• 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!

Zeiss LRP S3 4-25 vs MARCH 4.5-28

A very good authority gave me those details.
Good to know, thank you. Tract has gone a similar route, they use LOW for their scopes and spec Schott glass, sounds like Zeiss has followed suit. These could end up being a really good value, I am tempted to grab one to compare to my March 4.5-28x52
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vinnie45ACP
Good to know, thank you. Tract has gone a similar route, they use LOW for their scopes and spec Schott glass, sounds like Zeiss has followed suit. These could end up being a really good value, I am tempted to grab one to compare to my March 4.5-28x52
As am I! No one comes close to that FOV though.

I have since sold my Vortex Gen 3, but optically it was fairly good so that comparison will be interesting too.
 
As am I! No one comes close to that FOV though.

I have since sold my Vortex Gen 3, but optically it was fairly good so that comparison will be interesting too.
Oh good, let me encourage you to grab one first (so I don't have to spend the money, ha), I trust your eyes and opinion, waiting for your review ;)

My Gen3 impressed me so much I decided to move the TT and ZCO out, is it as good - no, but darn near close enough, just wish their turrets were better. I've needed to sell a bunch of kit to help pay for kids and the hellish inflation we're living in right now, I will probably go back to ZCO at some point down the road.
 
Surely you would need more than a 20MOA rail or mount to to be mechanical centre on scope at 1000 yards? 20 MIL maybe? My 6.5 is only 1.3MIL off centre at 100 yards on a 20MOA rail. It's going to get a 40MOA rail and 6 MIL mount for long range clarity.
 
Surely you would need more than a 20MOA rail or mount to to be mechanical centre on scope at 1000 yards? 20 MIL maybe? My 6.5 is only 1.3MIL off centre at 100 yards on a 20MOA rail. It's going to get a 40MOA rail and 6 MIL mount for long range clarity.
I suspect you are responding to me. I probably led you astray thinking that I was using my March-FX 4.5-28X52 HM on my F-TR match rifle for 1000-yard competition. In fact, I was talking about two different March riflescopes. The one on my F-TR match rifle is a March-X 10-60X56 HM which I run at 50X all the time, year-round, around the country. It is an SFP riflescope with a very small and fine reticle. That's the one that is near mechanical zero at 1000 yards. I have it slightly above 1000 yards so I can shoot the odd 600-yard matches. When I do load development and other such things at 100 or 200 yards, I use a 4-foot-tall target and aim at the bottom. The holes show up 30-some inches above and impact nicely in the berm. I achieved this with a combination of 20 MOA rails and Burris XTR Signature rings.

The March-FX 4.5-28X52 is on another rifle, which I have used in PRS comps and target shooting. I shoot it from 100 to 1000 yards, that last distance is rare. I favor 20-MOA rails for all my rifles because I hate wasting half the scope before even pulling the trigger. I like shooting at 200yards and longer and the adjustment range of the 4.5-28X52 easily compensates for the 20-MOA rail at 100 yards. If I were limited to 100 yards, there would be no need for a 20-MOA rail.
 
Be a little more discerning? Otherwise I hope that's sarcasm.
/sarc.

Has anyone done a side-by-side with the S3, T6xi and Mk 5? I'm looking to re-scope my M82, and I'm stuck in comparison purgatory.

Edit to add: ruh-roh. Guess the S3 is out for the M82. It's only tested up to .460 Weatherby Magnum.

"To simulate this kind of shooting load, the ZEISS riflescopes are tested with over 800 shocks at a g-force (gravity) of up to 1.500.

1,500 g-force corresponds to the shooting load of the .460 Weatherby Magnum caliber."
 
Last edited:
Turrets were really good on the S3 though. Much better than the G3 (unfixed turrets). The tightness was just right to where you can dial a single click without overshooting. The Burris has a real right elevation turret in comparison.
What did you not like about the S3 to get rid of it?
 
As am I! No one comes close to that FOV though.

I have since sold my Vortex Gen 3, but optically it was fairly good so that comparison will be interesting too.
How would you rate the eye box of the March and ease of getting behind?
 
OK now that we have the tube thickness claim by the marketing folks for a spot x on scope y as THE metric to choose between March and Zeiss scope, how about anyone try the March aftersales service .....:unsure:...... nonexistent.
 
Last edited:
OK now that we have the tube thickness claim by the marketing folks for a spot x on scope y as the metric to choose between March and Zeiss scope, how about anyone try the March aftersales service ........... nonexistent.
That is a not just a good point, but a great one, that has kept me a bit Leary on these.
I had been doing research on March, specifically the 4.5-28 and the Zeiss for over a month, going back and forth as an option for solid optic a tier below the ZCO, to save some coin.
I literally almost pulled the trigger this morning on a great deal on a March, However, i see this post and remember 🤔, this is one of the reason it has given me pause, so I have paused once again. Might be passing up a great deal. But what if I don’t like it, it will probably be crazy hard to unload, or if there is something wrong with it now or later, the warranty isn’t anything like some of these other manufacturers with Awesome CS (I know, I know, well it’s so good and well built you never need a warranty). Even a Lexus and Toyota need a warranty, at least 1-2 sometimes skip through the cracks on QC. So anyone who says a forever warranty shows the company doesn’t make a good product, that such crap talking, that’s you trying to convince yourself you didn’t waste your money. Sure Vortex’s shouldn’t have to go back as much as some say they should (no I don’t own any, but did, before I decided to go with Alpha glass), but ZCO, TT, stand behind there products. As well as companies like Vortex and Burris as more mainstream. I honestly wouldn’t mind taking a go at the XTR Pro, but why, why did they have to add that ugly red, nice on a car but not on a scope, bad decision IMO.

But then got thinking of my other choice on the Zeiss, and started to ponder there warranty and resale prospects, with there being a S5 on here for a while no one is touching as well as how is Zeiss CS, and warranty.

So sorry for that long winded monolog, Anyone have any experience with Zeiss on all that they offer especially when it comes to the QC, resale prospects, CS backing up there product, and warranty?
 
It's a great marketing move. You see red accents on a scope, you instantly know what it is. No need to walk up or zoom in to inspect. All black scopes blend in. Think like the Vortex shit brown. At least the red on the XTR Pro is so minimal and nowhere on the tube. Hit it with spray paint and take acetone to it if you sell. If that's what holds you back, it's a silly reason.

I ordered my S3 directly from Zeiss. They were great and incredibly helpful. As far as resale, mine sold in less than a day. No experience with warranty
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vinnie45ACP
So sorry for that long winded monolog, Anyone have any experience with Zeiss on all that they offer especially when it comes to the QC, resale prospects, CS backing up there product, and warranty?
A unlimited lifetime warranty is not a sign of great quality but having most of the lineup and revenue made up of branded Asian products with huge profit margins ,where its literally cheaper to give out new products vs fix the product. As 90+% of customers rarely use the product, most wouldn't know if it its malfunctioning anyway short of it falling apart, and those that do are small percentage so its cheap enough to run the lifetime warranty which is not a an aftersales program but a business and sales model, much harder to do the same with high-end products that run on thin profit margins and then there are the legal aspects of warranty in different countries. Euro scope brands rarely offer anything close to Vortex type of lifetime warranty, but they stand by their products and will repair one as long as there are spare parts for them available ofen long after the product is phased out.

*i have in the past had products made to my specs by Chinese OEMs and they offer great value to the ''branding company'', for example your average 1000$ MSRP scope costs maybe 200$ from the OEM so plenty of meat left for R&D(mostly industrial design) ,marketing ,dealers, discounts, warranty etc. Higher end 3000$ scope is not even remotely close when it comes to the margins
 
Last edited:
"OK now that we have the tube thickness claim by the marketing folks for a spot x on scope y as THE metric to choose between March and Zeiss scope, how about anyone try the March aftersales service .....:unsure:...... nonexistent."...........


The answer is YES I have. I have the March HM 4.5-28X56.



I'm in no way connected to March, and they haven't given me anything. As of maybe 3 yrs. ago I'd never heard of March.


This is what happened to me, and what impressed me.

Paid my money, and like everybody else, I waited for them to assemble the scope, honestly hating having to wait, but loving that it meant a hand assembled scope.

Very close to something like 4 months into this, I got a notice from March that they were about to send the scope. 2 or 3 days later, I stumbled onto a video by a guy who'd sent his March back to March who redid the turrets so they were louder, a lot louder.


LOVED they way they sounded.


Emailed March, telling them it didn't make sense for me to wait until the scope got here, then sending it back, so could they do the same mod 4 me, and what would that cost, which of course I'll gladly pay since I love the way the turrets sound in this guy's video.

Got a response back from Mari Morita, very gracious, went on about how they were there to make their customers happy w/the scopes, and how they would gladly hold the scope up, and modify it so I have the same mod I saw in the video and of course there was NO CHARGE.

REPEAT NO CHARGE.


Mari says she knows I've been waiting for the scope, so they'll expedite the mod and send me the scope afterward ASAP.


That's about 4 mounths AFTER I paid for the thing, asking for something at the last minute, that was labor intensive, and sucking up time and effort by a little outfit , and w/a smile on their face FOR NOTHING.


I still have that email from Mari Morita.
 
Last edited:
I just don’t want to send mine back to Japan to do anything.
 
Sure.... That's up to U.

I've learned the hard way that some lifetime warranties mean something, and some don't. When it comes to a discussion of "lifetime warranties", there are "lifetime warranties" and then there are "lifetime warranties"

I have a classic camera that's 75 years old. Works like a charm, has a lifetime warranty; problem is. I'm not dead, but they are/company also died years ago.

The only way I get it fixed if it happens to go wrong, is if I conduct a seance.


Don't think that all of these outfits making scopes, will be around 5/10/15 years from now, some of them won't


Don't forget that the "lifetime" in "lifetime warranty" means how long they stay alive, not U.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Bravo6
Wide FOV on the March is interesting and compelling. Is edge to edge clarity sacrificed in a meaningful way?

Also, how do these optics do behind clip ons? Seems like touchy parallax would imact the CNVD system more than thermal? I ask because I'm happy with my MK5 5-25 but it is long for clip on use and one of these day's I will probably upgrade. Have also considered the 3-24 but it is SFP which is a drag
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheOtherAndrew
This is a prototype lens I created years ago, this is Cyclops 1, called that becuase of a large plano-convex lens element I used in creating this prototype.



1665164047794.png







I saved money, by gutting the glass out of a junk Mamiya medium format lens/lens shell to incorporate this glass so I wouldn't have to start from scratch machining a new lens casing, w/the added plus that the Mamiya lens shell would mate w/a camera I already had.

I created a lens formula that was different than from what the original lens was intended to do.

In working out the math, I had the choice of an insanely expensive lens element that would work 4 me, and this cheaper but larger plano-convex lens element which would also work if I used the central portion of the elment effectively doing the same thing as the more expensive glass.

Doing it the way I did it is going to mean a different FOV looking through the camera than if I used all of the glass. Point is, that if I did that, the effect wouldn't be the same.

But let's talk about the issue of FOV. Is it really a flaw to give U a wider FOV w/sacrificing edge clarity, or is it really giving you something MORE, w/the issue of edge clarity simply the price for that gift.

It really depends on how you look at it, and the way I look at it, to give U a wider FOV w/the tradeoff of some loss of edge clarity but still giving you the ability to spot something entering into the situation that the other scopes can't do is a plus/a tradeoff/not necessarily a flaw.

EVERYTHING IN OPTICS IS A COMPROMISE, every gift you get from an optic has to be paid for somewhere else. A compromise isn't the same thing as a flaw.

That's my take on this.
 
Last edited:
If it's enough of an issue, then there's a choice between an optic w/a narrow(er) FOV fairly sharp all the way across and one with a wide(r) FOV that goes soft at the edges.

There's been discussion on here that some of the folks that make scopes to "play it safe", while others push the limits, which is a very fair description of the folks that make these scopes, particular in terms of what March did/does w/giving you their wide(r) FOV.

Everybody is entitled to their opinion on this of course, but I would disagree w/the above by adding a bit, to say


"Yes, you're giving up some clarity around the periphery in order to give you a wider FOV"

Nitpicking, probably, but again, I'd harp on the fact that March gave up something (edge sharpness), to get you something else, a wider FOV.


There's nothing wrong w/playing it safe, some folks want that and will pay for it. Innovation on the other hand isn't perfect, it's refined over time.
 
Last edited:
Oh good, let me encourage you to grab one first (so I don't have to spend the money, ha), I trust your eyes and opinion, waiting for your review ;)

My Gen3 impressed me so much I decided to move the TT and ZCO out, is it as good - no, but darn near close enough, just wish their turrets were better. I've needed to sell a bunch of kit to help pay for kids and the hellish inflation we're living in right now, I will probably go back to ZCO at some point down the road.

After shooting 22LR benchrest and long range varmint silhouette for a couple years, I decided to give NRL/PRS rimfire a go. Started with an Optika 6 MRAD (same reticle as March FML-TR1) and really liked it until scope went down and was replaced with Gen3. As I figure out this new game it became apparent quickly that overall glass quality is not the most important criteria.
With my 55 year old eyes FOV is very important as I have to use a little more zoom to use the reticle for holdovers which reduces FOV and makes finding targets quickly a challenge (gets better with practice).
Forgiving parallax is right there with FOV on importance, just not enough time to adjust for each target on the clock.
I’ve calculated a few scopes for 15 x @ 100 yards but not sure if I got this correct? Maybe @koshkin could chime in.
ZCO 8-40 11.5’
Gen3 3-36 15’
March 4.5-28 18’
XTR3 5.5-30 15.7’
Zeiss S3 6-36 15’

If these numbers are correct or at lest close the Gen3 would need to be at 10x to match the March FOV, that’s a huge difference. I haven’t had a chance to look through a March yet but on paper they look like an excellent choice for rimfire. Early in the year I was considering the March 5-42 but I think Ilya’s review mentioned finicky parallax and was a better choice for shooting paper or Fclass.
I would be great if everyone’s LGS would carry a half million in scope inventory so we could see what works for our eyes but since that isn’t going to happen, thanks to you and everybody else for doing the reviews.
 
March 4.5-28 FOV is huge. I compared a ZC527 and the image in the March was just BIGGER, end of story.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bravo6 and Convex
With regard to the March 4.5-28 and edge clarity/sharpness, like others have mentioned there is some falloff on the edges more than traditional scopes, in my latest review I actually compared periphery resolution on my test chart. One of the areas that TT and ZCO excel in is with edge to edge sharpness and why I recommend these scopes if you're looking for the utmost of optical quality.
EVERYTHING IN OPTICS IS A COMPROMISE, every gift you get from an optic has to be paid for somewhere else.
I agree with the above statement, which is also why we have such a plethora of options
A compromise isn't the same thing as a flaw.
This is a point that I even sometimes fail to remember, I do have my bias's when it comes to scopes and one thing that bugs me are scopes that tunnel, but I'd venture to say there is a reason that an optical engineer chose to design the scope that way - a compromise to make a gain somewhere else within the limitations of the overall design. Maybe they're trying to meet a price point, maybe a design objective (like a short scope, or increased DOF) or what have you, there are reasons design decisions are made.

With regard to the March, they had multiple objectives - make a scope that has more forgiving eyebox, DOF and parallax than previous FFP designs, and I believe they accomplished that by reducing the erector from their typical 8x down to 6.22x even though the scope is an ultra short design. Make a scope that offered wide FOV without compromising edge sharpness - some would argue they accomplished this and maybe some wouldn't, we all have a threshold of what is acceptable and when it comes to optics we are very picky because it's about what we see or what we perceive we see; I can say this, the wide angle eyepiece along with the design of the 5-42x56 HM by March has considerably more edge distortion than does the 4.5-28x52, so on that front they succeeded, the edge distortion I see with the 4.5-28 is what I'd consider to be acceptable as I can still identify what something is. Would I prefer to have no edge distortion, absolutely, but it might mean some other aspect of the design has to suffer. I would have preferred March to make a longer scope that doesn't sacrifice so much in some of the areas that short scopes struggle in, but then again we have a plethora of options out that that fill this niche, but we don't have many short light(er) designs that offer as much magnification range and FOV as does the 4.5-28x52.

And yes, I realize I used the word plethora a couple times above, mostly because I love this movie ;)

 
Wide FOV on the March is interesting and compelling. Is edge to edge clarity sacrificed in a meaningful way?
See above, what is "meaningful" to me may not be to you. Take advice from the forums with a grain of salt, I do not feel the edge distortion is horrible, but I do wish it was better than it is. It is workable is the best I can describe it.
Also, how do these optics do behind clip ons?
I've only had mine behind a SIMRAD, if that counts in your book it did outstanding on the low end, the wide FOV really helped here.
Seems like touchy parallax would imact the CNVD system more than thermal?
Parallax on the 4.5-28 is much better than on the other FFP March scopes.
Have also considered the 3-24 but it is SFP which is a drag
The 3-24 is FFP??? I would say the FML-TR1H reticle is one of my favorite for low mag work; however the NF NX8 2.5-20x50 is a better design overall than the 3-24.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rlsmith1
See above, what is "meaningful" to me may not be to you. Take advice from the forums with a grain of salt, I do not feel the edge distortion is horrible, but I do wish it was better than it is. It is workable is the best I can describe it.

I've only had mine behind a SIMRAD, if that counts in your book it did outstanding on the low end, the wide FOV really helped here.

Parallax on the 4.5-28 is much better than on the other FFP March scopes.

The 3-24 is FFP??? I would say the FML-TR1H reticle is one of my favorite for low mag work; however the NF NX8 2.5-20x50 is a better design overall than the 3-24.
Thanks for the informative reply! I got the 2.5-25 and the 3-24 mixed up. I wish the 2.5-25 was FFP. Glad tha parallax on the 4.5-28 is better than other March designs, that should translate to easier CNVD performance.

Curious why you have the NX8 ahead of the 3-24? I’ve been considering both versions of the NX8 as well (and have my fingers crossed some other alpha manufacturers can venture beyond 5x erectors)
 
Thanks for the informative reply! I got the 2.5-25 and the 3-24 mixed up. I wish the 2.5-25 was FFP. Glad tha parallax on the 4.5-28 is better than other March designs, that should translate to easier CNVD performance.

Curious why you have the NX8 ahead of the 3-24? I’ve been considering both versions of the NX8 as well (and have my fingers crossed some other alpha manufacturers can venture beyond 5x erectors)
I'll have a review coming out fairly soon, but in a nutshell the NX8 2.5-20 has better resolution overall, better edge to edge sharpness, better CA control, it's just a more pleasing experience throughout the magnification range. The 3-24 really struggles above 20x, so I think of it more as a 3-20x52 scope. If someone were to offer me one or the other scope, it would come down to whether or not low magnification use was a more important criteria vs. high magnification use as the FML-TR1H is definitely geared toward low magnification use while the Mil-XT et al is geared for higher magnification use. If I could have the FML-TR1H in the NX8 2.5-20 I would choose that without question. Keep in mind this is the newer NX8 2.5-20 scopes, I was an early adopter back when they were first released and that copy was an optical mess that I did not recommend to anyone, but it appears NF has "fixed" the issues the early versions suffered from, either that or I (and others on the Hide) just happened to get a scope that slipped through QC cracks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rlsmith1
I'll have a review coming out fairly soon, but in a nutshell the NX8 2.5-20 has better resolution overall, better edge to edge sharpness, better CA control, it's just a more pleasing experience throughout the magnification range. The 3-24 really struggles above 20x, so I think of it more as a 3-20x52 scope. If someone were to offer me one or the other scope, it would come down to whether or not low magnification use was a more important criteria vs. high magnification use as the FML-TR1H is definitely geared toward low magnification use while the Mil-XT et al is geared for higher magnification use. If I could have the FML-TR1H in the NX8 2.5-20 I would choose that without question. Keep in mind this is the newer NX8 2.5-20 scopes, I was an early adopter back when they were first released and that copy was an optical mess that I did not recommend to anyone, but it appears NF has "fixed" the issues the early versions suffered from, either that or I (and others on the Hide) just happened to get a scope that slipped through QC cracks.
That’s great to hear they got it sorted out, seems like a great mag range for night and out to a mile
 
I have no experience with the March. I owned the Zeiss. It has one of the brightest illuminations I've used on a scope that isn't a LPVO. IQ was good but slightly worse than a G3 Razor or Burris XTR Pro. If I needed the massive adjustment range of the Zeiss, I would have kept it but the other 2 scopes fit my style shooting better.

I'm currently debating the Zeiss S3, Razor Gen 3 and XTR Pro myself. This is the first post i've seen comparing the 3.

Interesting that the zeiss has lower IQ than the G3 and XTR pro
 
If I didn't have all 3 beside me, I wouldn't have noticed. It isn't going to make you fail to see a target or make a hit though.
All scopes were mine and adjusted to my eyes so it wasn't a diopter adjustment either. Everyone sees things different and sample variation could cause on to jump the other in a different scenario
 
  • Like
Reactions: YotaEer
I’m considering buying an S3 for a long range 300 PRC I’m planning to build this coming year. Curious from people who’ve looked through it on how it performs at 1K-2K distances?

Also, more than anything, curious what would be the better of the two options for 1000-2000 yard shooting…a higher mag range of the 6-36 or the higher elevation range of the 4-25?
 
BTW, you don't need to cut a scope up to measure the wall thickness of its body. Ultrasound measurement devices work fine for this purpose. Any good engine shop that does engine block oversize boring has one, if they are diligent about their product. Not all castings were created equal. That's why you measure wall thickness after you bore. The wall thickness of the Rover aluminum V8 block of the 3.9/40/4.6 variety will vary from 1.6mm to 3.5mm depending on the luck of the draw.
 
Turrets were really good on the S3 though. Much better than the G3 (unfixed turrets). The tightness was just right to where you can dial a single click without overshooting. The Burris has a real right elevation turret in comparison.
I got to play with an S3 6-36 at my local store…. Exceptional scope for the value. I’ll probably be adding one of the 4-25 or 6-36x MIL versions to the stable soon. Not sure which gun I would put it on just yet (weight & overall size), but probably my custom .300 Ackley or 7mm STW…Or whatever rifle I build next, which will probably be a Proof barreled 7PRC.
 
BTW, you don't need to cut a scope up to measure the wall thickness of its body. Ultrasound measurement devices work fine for this purpose. Any good engine shop that does engine block oversize boring has one, if they are diligent about their product. Not all castings were created equal. That's why you measure wall thickness after you bore. The wall thickness of the Rover aluminum V8 block of the 3.9/40/4.6 variety will vary from 1.6mm to 3.5mm depending on the luck of the draw.
Your local Obstetrician also has an ultrasound machine... I can see it now, "can you do an ultrasound on my little baby here" :ROFLMAO:

On a serious note, I was not aware that ultrasound could detect wall thickness through metal, that's pretty cool.
 
I'll have a review coming out fairly soon, but in a nutshell the NX8 2.5-20 has better resolution overall, better edge to edge sharpness, better CA control, it's just a more pleasing experience throughout the magnification range. The 3-24 really struggles above 20x, so I think of it more as a 3-20x52 scope. If someone were to offer me one or the other scope, it would come down to whether or not low magnification use was a more important criteria vs. high magnification use as the FML-TR1H is definitely geared toward low magnification use while the Mil-XT et al is geared for higher magnification use. If I could have the FML-TR1H in the NX8 2.5-20 I would choose that without question. Keep in mind this is the newer NX8 2.5-20 scopes, I was an early adopter back when they were first released and that copy was an optical mess that I did not recommend to anyone, but it appears NF has "fixed" the issues the early versions suffered from, either that or I (and others on the Hide) just happened to get a scope that slipped through QC cracks.
Greetings, Glass.
Is this review you speak of out yet?
Thank you. F7
 
  • Like
Reactions: P0WDERHOWND
I appreciate the snappy response. Could you point me to your other reviews, if it is not too much trouble?
Thank you. S7
 
I appreciate the snappy response. Could you point me to your other reviews, if it is not too much trouble?
Thank you. S7
Okay F7, here's some that I've done. I did a number that were on the old Scout site that SH used to be on, but those were lost when Scout went full woke and Frank decided to move back to his own platform.

 
No unfortunately. I’ve been shooting more than I’m writing. But a good reminder to get all the numbers and thoughts written up.
I disagree with the “unfortunately” statement. Glad you’re able to get out and shoot.

I’ve been wanting to put my 4.5-28 next to my Tangent to compare, just can’t get the range time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Glassaholic