“Actually, some people do cry about Richard, they just do so behind closed doors... 
“
I guess I’m a little dense. What does this mean?
“I guess I’m a little dense. What does this mean?
Rifle Scopes March 5-42 Gen 2 PRS Edition
- Thread starter Shayne Ward
- Start date
He WILL find you, and he WILL sell you a ZCO.
It was a joke that could have multiple meanings depending on how you look at it, because I know Richard I thought he would find it amusing...“Actually, some people do cry about Richard, they just do so behind closed doors...
I guess I’m a little dense. What does this mean?
Just had the opportunity to look through Shane's scope. Good gravy is that good glass and nice turrets. It's definitely a contender for my next scope.
I wish I could have replied to this sooner but the information was internal until until this morning, March will have a statewide repair facility and the scopes will be sent there for any repair work to be completed. Expected timeline is first quarter for 2026.
Appreciate the post, please reach out to me directly I’ll be glad to assist in getting on order in for you!
Wait so you mean March did wide angle lenses first?Wow, this thread has taken some twists and turns. A few comments after reading through some...
Actually, some people do cry about Richard, they just do so behind closed doors...
I know there have been some responses to this already but speaking from personal experience, the Gen 1 had some optical distortion from about 60-70% out from center to the edge of the periphery. My eyes are very sensitive to distorted or blurry periphery in any scope design (one of the worst I had seen was the NF NX8 2.5-20 when it was first released; however, to Nightforce's credit they resolved that in later manufacture and now the "newer" NX8 2.5-20's are very impressive optically). I was thrilled with the March 5-42x56 Gen 2 version as it corrected this optical distortion from Gen 1 quite well, meaning the image sharpness is very clean from edge to edge. I have only had a pre-production version of the Gen 2 5-42 but based on my experience I am not surprised that so many are really liking this scope as I think for PRS style of shooting (where 98% of the time you are between 12x - 20x magnification) this scope is absolutely stunning, in fact, in this mag range I liked it better than all my other alpha scopes I was testing at the time including the TT 7-35 and I was very hard pressed to find any distinct advantage the TT provided (again within this mag range, where the TT excelled was above 25x).
It's interesting, Kahles kind of shook things up with their new K540i with ultra wide FOV; however, March had already been doing this for a number of years and I've been trying to enlighten the community on how advantageous wider FOV can be. Once Swaro's patent ends, presumably around spring/summer next year, I think we will begin to see more manufacturers take advantage of using wider FOV eyepieces in their designs.
Wait so you mean March did wide angle lenses first?
Rifle Scopes - March riflescopes FOV compared
Here is a little diagram I have put together showing the field of view (FOV) from a March-X 10-60X56 HM with a standard eyepiece (about 20 degrees on the left, at the FOV from the March-FX 4.5-28X52 HM with the 25 degree wide angle eyepiece. The target for both scopes is 21 yards away and I...
www.snipershide.com
How does the new March compare with a K540i with FOV?
The overall FOV on the kahles 540 is more than the March. The March is 26 degrees and the kahles is 29.8 degrees.Rifle Scopes - March riflescopes FOV compared
Here is a little diagram I have put together showing the field of view (FOV) from a March-X 10-60X56 HM with a standard eyepiece (about 20 degrees on the left, at the FOV from the March-FX 4.5-28X52 HM with the 25 degree wide angle eyepiece. The target for both scopes is 21 yards away and I...
How does the new March compare with a K540i with FOV?
@25x mag
Kahles = 10mil each way (20mil total)
March = 8.6 mil each way (17.2mil total)
The relationship between FOV and eyebox is directly linked. The more ocular angle the tighter the eyebox, March opted for 26 degrees as a compromise between eyebox and improved FOV. The Kahles is a on the extreme side with 29.8 degrees which gives it better FOV but does impact the eyebox.
Other optics in the market at 25x range from 14-15.8 mil total. The wide angle designs in the 540 and March 5-42 really shine in FOV
Last edited:
I can concur. The eyebox on my 4.5-28 is incredibly tight and has caused buyers remorse.
The glass is very good, but so hard to get behind it is practically useless above 20x
Good thing that’s a completely different scope than the scope being discussed here, but of course you already knew that.
It's a wide angle fov scope made by the same manufacturer. I suspect the same tight eye box exists is the same product line (FX series). But then you probably knew that.
Not necessarily, there are multiple factors that contribute to tight eyebox, but saying one model from a manufacturer means another model (even in the same line) isn't fair as every scope has its own unique optical formula. The 4.5-28 uses a 6.2x erector while the 5-42x uses an 8.4x erector which in and of itself creates for a different optical formula.
I have not encountered the same with my 4.5-28. I suppose we all have different experiences but I find the 4.5-28 to be pretty forgiving, does it get tighter above 20x certainly as almost any scope will (as you increase magnification) but "practically useless" is not what I would call it.
You’d be completely wrong as they are completely different designs… but you’re right I did in fact know that.. you maybe not so much. Apples to oranges
Where did I say they were the same design?
They have similarities in the fact that they are both high master FX series with wide angle lenses.
Oddly, I was agreeing with your statement that the design results in a tight eyebox and I gave an example of a March scope that that i own with similar attributes.
They are both made by March, they are both FX high master scopes, they both have wide FOV lenses.
Does that make them identical? No.
Does that mean they have the same feature set? Basically, yes.
At no point did I say the eyebox is tight on the 5-42 prs edition, because it isn’t plenty of folks have used it without issue.
I also wasn’t comparing it to the 4.5-28 because it is not the same optic and are completely different design.
"The relationship between eye box and field if view is directly linked"
Sound familiar, dumbass?
Sound familiar, dumbass?
This thread does suck.... I called it before I ever posted it here. From now on Ill just let the scope speak for itself. Im happy to let anyone take it for a test drive. Arkansas/ Twisted Barrel is next up
Well, that lost focus very fast.
A few comments.
Since I have a good amount of experience with all of the scopes involved... the eyebox on the March 5-42 and Kahles 5-40 is fairly comparable.
Wide angle eyepieces do make it harder to get a good eyebox going, but it is not the only factor. There is more to it than just the wide angle.
Since I do not know the exact nature of anyone's involvement with any company, it is hard to say exactly what level of "trashing the competitors" is civilized behavior and what isn't.
I do not represent anyone, so it is easier for me. Generally, if you represent a scope company, it is impolite to talk shit about its competitors.
As far as image quality goes, there is objective and there is subjective. I have done some objective measurements here and there, but the data is proprietary, unfortunately.
Maybe, I'll be able have some shareable data early next year. Maybe. I would need to think how to package it in the way that does not force me to teach an EO measurement class online. That would be a lot of work.
General disclaimers:
I am very well familiar with the 5-42x March, but I have not used the PRS version. I have seen it, but I have not used it. I am not really a PRS shooter, other than an occasional local match, so I do not have any use for writeable turrets.
I do have a Gen1 5-42x March and use it all the time.
I did start shooting matches this year and I find them a lot of fun, but I prefer Hunter style matches. I am not an especially good shot and I really enjoy the very steep, for the time being, learning curve.
Interestingly, having shot five matches this year so far (one more local one this coming weekend, then a three day match in Montana in the beginning of August), my take on riflescopes has not changed. The learning curve ended up being more about shooting efficiency, shooting positions, bag use, etc. All the things you would expect.
When I am not testing something, most of the time I shoot Q Fix rifles with Tangent Theta scopes in Area 419 mounts. I use the same rifles for hunting as I do for matches, although I use lighter scopes and bipods for hunting. I like to use the same platform as much as I can.
ILya
A few comments.
Since I have a good amount of experience with all of the scopes involved... the eyebox on the March 5-42 and Kahles 5-40 is fairly comparable.
Wide angle eyepieces do make it harder to get a good eyebox going, but it is not the only factor. There is more to it than just the wide angle.
Since I do not know the exact nature of anyone's involvement with any company, it is hard to say exactly what level of "trashing the competitors" is civilized behavior and what isn't.
I do not represent anyone, so it is easier for me. Generally, if you represent a scope company, it is impolite to talk shit about its competitors.
As far as image quality goes, there is objective and there is subjective. I have done some objective measurements here and there, but the data is proprietary, unfortunately.
Maybe, I'll be able have some shareable data early next year. Maybe. I would need to think how to package it in the way that does not force me to teach an EO measurement class online. That would be a lot of work.
General disclaimers:
I am very well familiar with the 5-42x March, but I have not used the PRS version. I have seen it, but I have not used it. I am not really a PRS shooter, other than an occasional local match, so I do not have any use for writeable turrets.
I do have a Gen1 5-42x March and use it all the time.
I did start shooting matches this year and I find them a lot of fun, but I prefer Hunter style matches. I am not an especially good shot and I really enjoy the very steep, for the time being, learning curve.
Interestingly, having shot five matches this year so far (one more local one this coming weekend, then a three day match in Montana in the beginning of August), my take on riflescopes has not changed. The learning curve ended up being more about shooting efficiency, shooting positions, bag use, etc. All the things you would expect.
When I am not testing something, most of the time I shoot Q Fix rifles with Tangent Theta scopes in Area 419 mounts. I use the same rifles for hunting as I do for matches, although I use lighter scopes and bipods for hunting. I like to use the same platform as much as I can.
ILya
You scrub! Etc.
Just kidding!
I remember you talking about eyebox a few years ago and you said it isn’t a simple thing to explain, technically. A bit of voodoo to me.
This is what guys need to take to heart. They don’t realize doing so also hurts themselves.
@carbonbased This is exactly why I left other companies out of the conversation until I felt like I had to make a comment..
The more I get on here the more I hate this place lol
The more I get on here the more I hate this place lol
I for one appreciated your original presentation as to why you like and now use the scope. Sadly, it seems like people felt the need to drag you through the mud for keeping it as general as possible. There are those of us who appreciate the positive feedback you provided and it made me want to at least see and consider the scope.
Similar threads
