users out there have any feedback on March's tracking? Specifically, tested or quantified tracking on a tall target test, or a correction factor or something?

Been interested in March for some time, but the few available videos / reports seem to cast some doubt on their mechanical accuracy.

Click to expand...

I watched those videos as well and just tested my 3-24x52 this weekend, it seemed to track perfectly to 20mils.

Alpine 338 said:

Yeah, would like to see a clear defined picture of the Mil based "Christmas Tree" reticle. All I can find is blurry or partly obscured pictures.

Click to expand...

Not really clear and defined but I just snapped this the other night at the range holding my phone behind the scope. FML-T1 between 12x and 15x on the zoom ring. Target at 400m.

wjm308 said:

did not have the issues with eyebox that many complained about, but my biggest gripe was the finickyness of the DOF and parralax, it did need to be set right throughout much of the range more than other scopes;

Click to expand...

I agree with you on the eyebox, I have no issues with it.

I find the parallax very forgiving, in fact much more than other scopes that I have - Not the adjustment knob, as small movement make a huge difference - but the parallax itself seems very forgiving. When I was at the range and took the picture above I did a test where I set the parallax for 400m and then checked at 300m, 500m, and a fence post in the far distance that I would say was ~800m - At all distances the target was very clear and parallax free without adjusting it from the 400m setting. But I am not an optics expert and I may be doing something wrong.

I watched those videos as well and just tested my 3-24x52 this weekend, it seemed to track perfectly to 20mils.



Not really clear and defined but I just snapped this the other night at the range holding my phone behind the scope. FML-T1 between 12x and 15x on the zoom ring. Target at 400m.
View attachment 7106731



I agree with you on the eyebox, I have no issues with it.

I find the parallax very forgiving, in fact much more than other scopes that I have - Not the adjustment knob, as small movement make a huge difference - but the parallax itself seems very forgiving. When I was at the range and took the picture above I did a test where I set the parallax for 400m and then checked at 300m, 500m, and a fence post in the far distance that I would say was ~800m - At all distances the target was very clear and parallax free without adjusting it from the 400m setting. But I am not an optics expert and I may be doing something wrong.
[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the picture, best one of the reticle I've seen so far.

I like the layout, except the inside 1+/- Mil of the reticle. I think that part would be useful in a 1 - 8x scope on a carbine, but it's out of place on a precision rifle scope

I like the FML-T1 but agree the center needs to be smaller, if you are shooting little targets a long way off it will completely block what you are shooting at.