Rifle Scopes Anyone Using A March Scope

[Glassaholic]

I spent 3+ days in the March Optics booth at SHOT show last week. I had a chance to play with all the scopes they had on display. I have been using a March 5-50X56 for 4 years now in F-TR competition and I learned quite a bit about March, which is why I was invited to the show to be in their booth. I also own a NF NXS 12-42X56, a very nice scope but I replaced it with the March.

I've read through this thread and would like to answer a few of the comments.

Some people mentioned the light weight of the March and how that makes them fragile. Any of the 34mm tubed scopes had a tube wall 4mm thick, which is double the thickness of other scopes. My 5-50X56 is very strong but almost a half pound less than the NXS, weight that I put in barrels rather than the scope. That scope has been flawless from day one.

The 5 year warranty is dictated by Japanese law. In order to offer lifetime or much longer warranty, the company would have to put a large amount of money in escrow or whatever the Japanese equivalent is. If a scope is going to fail, it usually does that in the first year or two anyway. I am not worried about it. If you have a problem contact Deon or March Optics.

The March scopes are not mass produced. They are assembled by hand in Japan, in small batches, which is why there sometimes are lag times to get a specific model. You have to wait for great things.

The side focus may be touchy to some, and for that I recommend getting the middle focus wheel. Make sure you get the proper size for your side focus knob and you're good to go. I have one on my 5-50X56 and it makes for finer adjustment. At the booth, I got to play with the Large Focus Wheel and I am now a fan of it and I have ordered one. It's an add-on to the middle focus wheel.

I also have a Zoom Ring Lever on the scope and it makes it easy to change magnification from position, for the few times that I do that.

I replaced the 4 position illumination module with the optional 6 position illumination module. It's more brilliant and it keeps the last used position when it turns off. I have started using the illumination during early morning matches to help my aging eyes.

I spent lots of quality time looking through the 10-60 High Master and that is an awesome scope. Lots of people stopped by to look at the 8-80X56 and were amazed at the magnification.

The FFP scope have the 8X zoom ratios and the 3-24X42 & 3-24X52 drew a lot of interest. The 5-40X56 is awesome and very strongly built with its 34mm tube. That is one tough scope.

Thank you Denys, I appreciate your response and a bit of information on March. I bought my first March in 2014 I believe and couldn't believe my eyes, how they get such good optical clarity out of such a compact size and high magnification is an engineering feat for sure. Curious on a couple things, first you say that March tubes are "double the thickness of other scopes" but I'm curious, do you know the thickness of Schmidt & Bender tubes, Nightforce tubes, Vortex Razor Gen II tubes, et al? I'm not denying what you're saying, but to say that March tubes are double the thickness of other scopes comes as a bit of a surprise to me. Also, since you had so much time in the booth, what are your thoughts between the 8-80x56 and the 10-60x56 High Master, at least in regard to optical clarity? Thank you.

 

[lennyo3034]

I remember seeing that the 34mm scopes were 4mm thick and the 30mm March scopes were 2mm. So double the thickness of their other lines maybe?

 

[Hairy Biker]

Here's cheers for a March debate. Not sure why other brands do not get taken part on such a regular basis but regarding tubes...

The 5-40x56 March FFP has 4mm wall thickness tube. All main tube bodies are machined from solid billet. No extrusions. Just independent testing in the UK has confirmed March scopes have the best thermal efficiency of any. That is they change less than all others when subjected to temperature changes.

So the question is bigger than just wall thickness. It is how other companies make their main tubes. I do not know the answer.

 

[Glassaholic]

Just independent testing in the UK has confirmed March scopes have the best thermal efficiency of any. That is they change less than all others when subjected to temperature changes.

That is very interesting indeed. Would be nice to find this "independent" testing and find out exactly which scopes they tested and how and how far off were the other scopes, etc.

 

[Denys]

I remember seeing that the 34mm scopes were 4mm thick and the 30mm March scopes were 2mm. So double the thickness of their other lines maybe?

Correct. Once you have gone over to March, all other brands become insignificant.

 

[kyle1974]

great thread so far. I am building a LR hunting rifle, and still looking at the 3-24x52 for a top option. I don't think there's any debate the glass is quality, but now I am wondering where the weight savings is coming from? I know heavy doesn't automatically mean better, just a point of curiosity for me.

does anyone know of any brick and mortar distributors in texas? san antonio, houston, etc? I have never looked through one and would have a hard time paying 3K online before actually demoing one for a bit.

 

[DellaDog]

...
does anyone know of any brick and mortar distributors in texas? san antonio, houston, etc? I have never looked through one and would have a hard time paying 3K online before actually demoing one for a bit.

I have both the T1 and FMA2.
N. TX, DFW. Send a pm if you’re ever in town and I’d be glad to spend a day at the range.

 

[kyle1974]

I have both the T1 and FMA2.
N. TX, DFW. Send a pm if you’re ever in town and I’d be glad to spend a day at the range.

thanks delladog! I don't get up there often but if I do I'll reach out.

 

[kyle1974]

I have both the T1 and FMA2.
N. TX, DFW. Send a pm if you’re ever in town and I’d be glad to spend a day at the range.

one more question. understandably the 42mm objective isn't the greatest at low light, but what about the 52 mm under normal hunting magnifications.. say 12-14 max magnification. are they equal to most other scopes, or do you give some up due to the reduced size of the scope?

 

[Fret]

I know the interest here is mainly on FFP scopes but has anyone looked through the 2.5-25 SFP scopes with the MTR-4 reticle? How would that compare to the FMA-2 FFP reticle for shooting paper targets at 50-100 yards?

 

[Hairy Biker]

FFP offers a standard aim off regardless of range. SFP gets confusing unless you know your ranges and targets. You don't state the calibre or the target however so the answer has to be "it depends".

 

[Hairy Biker]

one more question. understandably the 42mm objective isn't the greatest at low light, but what about the 52 mm under normal hunting magnifications.. say 12-14 max magnification. are they equal to most other scopes, or do you give some up due to the reduced size of the scope?

52mm is the pick. Full moon hunting without lights is possible. I remain surprised by what I have seen through the 52mm after dark and makes twilight hunting unfair.

 

[Just Macca]

52mm is the pick. Full moon hunting without lights is possible. I remain surprised by what I have seen through the 52mm after dark and makes twilight hunting unfair.

All this talk is getting me pretty close to putting down the $2,000 deposit with brtshooterssupply.com.au for a deposit on a 3-24x52 with FML-T1...

 

[Denys]

I know the interest here is mainly on FFP scopes but has anyone looked through the 2.5-25 SFP scopes with the MTR-4 reticle? How would that compare to the FMA-2 FFP reticle for shooting paper targets at 50-100 yards?

We had several 2.5-25X in the booth; with 42mm objectives and 52mm objectives. I looked through them all and especially for comparison with respect to 42 vs 52. The MTR-4 is a great reticle for target shooting and I use an MTR-2 in my 5-50X56 in F-class. My favorite reticle.

52mm is the pick. Full moon hunting without lights is possible. I remain surprised by what I have seen through the 52mm after dark and makes twilight hunting unfair.

Inside the hall, I compared the image provided by the 42 and the 52 at identical magnifications. It is undeniable that the 52 gave a noticeably brighter picture at the higher magnification, but as expected the difference lessened with the magnification. I looked at two areas in the hall where we were; one was a column on which we had pasted a small target in a decently lit area but by no means bright. The other was the back end of a corner away from lights with a few features like a small locker and so on. I was impressed that I could see so well in that dark corner at 25X. Again the 52 was brighter than the 42 but I could see everything just fine with the 42. In years past, I have used another scope with a 44mm objective and magnification set at 4X to take down hogs at midnight in Texas with only Moonlight as a light source. Illuminated reticles are perfect for that.

 

[Denys]

All this talk is getting me pretty close to putting down the $2,000 deposit with brtshooterssupply.com.au for a deposit on a 3-24x52 with FML-T1...

We did have a 3-24X52 with the FML-T1 reticle in the booth. It was awesome; lots of people wanted to look at and through it. I played with it some and that is a very nice reticle.

 

[lennyo3034]

I just picked up a kahles with the AMR reticle, which is nearly identical to the T1. I haven't had a whole lot of time behind it, but at the 100 yard range, I find it more difficult for group shooting. Solid crosshairs just seems easier than with the segmented center.

In any case, it's not designed for shooting groups and that's not what I'll use it for, just wanted people to know. I will shoot a match with it this weekend and report on how I like it.

 

[Glassaholic]

52mm is the pick. Full moon hunting without lights is possible. I remain surprised by what I have seen through the 52mm after dark and makes twilight hunting unfair.

Like Hairy this was my experience as well, in low light the March kept right up with a Schmidt & Bender US 5-20x50 and Vortex AMG 6-24x50, I would say it was also a bit better than the Kahles K624i Gen III but others have said the Kahles was the brightest low light scope they've used, YMMV. Overall, you will not be disappointed with the March 3-24x52 low light performance as it definitely ranks among the best.

 

[Glassaholic]

Okay, maybe I haven't kept up on what's new, but just saw this March - http://www.bullets.com/products/1-8...ical-Knob-Illuminated-FMC-1/MAR1089?src=march

Oh my gosh, that is insane! How do they keep doing that, defying the laws of physics and creating scopes shorter and lighter... My only concern would be this scope requires a single ring and how well will that stand up to getting banged and/or dropped and still hold zero. How is this scope at 1x, is it truly a 1x optic?

 

[Denys]

Yeah, we had one of those in the booth at SHOT, it was probably the most handled scope at the show. It's an amazing design and to my eye it was a true 1X. I don't have much experience with these super-low power scope but that one is definitely amazing.

 

[Fret]

Hey Denys, did you notice the size of the center dot on the MTR-4? I think I saw it as 0.25 MOA at 20X on the Bullets.com site but on the Deon Optics site, it show it as 0.25 MOA at 10X which would make it 0.125 MOA at 20X. How would it work for small .22LR targets? Some of the center target dots are pretty tiny.

 

[Denys]

Hey Denys, did you notice the size of the center dot on the MTR-4? I think I saw it as 0.25 MOA at 20X on the Bullets.com site but on the Deon Optics site, it show it as 0.25 MOA at 10X which would make it 0.125 MOA at 20X. How would it work for small .22LR targets? Some of the center target dots are pretty tiny.

To be honest, I looked through so may reticles last week, I'll probably not even recognize the MTR-2 in my March 5-50X56 this coming weekend at the match.

It looked nice and small but I had nothing to judge as a target.

 

[Fret]

To be honest, I looked through so may reticles last week, I'll probably not even recognize the MTR-2 in my March 5-50X56 this coming weekend at the match.

It looked nice and small but I had nothing to judge as a target.

OK. Thanks!

 

[BallisticPrimate]

All this talk is getting me pretty close to putting down the $2,000 deposit with brtshooterssupply.com.au for a deposit on a 3-24x52 with FML-T1...

Can't imagine how one could regret that - it's an incredible scope and Stuart is good people.

 

[Clearlight]

I see it has 34 Mil / 120 MOA elevation , that’s pretty good .

 

[Denys]

OK. Thanks!

I contacted March Optics about this issue. They are verifying with the factory and will get back to me when they get the answer.

 

[Fret]

I contacted March Optics about this issue. They are verifying with the factory and will get back to me when they get the answer.

Hey, thank you very much. I called Bullets.com a couple months ago with this question about the dot size but the person I talked to didn't know anything technical. Sounded like there was some kind of change going on there. Anyway he said someone would get back to me but never did.

 

[Denys]

Here is the answer from March: The subtensions on the MTR-4 at the March website are for 10x but the center dot is stated correctly. It is twice as big as the center dot in the MTR-2 reticle.

I'm thinking that by "twice as big," they mean that the diameter is double that of the MTR-2 center dot.

***Ignore this confusing answer. Look below.***

 

[Fret]

Here is the answer from March: The subtensions on the MTR-4 at the March website are for 10x but the center dot is stated correctly. It is twice as big as the center dot in the MTR-2 reticle.

I'm thinking that by "twice as big," they mean that the diameter is double that of the MTR-2 center dot.

OK, thank you! So the center MTR-4 dot is 0.5 MOA at 10X and this show the correct dimensions and the MTR-2 lines are finer by 1/2 than the MTR-4.

http://www.deon.co.jp/Scope-Reticle.html

 

[Denys]

OK, thank you! So the center MTR-4 dot is 0.5 MOA at 10X and this show the correct dimensions and the MTR-2 lines are finer by 1/2 than the MTR-4.

http://www.deon.co.jp/Scope-Reticle.html

I had asked further questions from March after I received the answer I wrote up above. Here is the final poop:

Regarding the MTR-2 and MTR-4 reticles:
The two reticles have the same subtensions, it’s the line weight (thickness) that’sdoubled in the MTR-4 rather than the overall scale.

Both the MTR-2 and MTR-4 have 1 MOA subtensions @ 20X

The Center dot of the MTR-4 is ¼ MOA at 20X

The Center dot of the MTR-2 is 1/8 MOA @ 20X

The important difference between the MTR-1/MTR-2 and corresponding MTR-3/MTR-4 reticles is that the line THICKNESS is double of the corresponding MTR-1/MTR-2 reticle, in the MTR-3/MTR-4 reticles.

In other words the 3 and 4 are the essentially the same as the 1 and 2 but with thick lines.

They will be updating the various websites.

 

[Fret]

Thanks again! I think that pretty much verifies the Deon website.

Denys, you seem to be quite knowledgeable about March. I wonder if I could have your opinion? For shooting paper targets at 55 yards with a .22LR sporter style rifle what March scope and reticle would you recommend? I was thinking SFP would be the way to go.

 

[Denys]

The March scopes are some of the most expensive scopes on the market. They are hand-made in Japan in small batches, not mass-produced and their prices reflect that. I don't know that I would spend the money on a March for a .22 sporter rifle shooting targets at 55 yards.

That said, at the March Optics booth last week, I had occasion to look through many different March scopes, multiple times and even with the horrible surroundings of a trade show in a closed dark place, I was impressed with the image produced by each and every March scope.

We hung a small concentric ring target on a column about 25yards away and I looked at it with all the scopes in the booth. That includes the 8-80X56, and my new favorite, the 10-60X56 High Master. Yep, I could focus down to that short distance with ALL the March scopes and get a nice crisp, clear picture. Looking at that target at 80X, I could see the fly was missing a leg.

What impresses me about March scopes is the zoom ratio. My personal F-TR rifle has a 5-50X56. Other members of Team Bayou have the 8-80X56. Those scopes are excellent for long range, but if I were to consider a March scope for a .22 sporter rifle, I would opt for the 2.5-25X42 with an MTR-1 or MTR-FT reticle. That scope is light at 22 ounces and is just slicker than snot. I would add a zoom lever on it and maybe the middle side focus wheel and just go to town. Imagine; 2.5X all the way to 25X in a small scope.

 

[Fret]

Thank you for your advice. The scope will be for a 1727 Annie so I think a March scope will be a good fit. I like the idea of a 42mm objective since it looks right on this rifle but does the 42mm give up anything to the 52mm for target shooting at max magnification? I've read the 52mm is better in dark conditions but I don't think I'll be shooting at night.
I had a Golden Eagle on it for awhile but it was kind of too large for this rifle so it has a 3-15X42 scope on it right now but I'd like a bit more magnification.

 

[Hairy Biker]

42mm will be perfect in the conditions described. I am trying to post a current photo of a 42mm on a HW100 so you can see scale but failing to get an upload. Hints appreciated.

 

[DellaDog]

42mm will be perfect in the conditions described. I am trying to post a current photo of a 42mm on a HW100 so you can see scale but failing to get an upload. Hints appreciated.

That oughta be a great fit on the HW100.
Love my 3-24x52 FMA2 on a Daystate AirWolf.

(Hint: I used a link from Imgur. Currently, there seems to be a problem w/ Hide picture uploads, though they've worked previously...
"The upload failed because the file could not be written to the server. The site administrator will need to resolve this before any files can be uploaded.")




x52 FML-T1 on a Compass Lake Service Rifle - the x42 will be a better fit.

 

[Glassaholic]

Thank you for your advice. The scope will be for a 1727 Annie so I think a March scope will be a good fit. I like the idea of a 42mm objective since it looks right on this rifle but does the 42mm give up anything to the 52mm for target shooting at max magnification? I've read the 52mm is better in dark conditions but I don't think I'll be shooting at night.
I had a Golden Eagle on it for awhile but it was kind of too large for this rifle so it has a 3-15X42 scope on it right now but I'd like a bit more magnification.

My 3-24x42 was just fine in daytime, above 20x it does start to get darker but nowhere near "dark" it is perfectly usable in the daytime. I would also say the eyebox is a bit less forgiving but again, I did not have a problem getting a good sight picture with this scope.

 

[Fret]

Thanks guys for the info. This is the 1727 with the Razor HD LH that has a 42mm objective and is about an inch longer than the March 2.5-25X42:

 

[Hairy Biker]

Good posting of pictures - I'll wait until they fix the linkages (hopefully soon) and post some comparisons.

 

[Clearlight]

42mm will be perfect in the conditions described. I am trying to post a current photo of a 42mm on a HW100 so you can see scale but failing to get an upload. Hints appreciated.

When I try to upload photos since site upgrade , I get a
‘ too many pixels ‘ message . Maybe try uploading a lower
res image ? 10 yard focus is very useful on an air gun !

 

[Denys]

Thanks guys for the info. This is the 1727 with the Razor HD LH that has a 42mm objective and is about an inch longer than the March 2.5-25X42:

That's a beautiful rifle. It's difficult to see but if the mounts are Picatinny, March makes some very nice rings that match their scopes.

As for the 42 Vs 52, it will make a difference at the higher magnification, such as when you get north of say 12X or more in low light. At SHOT, I could definitely see a difference in the image from the 42 versus the 52 at those magnifications but I will still able to see the little target very nicely at 25X with the 42mm objective. So, there is a difference in the brightness of the image at higher Xs, but the 52 is a slightly bulkier scope. What is more important to you?

 

[Denys]

When I try to upload photos since site upgrade , I get a
‘ too many pixels ‘ message . Maybe try uploading a lower
res image ? 10 yard focus is very useful on an air gun !

Yeah, the March guys told me they sell the 8-80 to airgunners. I can't even grasp that concept; the reticle would be moving just thinking about the shot.

 

[Fret]

That's a beautiful rifle. It's difficult to see but if the mounts are Picatinny, March makes some very nice rings that match their scopes.

As for the 42 Vs 52, it will make a difference at the higher magnification, such as when you get north of say 12X or more in low light. At SHOT, I could definitely see a difference in the image from the 42 versus the 52 at those magnifications but I will still able to see the little target very nicely at 25X with the 42mm objective. So, there is a difference in the brightness of the image at higher Xs, but the 52 is a slightly bulkier scope. What is more important to you?

Thanks. I think I would like the looks of the 42 on the rifle but I'd be using it mostly at 20-25X so the 52 would work better even though it's larger. Thanks again for your advice.

 

[Hairy Biker]

I really like the 52mm over the 42mm. As stated previously, during daylight hours you would be hard pressed to tell the difference between the two in any practical way, but the 52mm offers, I think, more versatility during tricky light conditions e.g. shadow and twilight, heavy woods etc.

On the air rifle, I am taking rabbits at the 30 - 60m mark using mostly head shots. Put the reticle dot on the head and break the second trigger pressure. Use 8 to 10 power for initial spotting, increase the magnification to 15 - 20 power if time and body position allow.

Separately, but related, it appears they are working on the upload issue for photos.

 

[Denys]

Thanks. I think I would like the looks of the 42 on the rifle but I'd be using it mostly at 20-25X so the 52 would work better even though it's larger. Thanks again for your advice.

I agree the 52mm would be best for your stated purpose.

 

[steve123]

Yeah, the March guys told me they sell the 8-80 to airgunners. I can't even grasp that concept; the reticle would be moving just thinking about the shot.

The airgunners, usually benchrest or Field Target match shooters, buy these.

The benchrest guys using it is pretty easy to see why, pun intended.

The FT guys use the side focus, via a giant side wheel attached to the parallax knob, which is calibrated to their eye, to determine the distance to the target. The more magnification the easier it is to range the distance.

 

[Hairy Biker]

The long awaited photo!