Rifle Scopes March 1-10 Shorty Dual Focal - Reviews?

[DacianMH]

I wonder if anyone has ever tried the old shorty extended scope ring designed for 1-8x shorty. it has 8 screws to hold the scope just behind the turret

Long Scope Ring 30mm x 1.400"

We are thrilled to announce our new premium March scope rings, proudly made in the USA! A custom rifle and a premium scope deserve the highest quality scope rings made. <p>These aircraft grade 7075-T6 Aluminum rings have the strength of steel at less than half the weight and are machined in...

www.grizzly.com

Not sure about the weight but it looks like a lighter mount than any unimount

Excellent option!

 

[Count VonFuhrman]

Excellent option!

I ordered one on Friday and they shipped it out the same day UPS ground from Tacoma Washington. Suppose to get it Friday this week coming. This is the way to go and the price can't be beat.

 

[NC_Libertarian]

I ordered one on Friday and they shipped it out the same day UPS ground from Tacoma Washington. Suppose to get it Friday this week coming. This is the way to go and the price can't be beat.

Then I will be ordering one today. I already have a Scalarworks to try and adapt, but I like options.

 

[acourvil]

I received one of the March long scope rings today. I haven't mounted it yet. but it looks solid and well made. The 1.4" height might be a bit tall for my purpose, but would probably work well on an AR.

 

[gxer]

I received one of the March long scope rings today. I haven't mounted it yet. but it looks solid and well made. The 1.4" height might be a bit tall for my purpose, but would probably work well on an AR.

Can you weight it along with all the mounting hardware?

 

[acourvil]

The March long scope ring is 156g or 5.5 oz

 

[NC_Libertarian]

The March long scope ring is 156g or 5.5 oz

That is a bit heavier than I expected. A Scalarworks full mount weighs slightly less than that.

Oh well, I have three of the March long rings on the way to me now. I bet I can safely take 25-30% of the weight off of one of these mounts.

 

[NC_Libertarian]

Looks like my scope is shipping tomorrow, about 2 weeks earlier than expected. Guess I will start sorting this out next week.

 

[Glassaholic]

That is a bit heavier than I expected. A Scalarworks full mount weighs slightly less than that.

Oh well, I have three of the March long rings on the way to me now. I bet I can safely take 25-30% of the weight off of one of these mounts.

You can always try this

Scalarworks Leap Mount for Aimpoint PRO sights

The Scalarworks Leap Mount is the lightest, strongest, and easiest to use quick-detach Aimpoint PRO mount on the market.

scalarworks.com

 

[NC_Libertarian]

My scope arrived today. I don't have it mounted yet, so I can't give a full feedback report yet, though I already have some opinions on it. I won't likely be able to shoot with if for several weeks, but I will wait until I can at least get it on a rifle before sharing opinions, as that can change things versus just holding it in your hands and trying to judge it.

UPS has lost my package with the March long scope mounts from Grizzly, I paid 2nd Day Air shipping 5 days ago. Go figure.

And the parts I needed to use as adapters for my Scalarworks are back-ordered. So I am not sure how I will mount it at this point. I will figure something out, even if it is just to hold it well enough to give it a better look.

 

[DacianMH]

That is a bit heavier than I expected. A Scalarworks full mount weighs slightly less than that.

Oh well, I have three of the March long rings on the way to me now. I bet I can safely take 25-30% of the weight off of one of these mounts.

Maybe sell me one if you don’t need it

 

[NC_Libertarian]

Maybe sell me one if you don’t need it

I have to get them first. They were shipped 2nd Day Air via UPS, but have not been scanned since Feb 4.

 

[gnochi]

I have to get them first. They were shipped 2nd Day Air via UPS, but have not been scanned since Feb 4.

Just out of curiosity where did they ship from? I’m waiting on a 2DA package last scanned 4 Feb from Virginia.

Separately, I like what I see through the scope, but haven’t had the ammo to use it yet.

 

[NC_Libertarian]

Just out of curiosity where did they ship from? I’m waiting on a 2DA package last scanned 4 Feb from Virginia.

Separately, I like what I see through the scope, but haven’t had the ammo to use it yet.

Grizzly shipped from Washington state. The last scan was in Tacoma 3:09AM on Feb 4.

 

[Glassaholic]

UPS has lost my package with the March long scope mounts from Grizzly,

Is Grizzly still selling March gear? I didn't think they were a dealer anymore.

 

[koshkin]

Grizzly shipped from Washington state. The last scan was in Tacoma 3:09AM on Feb 4.

I am pretty sure I have one of those rings somewhere if you really need one.

ILya

 

[NC_Libertarian]

Is Grizzly still selling March gear? I didn't think they were a dealer anymore.

I was not aware they were ever a dealer, learned something new.

It looks like they only have scope rings now. Probably leftover stock

 

[NC_Libertarian]

I am pretty sure I have one of those rings somewhere if you really need one.

ILya

Hopefully it gets sorted out. It looks like Grizzly still has more rings, so I should still get what I ordered one way or another.

I will take you up on the offer if it does not work out.

 

[NC_Libertarian]

Hopefully it gets sorted out. It looks like Grizzly still has more rings, so I should still get what I ordered one way or another.

I will take you up on the offer if it does not work out.

It looks like Grizzly actually contacted UPS and lit a fire under their collective asses. Now my package has magically reappeared in my state about 100 miles away. Due to be delivered tomorrow.

 

[NC_Libertarian]

UPS finally delivered the mounts. They are well made. With such a short scope, I believe that this 1-piece mount will securely hold the Shorty scopes without issue. I am not really sure why March stopped making them. Does anybody know if there was a reported issue with these mounts supporting the scopes properly?

But they are heavy for what they are, but then we knew that already. I am positive I can easily take 1.5oz off of them with some simple lightening machining. If I wanted to put max effort, I am confident I could get well over 2.0oz, off, maybe closer to 2.5oz. I will try one as-is for a while. If it does the job and does not move under abuse, then I will spend the time to lighten one.

I will get the scope mounted tomorrow and start doing a more in-depth analysis of it. I will report back afterwards.

 

[koshkin]

UPS finally delivered the mounts. They are well made. With such a short scope, I believe that this 1-piece mount will securely hold the Shorty scopes without issue. I am not really sure why March stopped making them. Does anybody know if there was a reported issue with these mounts supporting the scopes properly?

But they are heavy for what they are, but then we knew that already. I am positive I can easily take 1.5oz off of them with some simple lightening machining. If I wanted to put max effort, I am confident I could get well over 2.0oz, off, maybe closer to 2.5oz. I will try one as-is for a while. If it does the job and does not move under abuse, then I will spend the time to lighten one.

I will get the scope mounted tomorrow and start doing a more in-depth analysis of it. I will report back afterwards.

I am pretty sure I mentioned earlier in the thread that holding the scope only behind the turrets will cause POA shift under pressure. I can easily see a couple of MOA shift with light pressure on the objective. The big question is whether it always returns to the original zero or not. I would rather not be making any guesses, so I use a dual ring mount.

ILya

 

[NC_Libertarian]

I am pretty sure I mentioned earlier in the thread that holding the scope only behind the turrets will cause POA shift under pressure. I can easily see a couple of MOA shift with light pressure on the objective. The big question is whether it always returns to the original zero or not. I would rather not be making any guesses, so I use a dual ring mount.

ILya

The scope fits in the ring very well. It is not going to move in the mount, it would be more likely that the mount moved on the pic rail. The flexing tube is another issue

Now that I can actually do some real-world testing with it, I will take your experience under advisement and see what results I get. But it would not surprise me if what you say is true. Being unsupported in front of the turrets would allow the tube to flex between the FFP and SFP, which I can easily see would potentially cause a shift.

Many big scopes actually have more overhang in front of the front ring than this setup has in front of the mono-ring. The flex is not an issue there, but this is also not flex in between the FFP and SFP images.

Either way, I will report my findings on the issue.

 

[theLBC]

saw one (dr-1) used for $2k. tempted.

 

[NC_Libertarian]

I can give my first feedback on the March.

I have been running a Vortex Razor 1-6X for the last 1.5 years doing Run n Gun. Not the best LPVO on the market, but still somewhat of the gold standard. The Razor is kind of the gatekeeper in the segment. If you want to be considered top-tier, you had better be able to top the Razor. There are better LPVOs out there than the Razor, but not WAY better ones. At least not from what I have seen. And a whole bunch of lesser ones.

Tonight I went to a training session for night shooting, since we do have a few night session events every year. I used my current rifle with the Vortex, and was struggling more than a bit with seeing the targets through all the haze, smoke, and light fog we had setting in. The fact we had almost zero wind, and a cold front moving in pushing the air downward only made it all worse. Others looked through my setup and had the same issue with the Vortex, it just doesn't do a good job of passing enough light in low light conditions to see the target. When the weapon light is turned on, the glare off of the brightly lit smoke, etc completely washes out the image of the target. All you get is glare and no target.

So I went and got my new rifle with the March, just for a quick visual comparison. Nothing has been zeroed, so I did not fire it. But the difference in the amount of light the March transmits is astounding. Looking through the glare with the March did not wash out the target image like the Vortex. The ability to pick out the target within the glare was in another league compared to the Vortex.

There was a lot of natural light since the moon is about 3/4 and there was no cloud cover where we were at. With the Vortex, you couldn't see anything without additional light, all you got was a black disc with maybe a bit of indistinguishable features on the hillside. No way to pick a target out. With the March I could have made a 100+yd shot at a 10x10 plate with just the moonlight, as long as there was no smoke. An absolute night and day (literally) difference in the two when comparing light transmission in low light.

I can't say that the March is any better or worse than any other LPVO on the market in these conditions, as I did not have anything else there tonight to make a proper comparison. But I can tell you the difference between the Razor and the March, and it is substantial. I think hunters looking to use this at dusk and other low-light conditions may be very happy with this scope.

 

[NC_Libertarian]

In case anyone is interested, EuroOptic has all March scopes 15% off through March 14. The Shorty with the capped turrets and either dual focal reticle is $2252, which is the second-best price I have seen on it. Showing in stock at this moment.

If you want tactical (exposed) turrets, they are about $85 more.

They also have package deals with the unimount.

EDIT: I had the end date of the sale wrong. Not all month, ends March 14

 

[adavis1138]

Any thoughts on these scopes vs an NX8 1-8?

 

[Denys]

The scope fits in the ring very well. It is not going to move in the mount, it would be more likely that the mount moved on the pic rail. The flexing tube is another issue

Now that I can actually do some real-world testing with it, I will take your experience under advisement and see what results I get. But it would not surprise me if what you say is true. Being unsupported in front of the turrets would allow the tube to flex between the FFP and SFP, which I can easily see would potentially cause a shift.

Many big scopes actually have more overhang in front of the front ring than this setup has in front of the mono-ring. The flex is not an issue there, but this is also not flex in between the FFP and SFP images.

Either way, I will report my findings on the issue.

To be clear. I don't think ILya was talking about the tube itself flexing but rather the single point mount twisting. Also, let's say the scope tube itself was flexing, it would not affect the alignment of the SFP and FFP reticles as these reticles are at either end of yet another tube, the erector tube, inside the main tube.

So the way I was reading ILya's comment was that he was able to push the riflescope away from its intended point of aim when it was mounted on the single-point mount because the scope was acting as a lever and it was able to twist the mount, but that it would spring back when pressure was removed.

 

[koshkin]

To be clear. I don't think ILya was talking about the tube itself flexing but rather the single point mount twisting. Also, let's say the scope tube itself was flexing, it would not affect the alignment of the SFP and FFP reticles as these reticles are at either end of yet another tube, the erector tube, inside the main tube.

So the way I was reading ILya's comment was that he was able to push the riflescope away from its intended point of aim when it was mounted on the single-point mount because the scope was acting as a lever and it was able to twist the mount, but that it would spring back when pressure was removed.

I seriously doubt the mount was bending. More likely, it was the slight flexing of the tube in front of the mount which would move the objective ever so slightly. However, a small angular deflection is a large linear deflection on a distant target. If you removed the pressure, the image would spring back to where it originally was. However, I have no idea if it would spring back to the same place every time.
With the dual ring mount, this effect is essentially impossible to happen on the Shorty with the front ring clamping around the objective.

ILya

 

[NC_Libertarian]

I seriously doubt the mount was bending. More likely, it was the slight flexing of the tube in front of the mount which would move the objective ever so slightly. However, a small angular deflection is a large linear deflection on a distant target. If you removed the pressure, the image would spring back to where it originally was. However, I have no idea if it would spring back to the same place every time.
With the dual ring mount, this effect is essentially impossible to happen on the Shorty with the front ring clamping around the objective.

ILya

I have not been able to duplicate that, but I admittedly don't have a great way to simulate what you are talking about.

With the scope on the rifle, I don't have a good way to solidly hold the rifle to isolate movement of the entire rifle from flex in the mount/scope. I think the best way to test this would be to fix the mount/scope to a fixture, something similar to what people use to test tracking. If it is sufficiently rigid, you could then apply pressure and be able to see what is happening. I just don't have anything like that, at least not yet.

 

[NC_Libertarian]

On another note, I did finally get to the range with the setup yesterday. I don't know how much I was able to learn, as I was fighting the afternoon sun the whole time. The glare was awful. It was so bad, I had reflections from my safety glasses bouncing back to the ocular lens, then reflecting back to me. I got a hat to fix that, but the glare was still really bad, washing out my view of the target. Tough to learn much like that.

My limited assessment is that the glass is good. Not Tangent Theta good, but that was never expected, not with a scope making so many design compromises. But multiple levels better than my Vortex, which is what I did expect.

I can tell you that, as I expected from using it around the house, using the side focus/parallax is a must. There is no way this scope could ever function without it, the depth of field is simply too limited by the short distance between the objective and the FFP. So if you don't understand dialing parallax, and/or don't want to learn, this is not going to be the scope for you.

 

[DacianMH]

Any thoughts on these scopes vs an NX8 1-8?

Yeah it’s a nightforce killer…i owned an NX8 1-8 briefly and couldn’t get over the fat center reticle. Also the tunneling affect through the tube.

 

[Urraynium]

I can tell you that, as I expected from using it around the house, using the side focus/parallax is a must. There is no way this scope could ever function without it, the depth of field is simply too limited by the short distance between the objective and the FFP. So if you don't understand dialing parallax, and/or don't want to learn, this is not going to be the scope for you.

How much adjusting of the parallax are we talking about here? If there is an array of targets starting at
5 yards and going to 100, 300, 500, and 800 yards would an intermediate parallax setting be workable or would you expect to tune it somewhere in between?

On a Vortex 1-6 or other non-adjustable parallax LPVOs the image would be OK and most are fixed around 100 yards.

 

[NC_Libertarian]

How much adjusting of the parallax are we talking about here? If there is an array of targets starting at
5 yards and going to 100, 300, 500, and 800 yards would an intermediate parallax setting be workable or would you expect to tune it somewhere in between?

On a Vortex 1-6 or other non-adjustable parallax LPVOs the image would be OK and most are fixed around 100 yards.

I don't have enough time with it to determine that fully yet. I can tell you that the difference is more from one distance to the next than you would have with my Razor 1-6x, but then we knew that without ever having the scope in hand.

I don't see being able to go from a short distance, like 5-10yds, then go to 800yd without dialing. That is just not going to happen. Exactly how far can you go, that I will need to do more examination to determine. Hopefully I will have more time to spend exploring all of this when I go back next week, weather allowing.

The above is one of the reasons I am already going to put a 45 offset red dot on this rifle, at least to experiment with. I had planned to experiment with this already, just to cover such situations where a shooting stage has a huge difference in distances. Elimination of cranking the magnification was the original goal, but if it also eliminates the parallax dialing, that is another plus.

And the Razor is not without its flaws in this area. Once it gets out to 300ish yards, it starts getting out of focus for my eyes, and there is nothing you can do about it. Cranking parallax is no big deal to me, so I can live with the trade-offs the March presents. Especially with the weight advantage. Others may not find it liveable.

 

[Happiness Is A Warm Gun]

Thanks to everyone who has posted their experience with the scope so far. It looks very interesting and I have enjoyed reading about it.

 

[chase723]

Anyone able to provide some pictures of the DR-T1 tree reticle at different magnifications?

 

[TheOE800]

1x and 10x (or maybe 8x? Dunno).

 

[chase723]

Thank you. That looks pretty dang good.

 

[TheOE800]

Actually I don’t remember if that’s 10x or 8x since I was comparing it to an ATACR at the time.

 

[srt-4_uk]

Yeah it’s a nightforce killer…i owned an NX8 1-8 briefly and couldn’t get over the fat center reticle. Also the tunneling affect through the tube.

Tunneling is lowering the magnification but not increasing the FoV. I don't believe that's what you are talking about.

 

[Urraynium]

Anyone seen this review?

https://spotterup.com/march-f-1-10x24-lvpo-cool-features-but/

Seems pretty negative on the clarity/edge distortion but doesn't really match up with the comments or images I've seen here.

 

[gxer]

Anyone seen this review?

https://spotterup.com/march-f-1-10x24-lvpo-cool-features-but/

Seems pretty negative on the clarity/edge distortion but doesn't really match up with the comments or images I've seen here.

I suspect, the reviewer's scope has non factory centered windage and elevation zero, maybe over 3 mil offset either direction

 

[Glassaholic]

Anyone seen this review?

https://spotterup.com/march-f-1-10x24-lvpo-cool-features-but/

Seems pretty negative on the clarity/edge distortion but doesn't really match up with the comments or images I've seen here.

Somewhat negative yes, but sounds like he was genuinely trying to be honest. I am getting the new 1-10 with DR-TR1 reticle hopefully by mid May, I will be curious to see how well it holds up compared to the first one I had. One thing I will say, the author of this article mentions that March seems to be trying to pack too much into too short a scope and I would be inclined to agree - March has been known for shorter and lighter scopes with higher erectors than many manufacturers, this has been their trademark in the FFP world for some time. I got my first March back in 2013ish timeframe, at the time they only had a 42mm version of their 3-24 and I found it to be too dark for my liking, but loved how short and how light it was. Then they came out with the 52mm version and I bought that one and had it for a while but wasn’t a fan of the thicker FML-1 reticle (oh foolish younger eyes, I now prefer a little thicker reticle). I now have the 4.5-28x52 which I am a huge fan of but they made it really short though I’m surprised how well it does in such a short body. If you want a short body with high magnification you’re going to have some compromises, you’ll either learn to live with them or move to another scope. I’d love to see March throw length and weight to the wind (within reason) and build a scope that excels optically, one that has a very forgiving eyebox, DOF and parallax, their new locking turrets are amazing and come close to TT good. For years I have been on the ultra short bandwagon and while I still love these scopes aesthetically I am starting to appreciate the more traditional designs for their optical excellence. At longer ranges I felt the March did better optically vs the Vortex G3 1-10 and while the March parallax might be a bit more finicky I never felt at a deficit to dial it in. It sounds like the compromises were too much for this author but there are those who will be very happy to have such a short scope.

 

[NC_Libertarian]

Anyone seen this review?

https://spotterup.com/march-f-1-10x24-lvpo-cool-features-but/

Seems pretty negative on the clarity/edge distortion but doesn't really match up with the comments or images I've seen here.

I can't say that I disagree with this review.

1) There is definite edge distortion at higher magnifications, and you can't dial it out. It is just there, always. This is undoubtedly as a result of the short distance between internals inside the scope. You want a scope with 10x magnification that is 4oz lighter and nearly 2 inches shorter than its competition? This is the price you pay to have that.

2) The illumination knob is tough to operate without moving the parallax, just as he describes.

3) The choice by March to use a 33mm front diameter instead of a 34mm is something I have questioned since the beginning. Though there are other non-March options not mentioned here. Still, a 34mm front tube would have made virtually no weight difference and opened up so many more options.

4) I disagree with him about the adjustable parallax. This is the one thing that sells me on this scope more than anything. In fact, with the optical trade-offs that come with such a short scope, I don't think this scope is workable without it. The depth of field is too compromised to have a fixed parallax.


SUMMARY:
This scope is a series of compromises. If you want/need the lightest thing in the category, this is it. But that light weight comes primarily by being short. And along with being short come some optical sacrifices and compromises. The laws of physics are still at work, even in Japan.

This is not the one, final, ultimate solution to every LPVO need. This scope, like every one ever built, has a set of strengths and a set of weaknesses, and those must be assessed to determine if it is a good choice. It is great on my ultra-light Run-n-Gun rifle. It would be a good choice for an all-around that I was humping a long distance. I would not find this to be a good scope on a DMR or other precision application. Know the job at hand, and determine the best tool. This is not going to be the best tool for every job.

 

[NotMalware]

I've been looking at this scope for it's huge amount of elevation adjustment (56 mils!). My intention was to use it for subsonic 308 which has some pretty significant drop at 600ish yards. I figured that 10x with adjustable parallax would be fine for that, but maybe the clarity issue is a concern for this. The other role for this rifle is for hunting. I have no experience hunting however, I'm new to it. (deer or elk hunting is the intention) I thought I'd ask for opinions from experienced hunters if this is a good choice for that given it's limited light gathering small objective. I intend to put this scope on a 16.5" q-fix rifle. The fix is a little bulky to carry around with a Nightforce beast on it.

 

[RKBArmory]

We just received one of these, so I'll throw in my two cents.

There must have been a really important reason to have the "unique" tube dimensions that they do. If I were March, I would be shouting the justification from the rooftops, trying to convince everyone that the inconvenience of not being able to use a normal mount is worth it.

We usually don't have the time to do a thorough review of the optics that we receive, and I've read nothing in this thread that strikes me as inaccurate. I will say that the size, clarity, and magnification are a pretty amazing combination. I also like the ability, in a scope with this much magnification, to be able to adjust the parallax.

In summary: I think the strange tube dimensions are probably worth the inconvenience for this scope.

https://www.rkbarmory.com/product/march-f-shorty-1-10x24/

 

[Denys]

I'm a little confused by some of the statements that I just read in some of the comments above. I have been playing with and testing the March-F 1-10X24 DR-1 for a while now. I usually don't play with the illumination but after reading, I had to go try it.

March has the illumination module installed as a cap on the side focus knob. There are 3 main styles of illumination modules. they are all the diameter of the side focus knob, on which they screw on and off, covering the 2032 battery. They all have a center button covered with a gray rubber membrane. In the original model, the button controlled on/off and set the brightness to one of 4 levels; press once to turn on and the press up to 4 times for increasing brightness and then off. Simple, effective but you had to had to hit the button multiple times to get what you wanted.

The next module featured 6 position lighting and the level of brightness was controlled by a knob around the on/off gray membrane. The big gray button was only on or off. The setting remained the same throughout and you could set the brightness by simply putting your thumb across the whole module and twisting it. It works great, but I can see some people fighting to set the brightness by pushing the knurls. This module is thicker than the original illumination module, so it sticks out further from the side focus know. However, try as I might, if I just mash my thumb across the face of the module, I can easily change the brightness setting and the side focus will not move. I can't make the side focus move this way.

The latest model of the illumination module is the one you see in the pictures above. The gray rubber on/off button is still there but the brightness setting is controlled by a ring at the extreme edge of the module. Now, I'm an old(er) geezer with arthritis in my left hand, bad enough that holding something between my thumb and other fingers can be painful, especially for smaller objects. It's one of the reasons I use a big wheel on my focus knob of the March scope I have on my F-TR rifle. However, even with that affliction, I have absolutely no problem setting the brightness level on that module, and I can't even figure out how I would be changing the side focus setting at the same time; it's just not possible for me to do that. I can grasp the illumination control or the side focus knob, just not both at the same time. I tried, I really tried and my hand was silently rebelling at the pain of trying to do something unnatural.

 

[TheOE800]

What that run you? I’d consider getting it done on my 1-10 as I have the second version though I’m not too keen on sinking more money into this scope tbh.

 

[Glassaholic]

I can't say that I disagree with this review.

1) There is definite edge distortion at higher magnifications, and you can't dial it out. It is just there, always. This is undoubtedly as a result of the short distance between internals inside the scope. You want a scope with 10x magnification that is 4oz lighter and nearly 2 inches shorter than its competition? This is the price you pay to have that.

2) The illumination knob is tough to operate without moving the parallax, just as he describes.

3) The choice by March to use a 33mm front diameter instead of a 34mm is something I have questioned since the beginning. Though there are other non-March options not mentioned here. Still, a 34mm front tube would have made virtually no weight difference and opened up so many more options.

4) I disagree with him about the adjustable parallax. This is the one thing that sells me on this scope more than anything. In fact, with the optical trade-offs that come with such a short scope, I don't think this scope is workable without it. The depth of field is too compromised to have a fixed parallax.


SUMMARY:
This scope is a series of compromises. If you want/need the lightest thing in the category, this is it. But that light weight comes primarily by being short. And along with being short come some optical sacrifices and compromises. The laws of physics are still at work, even in Japan.

This is not the one, final, ultimate solution to every LPVO need. This scope, like every one ever built, has a set of strengths and a set of weaknesses, and those must be assessed to determine if it is a good choice. It is great on my ultra-light Run-n-Gun rifle. It would be a good choice for an all-around that I was humping a long distance. I would not find this to be a good scope on a DMR or other precision application. Know the job at hand, and determine the best tool. This is not going to be the best tool for every job.

Excellent summary NC_L, I believe this is how you have to look at many of the March scope choices, March genuinely gives you something unique that few other scopes in the marketplace can match, are there compromises yes, but there are not that many options as short, as light and with as high a magnification range.

 

[rlsmith1]

This is a fantastic thread with tons of information. I'm curious how the NX8 being offered with the FC DMx reticle changes the comparison to the NX8?

Side focus would certainly give the March a legit leg up when paired with a clip on device

 

[koshkin]

I can't say that I disagree with this review.

1) There is definite edge distortion at higher magnifications, and you can't dial it out. It is just there, always. This is undoubtedly as a result of the short distance between internals inside the scope. You want a scope with 10x magnification that is 4oz lighter and nearly 2 inches shorter than its competition? This is the price you pay to have that.

2) The illumination knob is tough to operate without moving the parallax, just as he describes.

3) The choice by March to use a 33mm front diameter instead of a 34mm is something I have questioned since the beginning. Though there are other non-March options not mentioned here. Still, a 34mm front tube would have made virtually no weight difference and opened up so many more options.

4) I disagree with him about the adjustable parallax. This is the one thing that sells me on this scope more than anything. In fact, with the optical trade-offs that come with such a short scope, I don't think this scope is workable without it. The depth of field is too compromised to have a fixed parallax.


SUMMARY:
This scope is a series of compromises. If you want/need the lightest thing in the category, this is it. But that light weight comes primarily by being short. And along with being short come some optical sacrifices and compromises. The laws of physics are still at work, even in Japan.

This is not the one, final, ultimate solution to every LPVO need. This scope, like every one ever built, has a set of strengths and a set of weaknesses, and those must be assessed to determine if it is a good choice. It is great on my ultra-light Run-n-Gun rifle. It would be a good choice for an all-around that I was humping a long distance. I would not find this to be a good scope on a DMR or other precision application. Know the job at hand, and determine the best tool. This is not going to be the best tool for every job.

Good summary. I'll have my final review out shortly and I have to say that other than the tube diameter, it is a very well done design. They should have just made it a straight 34mm tube.

I suspect that the reason for the odd tube diameter is that originally it was supposed to be mounted with a single wide 30mm ring. In my opinion, that's insufficient, but I was not involved with it in any way.

Since they did not plan to have anything clamping over the objective, it ended up being of the smallest size they could get away with, presumably to keep the size and weight down.

In retrospect, making it a straight 34mm tube would not make that much weight difference, but hindsight is always 20/20.

ILya