• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

Rifle Scopes Quick March 3-24x42 Review

XOR

Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Oct 2, 2009
309
66
52
Oregon
My initial review of a March 3-24x42 I have on my hunting rig:

- The scope size is excellent. Compact, low turrets, and low weight. This is a nice relief from tactical scopes that are very big, bulky, heavy and getting worse in all three of those areas.

- Magnification range from 3-24 is pushing things, but you need to use it for what it is and that is a compact scope that can go to very high powers if you need it. I wouldn't buy this scope if you are looking to run it over 20X all the time. If you are running it in the 4-16 range though I don't see that much difference over my NightForce 3.5-15 in terms of ergonomics, field of view, etc.

- At 3X I see it is not as crisp towards the edges as I'd like, but at 4X this completely goes away.

- At 24X the exit pupil (EDIT: I removed the term eyebox which is not the right way to describe this) is tricky, but it's infinitely better than my 15X scopes because they don't go to 24X at all! I think this power would be good for fixed position relaxed shooting, scoping a hill for game, etc. I don't know if I'd run it that high in a match on weird obstacles. Then again, I rarely run a scope over 15X in a match, and normally dial down to 8-10X to get a wider field of view anyway.

- With the above, at 24X the image is excellent and I could put rounds onto the shoulder of an IPSC target at 500 yards no problem with this scope. The image quality at 24X is very good.

- Parallax can go down to something like 10 yards or less which is handy for close-range practice. The parallax control is pretty sensitive at the very close ranges. At distance it seemed more forgiving.

- Illumination is a push button 4 position with high/low modules. I've only ever used illumination a couple times (once during a night shoot and another time very early morning hunting) with my NightForce. I've not used the March yet under conditions that need illumination. But I can tell you now that the low range module is more than sufficient, and probably still too bright if your eyes are night adjusted. They need to come up with a better way to turn the illumination lower, although I do like the simplicity of the button control and think they should keep that part. The entire reticle lights up which I like for low-light shooting if hold-offs are necessary.

- The turret clicks feel excellent. The knobs are easy to manipulate and read. Zero stop is simple to set. The turrets are also low profile so they are more comfortable for carrying and not snagging on gear.

- The zoom and parallax controls were a bit stiff when I first got the scope, but seem to be breaking in. They are very smooth and quality feels excellent.

- The glass quality is excellent, as is to be expected from the Japanese. I've not done a resolution test yet, but the clarity is better than my NightForce F1. At long distance the scope allowed me to clearly split bullet splash marks on a target that other scopes I have would have blurred together. I was happy with the performance.

- I've not tested the scope in very low light yet. Being 42mm I expect it will not do as well as a 50mm+ scope. But then again this scope is *far* smaller than my 50-56mm scopes which is a good trade for shooters that don't need extreme low-light performance.

- I have not tested the scope under hard field conditions yet so cannot comment on mechanics of the scope. However I will say overall build quality appears excellent and each scope is hand assembled and tested so I expect overall QC to be excellent as well.

- The reticle is clearly marked with mil holdovers, but I wish the numbers were smaller/spaced a little bit more away from the vertical. However I really like the tapered stadia lines which draw your eye right to the center when on lower powers. On the highest power the reticle can become thick, but still very useable.

- The warranty is five years which I actually *prefer* in a product. Lifetime warranties mean a manufacturer needs to build that into the product either by increasing the overall price, reducing the internal quality, or combination of the two to offset future replacement percentages. It also means each buyer is basically subsidizing every idiot that abuses their gear and expects a replacement forever when they do something dumb. Five years of warranty is more than enough to cover any kind of reasonable malfunction you'd expect to have in a rifle scope. Most scopes that are going to go south are very likely to do it within five years.

Overall, why would someone want this scope?

1) You don't want a monster piece of glass on your rig adding weight and bulk.

2) You want to occasionally use power over 20X, but primarily stay in the lower ranges for most shooting.

3) You want high quality optical performance in a compact and well constructed package.

I'm going to also run this scope on my precision rifle rig next year just because I want to see how it works. I'll post a longer-term review in the future.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: chevy327
Thanks man! Your review seems to perfectly match my impressions about this great scope. I sometimes like it to a Ferrari incorporated in the body of a Fiat. It's hard to believe it's for real until you start working with it and that's when you realize you're in for a trip.
 
Last edited:
Your review is spot on! I've had my March 3-24X for one years and you outlined it's strengths and weaknesses perfectly.
 
Update on this scope.

I have run the scope now for several months on a Winchester Model 70 Extreme Stainless hunting rifle and Talley one piece rings. I have recently got back from an Alpine hunt engaging animals from 200-300 yards and angles approaching 45 degrees shooting off a pack and sling supported. I also managed to bounce the rifle down some screen when I took a tumble marking up the scope in the process as it contacted the rocks. I've also had the scope exposed to rain, hot, and cold conditions.

The scope has held zero perfectly and provides a very clear view through most of the magnification range. The 3X low-end I think is too distorted. They pushed the lower limits too much and it shows at the edges at the lowest power. It would be fine for snap shooting though. However I just bump the scope up to 4X and the distortion disappears. At 20-24X the scope is quite usable and we used it for glassing animals instead of a heavier spotter on occasion. Mid-range power of 6-15X is excellent and very good optically as well. Illumination is also good, but I still think it could be dimmer for really low light shooting. Yet, still plenty fine for lower light conditions on the dusk/dawn edges especially on busy wooded backgrounds.

The scope weight and compact turrets are great. The turrets did not move on their own despite being carried in very rough terrain for many hours either slung, in a Kifaru gun bearer, or lashed to the side of my pack. The turrets turn easily and provide completely repeatable settings when needed. Some people have complained about the parallax and exit pupil being touchy. I have not noticed this for my style of shooting. In the case of improvised positions off packs, high angle engagements, etc. the scope worked perfectly fine for me and provides very good eye relief as well.

So overall it's a keeper for sure. The build quality is excellent and it's a really nice compact lightweight package with a wide and usable magnification range...
 
Last edited:
The march scopes I have on my guns absolutely rock. I don't know own what the big fuss is about the eye box. I also have no problems with always getting the proper sight picture instantly. Add to the fact they are super light makes for another huge benefit imo!

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk
 
Been on the fence whether I should pick this scope up for my rim-fire cz455 to do target shoot at 50 yards line. would the center dot reticle covers up the 1/4" target dot at 50 yards or no? Thanks for the review anyhow. Tam
 
It subtends to 0.01mil if I'm not mistaken. I can easily shoot each "edge" of a 1" shoot N see dot with my 5-40x56 and the 3-24 model.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk
 
The new March scopes with the 52mm objective is the one scope I think could sway me from another IOR. I go to that web page all the time and just stare at them.
 
Been on the fence whether I should pick this scope up for my rim-fire cz455 to do target shoot at 50 yards line. would the center dot reticle covers up the 1/4" target dot at 50 yards or no? Thanks for the review anyhow. Tam

My reticle center dot is .125 moa. You will be gtg.

I will only sell my to upgrade to the 52 mm objective someday when I have a surplus of funds. Good scopes.
 
Last edited:
You are correct. I was stating the specs (incorrect at that) for the 5-40x56 model. It is actually 0.05mil for the floating dot. 3-24x42 is 0.1mil

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

I'm pulling the info off from website anyhow, damn I wish some one around here has one so I can look thru it or just buy the SS 3-15x42 and be done, but then I'll nevr be happy hahaha
 
I was shooting at a 10M target that I put 100M away and could clearly make out the center red dot. I shot two groups with a Winchester Model 70 hunting rifle and Lapua 155 handloads. The first group was three shots to confirm. I let the barrel cool down, put it over two clicks, and then shot another two rounds to finalize the zero and it was dead on. The reticle was not too thick. I had no problem holding center and seeing exactly what was going on. At 500 Yards on full power I was putting shots onto the shoulder of a reduced IPSC steel target without problems. The reticle thickness is not an issue.
 
Last edited:
Took the scope out again this weekend for another hunt. Five hours hike in and 3,000ft. elevation gain in tough bush bashing off-trail. I noticed after the last alpine hunt I had lost the sun shade. I tried to put on a spare and it seems the entire sun shade adapter ring on the objective was missing. This was likely from when I took a fall on some steep scree and bounced the rifle down some rocks, or it just twisted off during the steep climbing, etc. I don't know where it is and I'll contact the March distributor to see if I can get a new objective ring adapter and sun shade. The objective is threaded, but I think there must be a reducer ring they use to mount the sunshade and that part is missing along with the sunshade. Maybe they both twisted off at the same time? I don't know.

The scope though still holds zero and on this hunt I took a red deer from about 200 yards without any problems using 8X. Scope adjustments are breaking in well and everything works well even in the bad wet weather we were having. The parallax I thought I wouldn't like due to being too sensitive I'm actually beginning to appreciate. A small adjustment and it is set for hunting ranges without any fuss. The knob is stiff, but at the same time it doesn't move when bush bashing so the rifle is ready to go when shouldered.

I did manage to get the windage knob to twist on some serious bush whacking by a couple clicks. I wish the scope had windage stops that only allows, say, six mils of travel each direction. This way I know there would be no way to get lost on the dial. In this case, I just used the index marks and knew the windage didn't move more than a full turn, but it would be nice to either have the thing capped or limited in movement to be sure. Otherwise, the glass remains clear and the extended zoom has proven useful for spotting when my 10X binoculars aren't enough. The exit pupil size has not been an issue from any field position I've used the scope in. Whether off a pack, kneeling, standing, bipod, etc. the scope is user friendly and quick to get a sight picture.

The scope also continues to show it is durable. This hunt it was not only knocked against trees/bush for hours on end, but was subjected to constant rain/fog/cloud conditions at altitude and remained zeroed and fog free. It has some knicks here and there now, but still works without a hitch.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for your spot on review. Until you handle March scopes you cannot really appreciate them!

+1, the click on the knobs felt so good. This scope has everything I want: no bigger than 50mm object, 30mm tube, side focus, floating dot reticle, fat and low knob ( no mushy feeling), zoom down to 10m for my 22lr
 
Got the replacement reduction ring and sun shade today. March sent it from Japan and it arrived in three days free of charge. I fit the reduction ring to the scope objective without any drama. I did loctite the reduction ring in this time to be sure it won't unscrew again. The sunshade now fits on like normal. So thanks to March and Kelbly for taking care of things so fast.
 
I'm pre-ordered for the 3-24x52 when they come out in May. Have been eye balling the March scopes for a while because of their weight and magnification range. I tried a NF 2.5-10x32 with MOAR reticle and really liked it, but I have one .308 that I require to do my target shooting, hunting, and mid-range comps (to 600 yards), so the 10x just wasn't enough for me. I also wanted a bigger objective. When NF released the 42mm objective I almost bought it, but held off because I was hoping someone would release an illuminated 3-18x (or the like) that was 25 oz or less. As soon as I saw March was releasing their new 52mm objective version I jumped on it. Can't wait until it gets here. Assuming their quality/production standards haven't changed from what has been reported here, the new model should be exactly what I am looking for. Only wish it wasn't $3k+, but the only options I've found close to this are the S&B 3-20x and the Leupold Mark 8 3.5-25x, which are pushing the same or higher price point and are a little on the heavy side for what I want.

I'm wondering from this review if the new version will have the different illumination modules or if they changed that. Think I'd be leaning toward the lower power module, but don't remember being asked that on the pre-order. I'll have to check with Kelby's on that one.

Thanks for the review.
 
I use the low power module and it's fine. Wish it were a little lower power once night adjusted, but for the rare times I use it the low power version they have now is fine. It's just enough to provide a good pop at dusk/dawn for the reticle against a dark/busy background.
 
Thanks for your review. My friend has one and your review is spot on.

Does anybody know why these scopes are falling out of favor? I have a new one (never removed from the box) that I need to sell and nobody was interested on the Hide. I will sell below retail…how low depends on shipping options. PM me if you know if anybody is interest. It is illuminated mil-mil.
 
Does anybody know why these scopes are falling out of favor? I have a new one (never removed from the box) that I need to sell and nobody was interested on the Hide.

I think the reputation is the exit pupil is too small. But I don't believe that myself after using it in the field and all sorts of convoluted positions. It's quick to get a sight picture and on target with the scope, especially when you use it in more normal ranges like under 15X. Over 15X I have no problem getting a good sight picture with the scope and use it at 20-24X for glassing when hunting when my 10X binocs aren't enough power. But yes at the higher power it is pickier.

Some people don't like the parallax, but again I don't have a problem with it and find it fast to adjust and has decent depth of field in my experience. The turrets for me are excellent with very solid clicks and repeatable every time. The size, weight, and low profile of the scope is a welcome relief from the recent craze of bigger is better in rifle scopes.

I primarily think that March just doesn't have the name recognition yet in the precision rifle field the way they do in benchrest. The price point puts them squarely with the other high tier scope makers which is tough to go up against in terms of marketing and prestige for a new player.

They now have a 52mm version of the scope which probably makes the exit pupil issue moot. But now it's back up in weight and size to other tactical scopes [EDIT by me: No it's not. It's only about 1-2ozs. more.].

Shooters can buy another scope that has a massive 56mm front objective and huge exit pupil and it could outperform the March in some areas. But they are extremely bulky and heavy and make the weight of an already too heavy tactical rifle that much worse. So if you want/need a lighter scope the March 42mm is a really serious contender in my opinion. It won't outperform a 56mm scope in everything, but it's much easier to carry the March scope all day on a rifle. I have a 56mm scope myself and admit they have a friendlier sight picture at 25X, but that doesn't do much good when they sit in the safe because I don't want to carry the rifle they are attached to. Everything is a compromise.
 
Last edited:
Thanks XOR
I agree…I bought it for a lightweight hunting rifle. The only reason I am considering parting with it is I need the money more urgently for a Leica HDB. If I can't sell it I will keep it and mount it on my lightweight.
 
You may want to try the benchrest forums to try selling it. March is a better known brand in that group of shooters. But if you can swing keeping it on your hunting rifle, I'm sure you'll find it to be a pretty awesome scope!
 
I'd be interested if it was a 3-15 or even 3-18. I will never use anything much over that, just useless. Would rather do without the optical trickery to achieve it and have a more regular magnification range.


What's the reticle like on lower magnification? i.e. the 10-15x that it would be more likely to be used on. Not too fine, given that it's got to be designed to be not too thick on 24x?
 
I mostly use mine in the 6-15X range. The reticle for me works fine. At 24X it is larger, but the subtensions are fine for milling and do not cover large parts of the target. At 500 yards at 24X I could place bullets on the shoulder of an IPSC target without trouble. At 15X and under the reticle is easy to acquire. They also angle the edges of the stadia inwards. So on lower power it pulls your eye right towards the middle quickly.

There are some examples posted at the Australian dealer site I think:

March rifle scope Reticles
 
Last edited:
I need to get my hands on one to play with really. I love my 3-12x PMII but if I could shed a couple hundred grams for the same repeatability and quality it'd be nice.
 
But now it's back up in weight and size to other tactical scopes which means it loses one of the main benefits to me which is the smaller size and weight. So if I'm going to look at a 52mm march, I'm going to look at the other players in the 50mm scope range as well.

Specs on the 52mm show the weight of the illuminated reticle version at 24.5 ounces (non-illuminated is 23.4). Specs on the 42mm are 22.6 ounces. For me, the weight difference between the 52mm March and a NF or a S&B is still plenty to use as a discriminator (still over half a pound).

I think that the eye box reputation it had (real or otherwise - still exists) has caused people to shy away from the March tactical line. Now that they put out word of the 52mm and from first hand accounts at Shot, the eye box issue is gone (or at least greatly reduced), I expect you'll see more people giving the March Tactical line a closer look. In my opinion, resale on the 42mm version will be hampered by people fearing the eyebox and knowing that a solution has been developed with the 52mm version. And the extra 2 ounces for the larger objective won't be a deterent, nor the extra cost, to get the 52mm over the 42mm. I'm saying this because it's exactly why I hadn't bought the earlier version March 3-24x and I expect I'm not the only one with this train of thought.
 
XOR, very nice post indeed! I recently purchase a tactical 2.5 x 25 x42 2nd fp w/mtr-4 reticle and your findings parallel my experiences. So far I am very pleased. Time will tell!
 
Specs on the 52mm show the weight of the illuminated reticle version at 24.5 ounces (non-illuminated is 23.4). Specs on the 42mm are 22.6 ounces. For me, the weight difference between the 52mm March and a NF or a S&B is still plenty to use as a discriminator (still over half a pound).

Thanks for the update. I hadn't looked at the specs from the initial reports so not sure if they were adjusted.

I think that the eye box reputation it had (real or otherwise - still exists) has caused people to shy away from the March tactical line. Now that they put out word of the 52mm and from first hand accounts at Shot, the eye box issue is gone (or at least greatly reduced), I expect you'll see more people giving the March Tactical line a closer look. In my opinion, resale on the 42mm version will be hampered by people fearing the eyebox and knowing that a solution has been developed with the 52mm version. And the extra 2 ounces for the larger objective won't be a deterent, nor the extra cost, to get the 52mm over the 42mm. I'm saying this because it's exactly why I hadn't bought the earlier version March 3-24x and I expect I'm not the only one with this train of thought.

All possible for sure. I've had the 42mm before the 52mm was announced, but I use it on a lighter weight rifle where I wanted a smaller scope profile. So the 42mm fits the bill. It will be interesting to see the 52mm up close.

The exit pupil is what it is for the objective size and magnification range. It is no worse than other scopes in the same size I've used. The eye relief on this scope is excellent and much better than most. So I'm wondering if people are mounting the March scopes too far back and then have a wobbly cheek weld causing problems. Or is it the result of people cranking the power up to 24X and then comparing it to their scopes that go to 15X and then saying that it's not as forgiving? So I completely disagree with all reports about the scope being unforgiving.

I don't own stock in March scopes, and use NightForce and Steiner so don't really have a bone to pick. But to me the March scope is everything those other scopes are and has much better optical clarity than most. The 42mm March is a killer package.

The only place I've heard about anyone talking about the "eyebox" of a scope is on this forum. I just consider this a function of exit pupil and eye relief but I'm not an optics engineer. If someone cranks a small objective scope to full power the exit pupil will be smaller than an equivalent magnification of the same objective size.

I found someone else with a different take about all the criticisms when I was looking this issue up last night:

Tactical model March-F 3x-24x 42mm FFP. ñòðàíèöà 8 - Guns.ru Talks

Partial quote:

1) The "Eyebox". This is a made up term which appears to have come form someone who made up the term and used it first on Sniperhide forum some years ago. No manufacturer uses this term. It is not the correct name for any technical term. What they are probably talking about yet don't know it is the term called "exit pupil size" and that optical term has been officially around for years. That term you will see manufactures quote in their specifications. Here is a link to an article on Sniperhide back in 2011 where someone is querying the use of this term. I am sure you will find it interesting.
http://www.snipershide.com/shooting...snipers-hide-rifle-scopes/s...-attempted.html

Basically like many things in life people who are so called experts (especially because they post a lot on websites) create a term or situation which somehow becomes gospel and all the rest of us like sheep are expected to follow.
In an optical sense the exit pupil size at any given magnification is what counts in so much as how far you can move around your head a little yet still have image. At lower magnifications you have a much larger diameter exit pupil and its naturally much smaller diameter at high magnification.

So if you compare the actual numbers quoted in specifications by different Manufacturers you will see the March is very much the same.

The practical problem which I have found is that many users get confused because the March scope has a long eye relief. While long eye relief is good it confuses people and without proper position setup does make use more difficult. For example if you compare some binoculars designed for eye glass wearers which means your eye socket is off the rear cover they are hard to hold still unless you wear glasses and can touch the rear lenses. Yet normal binoculars have short eye relief and you usually touch the rear housing to sabilise yourself. Therefore I have heard people say that binoculars made for eyeglass wearers have smaller exit pupil. Not so. Just the impression they get because they cannot hold their head still

...
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the update. I hadn't looked at the specs from the initial reports so not sure if they were adjusted.



All possible for sure. I've had the 42mm before the 52mm was announced, but I use it on a lighter weight rifle where I wanted a smaller scope profile. So the 42mm fits the bill. It will be interesting to see the 52mm up close.

The exit pupil is what it is for the objective size and magnification range. It is no worse than other scopes in the same size I've used. The eye relief on this scope is excellent and much better than most. So I'm wondering if people are mounting the March scopes too far back and then have a wobbly cheek weld causing problems. Or is it the result of people cranking the power up to 24X and then comparing it to their scopes that go to 15X and then saying that it's not as forgiving? So I completely disagree with all reports about the scope being unforgiving.

I don't own stock in March scopes, and use NightForce and Steiner so don't really have a bone to pick. But to me the March scope is everything those other scopes are and has much better optical clarity than most. The 42mm March is a killer package.

The only place I've heard about anyone talking about the "eyebox" of a scope is on this forum. I just consider this a function of exit pupil and eye relief but I'm not an optics engineer. If someone cranks a small objective scope to full power the exit pupil will be smaller than an equivalent magnification of the same objective size.

I found someone else with a different take about all the criticisms when I was looking this issue up last night:

Tactical model March-F 3x-24x 42mm FFP. ñòðàíèöà 8 - Guns.ru Talks

Partial quote:

The "eye box"/eye relief/position where you get a proper sight picture on this model is no problem for me however if you are coming from a hensoldt for example that had a huge area that you can actually get a good sight picture you will probably say the 42mm March is lacking. I know it's a function of magnification vs objective size but what your eyes perceive will be different. I know for a fact the hensoldt is much more forgiving than say a Steiner or S&B put on equal magnification. I run the March 5-40x56 one one of my setups and even cranked up on 40x I have zero problems with always putting my head in the same spot every time which means I will always have the same correct sight picture. People who review the optics usually move there head around behind then and see how far out of their normal position they can get before they can't see. To me that means nothing since my gun will be setup to me and due to muscle memory my head will always got to the same spot in any position I'm trying to shoot from. These are some great optics though and I'm looking forward to the new model and the 1/10th mil click 5-40x56 also! Should be some nice changes!

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk
 
...The only place I've heard about anyone talking about the "eyebox" of a scope is on this forum. I just consider this a function of exit pupil and eye relief but I'm not an optics engineer. If someone cranks a small objective scope to full power the exit pupil will be smaller than an equivalent magnification of the same objective size.

I found someone else with a different take about all the criticisms when I was looking this issue up last night:

Tactical model March-F 3x-24x 42mm FFP. ñòðàíèöà 8 - Guns.ru Talks

Partial quote:
That is classic Stuart. FWIW Stuart is a well known benchrest shooter (including a Hall of Famer) who paid the bills for many years as a motor mechanic. In his retirement he and his wife now run Benchrest Training (BRT), a company in Brisbane Australia that specialises in import/sales of quality equipment for precision shooting (including March Scopes). He has never had time for some of the BS that goes about this sport of ours, if it works, then use it. If it doesn't, modify it, if it still doesn't, bin it.

I've had a March 3-24x42 FFP now for three years having secured one of the first batch sold retail. Your review is honest and accurate and I have NEVER found a problem with the scope being in the wrong place at the wrong time on the two rifles it has been on. No matter what position, once setup right, it stayed 'right'.
The first rifle was a switchbarrel in an AICS and the little March was the scope for the 7mm SAUM "Heavy Varmiter". Any position, any place and I was good to shoot.
The second rifle is my new Pierce Ti actioned 6mm BR. This much lighter rifle and the little March just go together like butter and bread. The SAUM will be getting one of those new Sightron 2.5-17.5 STac scopes later this year, until then the other barrel stays on it (6.5x47 Lap with a 10-60x50 March Tactical).

My only criticism of the little March is that at low light it drops below shootable faster than larger scopes - but that is the tradeoff for size and optics optimised for clarity during daylight. It didn't stop me dropping a young doe just on nightfall a month ago. The centre dot makes an awesome aiming point when snap shooting critters.
 
I have mounted a March 3-24x42 scope with FML-1 reticle up on my competition rifle. It replaces a NightForce F1. After taking it to the range about six times out to 700 yards I have the following observations:

- Glass is noticeably better clarity than the F1. The image has a lot more pop and looks brighter to me even though I know the 42mm objective is smaller than the 50mm F1.

- The turrets adjust as well as the NightForce. Tracking is spot on so far.

- The FML-1 reticle works very well at long ranges. No problems even at 24X picking where on the target I want to place the round. Hold-offs are easy to do.

- The floating center dot reticle is easy to acquire and precisely hold.

- I compared the March against a Steiner 5-25x56 with MSR reticle on my other rifle. I put both at 20X and to my surprise, I was able to hold the sight picture easier with the March. For whatever reason, the March was more comfortable to use at this power over the Steiner. Maybe it was the longer eye relief of the March? I don't know. I'll have to test it some more.

- I still think at 3X the March scope has too much distortion at the edges. I keep it at 4X power and go no lower. The 3X is fine for snap shooting, but not if you want perfect clarity across the field of view.

- The 0.2 mil stadia hash marks on the top, left and right of the March FML-1 reticle are harder for me to use than the MLR 2.0 reticle on the F1. They are almost too far away from the center so you have to move the target to the farther edges of the field to mil and this makes it harder to use. I may prefer the MLR 2.0 reticle over the FML-1 on the March because the ranging stadia are closer in. However, the clarity of the March at the edges makes doing ranging not a big deal.

- The size and weight of the March is noticeably better than the NightForce, and significantly better than the Steiner which weights almost 2X more and is much larger.
 
Last edited:
I just got my 3-24X42 in today, replacing a Nightforce F1. It was immediately apparent that the glass is noticeably better. I haven't had time to mess with it much yet, but so far so good. Eyebox at 24X is tricky, but useable. At 20X it's just as good as any other scope.
 
The exit pupil at 24X for 42mm scope is: ~1.75mm

The exit pupil for 24X for a 50mm scope is: ~2.1mm

The exit pupil for 24X for a 56mm scope is: ~2.3mm

So overall we are talking about a 1/2mm difference in exit pupil size between a 42mm and 56mm scope. That is almost irrelevant as the small size in all these scopes will be picky at that magnification.

The scope setup and head position is important. With the March scope the eye relief is much longer than other scopes in my experience. This is good because it means less chance of scope bite when shooting in odd positions, but it also means when setting it up it should be mounted further forward in the rings than other scopes. When you mount your scope, keep in mind the longer eye relief and don't let your head adjust by moving back further on the stock disrupting your cheekweld.

For instance the F1 is about 80mm eye relief. The March is almost 100mm. So it's a pretty big difference on a rifle.

I have no problems using the scope at 24X, but mostly have been keeping it 20X and below simply because in dynamic shooting I want a wider field of view to spot bullet impacts after recoil.
 
As this thread is serving as my notes on this scope:

Today I took the March 3-24x42 and a Steiner 5-25x56 out to the range. Both my scopes were mounted on identical rifles, except for different calibers. At the 700 yard line I had a group of three other experienced shooters compare the March to the Steiner. With the images set on 24X the March was clearer and the bullet splashes on the steel plates were more detailed. The colors were also more neutral and not as "cloudy" which is the best way I could describe it on the Steiner. The three other observers who looked at both scopes also agreed that the March was observably better than the Steiner in terms of clarity and contrast.

The March had the FML-1 reticle and the Steiner has the MSR reticle. The March reticle has a floating dot which is excellent for very precise aiming. All the observers agreed that the design of the center dot and reticle was very good. The Steiner has the MSR reticle and the center cross hair is very thick and covered up a good part of an 8" plate at 700 yards. The March floating dot could easily fit within the plate. The March reticle was the favorite.

My main criticism with the FML-1 reticle is that the 0.2 stadia lines for ranging are too close to the edge of the view. It is hard to mil with the reticle as I'd like. I think they should eliminate the 1mil gap between the main reticle and the ranging stadia and move the 0.2 stadia lines inward so you don't have to put the object to the edge of the field of view to range it.

We also had a Hensholdt 56mm there (forgot the mag range, but it did go over 24X). We set both at 24X and I could tell no difference between the two in terms of clarity, resolution, contrast, etc. I called it a tie and so did the Hensholdt owner.

NOTE: Determining exact magnification of a scope in the field is difficult and you can't fully trust the numbers on the magnification ring. I tried to set each scope to what I perceived to be the same magnification by assessing target size, field of view, etc. They were close enough for government purposes. We also tried different mag ranges just to get a subjective opinion of each scope.
 
Last edited:
I just got back from a multi-day precision rifle match. I used my bolt gun for most of the match, even the carbine stages. The match also included a night shoot. I had the March 3-24x42 with FML-1 illuminated reticle on the rifle.

The scope worked great. There were no problems getting into odd field positions nor hanging with the semi-auto guys on the rapid fire stages. Eye relief was great, the parallax worked well at all ranges, and the illuminated reticle during the night shoot was awesome. The only issue I had is I ran out of elevation at 1200 yards and had to do a hold over. But this is because I was not using a canted base which I will now fix in the future.

Most of the shoot I stuck with my usual 6-8X for shorter ranges, standing, kneeling and sitting stages. For longer ranges I was mostly in the 10-20X range to maintain good field of view for spotting impacts. At 24X I was able to clearly see bullet splash marks on targets out to 1000 yards without any problems and spot for others. The scope also seems very tolerant of mirage and I was able to use the parallax to quickly get a wind read off the mirage even in darker/shade conditions.

The glass clarity continues to impress. Spotting impacts, assessing wind, and finding hidden targets (even camouflaged) is very nice with this scope. The images are extremely clear. Even though this is only a 42mm scope I feel the images are much better than 56mm scopes I've tried.

The turrets are accurate and easy to adjust even under stress firing. The marking gradients are well spaced and easy to read as well. The clicks are excellent and precise.

The FML-1 reticle is still working great. The stadia are easy to use for holdovers and wind holds. The smaller mil scales at the end (0.2mils) is still not as easy to use as I'd like, but passable in a pinch.

Illumination (with the low power module), is crisp and flare free. In low-light you can easily use the markings to adjust your holds. The illumination adjustment is quick and since it times out in an hour you never have to worry about running your battery low (I carry a spare CR2032 to be safe though).

The scope was frozen during the night stage and did not have any problems, but I did notice the power adjustment ring became harder to adjust. This is probably internal lube getting thicker. I don't know how hard it would get if we got into serious negative temp territory, but it's something I noticed. The scope itself was subjected to many miles of carrying, bumps, cold temps, and even some rain/sleet and is still working fine just as the one on my hunting rifle does.

Overall I'm still a fan of this scope. It is small, light, has a good reticle, very solid build and great optics. I will get a canted base and keep it on my competition rifle for the foreseeable future.
 
Last edited: