One of my sons has been wanting to get into long range shooting & hunting for a while and we have been talking scopes for the last few months, I have a few Vortex scopes including a 5-20x50 gen 1 razor, put a Minox ZP5 MR4 on my long range rifle a while back and love it. well I got a email from son yesterday saying he ordered a March 3-24X42 scope, I don't have any experience with March and honestly have never looked thru one. Anyone run March scopes? have not seen much if any talk here about these and would appreciate any input, have done a little research on March and they seem to review OK, reticle choices are limited, Seems to me for the price point there are a lot better options out there.
Rifle Scopes Anyone Using A March Scope
- Thread starter TmisterE
- Start date
March is good stuff. I believe they are a big(ger) name in the BR crowd, and have more recently crossed into the "tactical" game. As with any optics it's a series of trade-offs.
I had a 3-24x52 that I just sold (for financial reasons, I loved the scope). Clarity was outstanding, on par or better than my Vortex GenII 4.5-27, on days that didn't have mirage I could see 6.5mm holes in cardboard at 300yd. You get the 8:1 zoom ratio, and the parallax on them comes in VERY close, like 10yd. They're also super light, I believe 24oz or so. The zero-stop is the best/easiest I've ever used. I liked the turrets, and tracking was solid. I had the FML-1 reticle, and it's up there in my top 3 favorites, clean, plain, simple.
Now on the "down" side, some folks complain about an unforgiving eye-box. I never noticed it, but everyone is on their own level of pickiness. The parallax knob is "compressed". By that I mean that rotationally, there is much less space between 100yd and infinity than on most scopes, so to get from 100 to 400yd is much less rotation than most people are used to. I had the best luck starting off at infinity then backing off until the image cleared up. For as compressed as that parallax range is, it is pretty forgiving, and beyond 300yd you almost don't need to touch the parallax. And finally, depending on how old the scope is, it may be a 6400 mil version. Most "mil" scopes are set up with the mathematical 6283 mils/circle (2*pi*1000). Early March tactical scopes were set up with 6400 mils to a circle (NATO standard for artillery). When you have more slices in a circle, each slice gets thinner, so each click is something like 0.097mils instead of 0.100. Once you put that correction factor into your ballistic calculator, you're golden.
Overall the quirks weren't hard for me to get used to, I really liked it and when funds allow I'd like to try another, especially for a LR hunting rifle.
I had a 3-24x52 that I just sold (for financial reasons, I loved the scope). Clarity was outstanding, on par or better than my Vortex GenII 4.5-27, on days that didn't have mirage I could see 6.5mm holes in cardboard at 300yd. You get the 8:1 zoom ratio, and the parallax on them comes in VERY close, like 10yd. They're also super light, I believe 24oz or so. The zero-stop is the best/easiest I've ever used. I liked the turrets, and tracking was solid. I had the FML-1 reticle, and it's up there in my top 3 favorites, clean, plain, simple.
Now on the "down" side, some folks complain about an unforgiving eye-box. I never noticed it, but everyone is on their own level of pickiness. The parallax knob is "compressed". By that I mean that rotationally, there is much less space between 100yd and infinity than on most scopes, so to get from 100 to 400yd is much less rotation than most people are used to. I had the best luck starting off at infinity then backing off until the image cleared up. For as compressed as that parallax range is, it is pretty forgiving, and beyond 300yd you almost don't need to touch the parallax. And finally, depending on how old the scope is, it may be a 6400 mil version. Most "mil" scopes are set up with the mathematical 6283 mils/circle (2*pi*1000). Early March tactical scopes were set up with 6400 mils to a circle (NATO standard for artillery). When you have more slices in a circle, each slice gets thinner, so each click is something like 0.097mils instead of 0.100. Once you put that correction factor into your ballistic calculator, you're golden.
Overall the quirks weren't hard for me to get used to, I really liked it and when funds allow I'd like to try another, especially for a LR hunting rifle.
following
I've never owned or looked through one. The biggest reason why is the warranty, I think it's only 5 years.. I think with this much money spent, the warranty should be way more than 5 years.. just my opinion, hell, you may never even need it....
That's an unfortunate legality due to Japanese industry law based on the size of the company. IF a March scope older than 5 years has an issue, I've been informed that Deon Optics will fix it free of charge.
With the price tag of these scopes at around $3000.00 how do they compare to some of the other high end scopes out there at the same price point, Minox, S&B, Nightforce, Vortex etc. looks like they only have one reticle a simple .5 mill hash mark reticle, I have not herd anyone say this is the most amazing scope I have ever put my hands on and for this much $$ I would expect that at least someone would have that opinion. guess I'm just not sold on March Scopes, there are a lot of brands with more reticle choices options etc. for the same or less money.
That's great, and I would hope so due to that pretty price tag. But the bottom line for me at least is, it's not in writing that they would be obligated to do so... Even S&B has stepped up to the plate now and offers a 20 year US warranty on their optics and I think Kahles offers at least 10 years, so with all the other great scope options out there offering at the least double the warranty and some, why even bother with March? I'm not saying they are a bad optic, just feels like a bit of an unnecessary risk to me..
This is to my eye, YMMV etc... Glass is better than NF NXS. I haven't looked through the ATACR line or a BEAST so not really a fair comparison. Better than a Leupy Mk6, and pretty close to, if not slightly better than vortex Gen 2 razor. Better than USO. No experience with S&B or Minox.
They're clear. Figure these guys are making 8-80x scopes for the BR crowd. Like I said above, it's all trade offs. The biggest turnoff I think was the 6400 mil ordeal, but that has been corrected and new scopes are the typical 6283 mil. Again, the zero-stop is the best I've ever seen or used. The parallax is different but easy to get used to. I really like them. In that price range it's one of the first places I look, especially if weight is a concern at all.
If you want a christmas tree or screen door reticle with .005 mil increments and 20 different illumination settings and a 40mm tube with 40 mils of useful elevation and the worlds largest eye box, maybe look elsewhere. The March is clear, lightweight, repeatable, easy to use, fairly low-profile, and you'll probably get about 20 mils of elevation mounted on a 20-30 moa rail.
IMO the March fits in as a LR hunting scope or a crossover hunting/PRS scope. Or if you're really trying to cut weight for whatever reason.
I’m running the same scope on my rimfire. Parallax is finnicky but awesome glass/turrets
I own or have owned a S&B PMII 5-25x56, Nightforce ATACR 4-16x42, Premier LT 3-15x50, USO LR-17 3.2-17x44, Bushnell 3-12 LRHS, Leupold Mk4 4-14x50 and some lesser offerings. March in Australia supplied me with a 5-40 for the 2017 season but life got busy and I only managed to use it three matches. I also did a brief T&E with the March 3-24x52. As far as glass is concerned March is excellent - As good as anything I've used bar perhaps the Premier LT, which is the best I've seen.
March Pro’s:
Compact & Lightweight given magnification ratios
Outstanding glass
Good if not great reticles - Usable across mag range
Illumination intensity well scaled and without bleed
Zero set design is simple and intuitive
Low profile turrets with tactile clicks
Cons
Parallax on 3-24 slightly less forgiving than competitors, not an issue with regular usage
Non-capped/lockable windage
Warranty - could be a deal breaker for some - though it's extremely rare to hear of anyone encountering problems with March
All said in my humble opinion March are absolutely a top tier optic, if the 5-40x56 came with Minox's MR4 or Kahles SKMR3 reticle I would probably have to buy one.
koshkin I believe has done some extensive testing with March and is probably the person best qualified to comment on them.
3-24x52
<a href="https://imgur.com/7e2OPyd"><img src="https://i.imgur.com/7e2OPyd.jpg" title="source: imgur.com" /></a>
Note the size relative to the Bushy 3-12x44
<a href="https://imgur.com/wmj4r7H"><img src="https://i.imgur.com/wmj4r7H.png" title="source: imgur.com" /></a>
5-40x56
<a href="https://imgur.com/t8AU6HU"><img src="https://i.imgur.com/t8AU6HU.jpg" title="source: imgur.com" /></a>
March Pro’s:
Compact & Lightweight given magnification ratios
Outstanding glass
Good if not great reticles - Usable across mag range
Illumination intensity well scaled and without bleed
Zero set design is simple and intuitive
Low profile turrets with tactile clicks
Cons
Parallax on 3-24 slightly less forgiving than competitors, not an issue with regular usage
Non-capped/lockable windage
Warranty - could be a deal breaker for some - though it's extremely rare to hear of anyone encountering problems with March
All said in my humble opinion March are absolutely a top tier optic, if the 5-40x56 came with Minox's MR4 or Kahles SKMR3 reticle I would probably have to buy one.
koshkin I believe has done some extensive testing with March and is probably the person best qualified to comment on them.
3-24x52
<a href="https://imgur.com/7e2OPyd"><img src="https://i.imgur.com/7e2OPyd.jpg" title="source: imgur.com" /></a>
Note the size relative to the Bushy 3-12x44
<a href="https://imgur.com/wmj4r7H"><img src="https://i.imgur.com/wmj4r7H.png" title="source: imgur.com" /></a>
5-40x56
<a href="https://imgur.com/t8AU6HU"><img src="https://i.imgur.com/t8AU6HU.jpg" title="source: imgur.com" /></a>
Last edited:
I have 2.5-25x52 on my 338 Edge LR hunting rifle. Others find the parallax finicky, but I find it beautiful. I too like to start at infinity and roll it back to a clear image. Unlike the Nightforce NXS, when the image is clear in the March the parallax is absolutely gone. Whereas, with the Nightforce NXS, you'll fiddle with that blasted knob until the parallax is gone only to find yourself in the middle of a blurry image. The March and the Vortex AMG are the scopes that convinced me that the Nightforce Koolaid isn't so sweet.
I purchased a March 5-40x56 for use in FT-R competition. I was sold on the MOA reticle at first sight. I like the fine pinpoint dot and open middle. The parallax is amazing. Clarity is great. And the weight is a plus.The turrets are what you would expect in this level of optic. I too own NF in NXS and ATACR, U S Optics SN-3's, Vortex, and Leupold scopes. When I purchased the March scope i was there to actually buy a Premier 5x25, the March went home with me. So far I have no complaints with my choice to buy a March. It is not the flavor of the day by any means. I looked at them when Kelby's first started carrying the line and could not believe the magnification capabilities. It took me 5 years to decide it was the right choice. I would not say March is the only choice. I will not convert everything I own to March. For high magnification needs they are a top tier CHOICE to consider without hesitation. The only caveat I have noticed worth a mention is with the small size and high magnification available the light gathering ability does suffer. Mine in 5-40x56 does great if you consider it in a normal 56mm objective magnification, say 20-25X. To truly gather the proper amount of light at 40X magnification the objective and tube would need to be proportionately larger. But for day use the upper part of the magnification scale is great when mirage will let you use it. I find myself using the 20-25X most of the time unless lying prone on the firing line. This is the ONLY scope I have ever looked through that I can focus clearly at highest magnification all the way in to 10 yards. It is crazy. Like having a microscope mounted on the rifle. Once again, who needs 40X at 25 yards? But, I can clearly see bullet holes in paper at 600 yards. I hope these OPINIONS are of some use to those inclined to read them. There are not that many of these scopes around, so I figure I owe y'all and honest experience write up. I am through with FT-R, but I am keeping the March.
as always YMMV-Rob
as always YMMV-Rob
OP, I've had both the March 3-24x42 and the 3-24x52, as others have mentioned they have amazing glass and clarity for the magnification range. As a tiny/lightweight scope with an 8x erector the 3-24x42 has no equal, but where it struggles is in low light, that's where the 52 really shines. Your son should be quite happy with the scope as long as he's not doing a lot of low light shooting.
I have 3 of their scopes
5-40x56 on my ftr rifle
3-24x52 fml-1 on 6.5 grendel (yeah alittle overkill)
3-24x52 fml-t1 illuminated on 308 ar10
They all rock and I have had zero issues with any of them. Their glass is top notch. The zero stop works good the adjustments are very positive and not error prone. I think the only common complaint is the parallax adjustment is alittle finicky.
5-40x56 on my ftr rifle
3-24x52 fml-1 on 6.5 grendel (yeah alittle overkill)
3-24x52 fml-t1 illuminated on 308 ar10
They all rock and I have had zero issues with any of them. Their glass is top notch. The zero stop works good the adjustments are very positive and not error prone. I think the only common complaint is the parallax adjustment is alittle finicky.
I have a 3-24x42 as a lightweight hunter/match scope and it fits the bill really well. They are about the only MIL scope in that weight and power range. Super bright and the 3-24 range is pretty incredible. The eyebox and parallax are a little tight but not really bad at all. You can find the non illum for well under 2K. I don't regret buying it at all!
I have the 3-24x52 FML-T1 and have been so impressed with it I just purchased an FMA2 to put on a Daystate AirWolf PCP air rifle.
There is no other optic on the market, period, that ticks all the boxes for my specific use on an air rifle: FFP, 8x erector, outstanding glass, light weight (the lightest of any I know at 24oz) superb turrets and zero stop, 1/8 MOA fine reticle and parallax down to 10 yards.
Yes, it’s pricey at $2500, especially to use on an air gun, but NO other scope on the market compares.
There is no other optic on the market, period, that ticks all the boxes for my specific use on an air rifle: FFP, 8x erector, outstanding glass, light weight (the lightest of any I know at 24oz) superb turrets and zero stop, 1/8 MOA fine reticle and parallax down to 10 yards.
Yes, it’s pricey at $2500, especially to use on an air gun, but NO other scope on the market compares.
Would you go for the T1 again? I like the look of the .2mil holds.
Also would you always spend the extra for illumination?
I looked into buying a March scope about 2 years ago and decided not to. My three main concerns that prevented me from buying March were:
1. Limited choice in reticles (specifically no MIL Christmas tree reticles).
2. Short warranty on an expensive scope.
3. Light weight for the scope size and magnification range. Seeing as you can't change the shape, quantity, and sizes (and therefor the weight) of the glass lenses too much, I assume that March must use relatively thin aluminum to hold their scopes together. I'm not saying they aren't tough enough for normal use but I am wary of how they would stand up to getting knocked around during competitions or being used on higher recoil ELR rifles. (Refer to having a short warranty on an expensive scope)
It seems to me that March caters to the Benchrest crowd for many reasons. Benchrest has weight limitations and March scopes are light weight which allows Benchrest guys to use their huge stocks and long, heavy barrels. Benchrest uses relatively small calibers in these relatively heavy rifles so recoil forces aren't as big an issue which allows the scopes to be less ruggedly built. Lastly, March scopes have high magnification for precise aim beyond what LR and ELR shooters tend to use. In my opinion, March has made their bed with the Benchrest crowd and aren't really interested in securing much of a customer base in the Tactical shooting community so far. It's a pity as with their magnification range and high-quality glass they could do quite well with just a little bit of effort.
1. Limited choice in reticles (specifically no MIL Christmas tree reticles).
2. Short warranty on an expensive scope.
3. Light weight for the scope size and magnification range. Seeing as you can't change the shape, quantity, and sizes (and therefor the weight) of the glass lenses too much, I assume that March must use relatively thin aluminum to hold their scopes together. I'm not saying they aren't tough enough for normal use but I am wary of how they would stand up to getting knocked around during competitions or being used on higher recoil ELR rifles. (Refer to having a short warranty on an expensive scope)
It seems to me that March caters to the Benchrest crowd for many reasons. Benchrest has weight limitations and March scopes are light weight which allows Benchrest guys to use their huge stocks and long, heavy barrels. Benchrest uses relatively small calibers in these relatively heavy rifles so recoil forces aren't as big an issue which allows the scopes to be less ruggedly built. Lastly, March scopes have high magnification for precise aim beyond what LR and ELR shooters tend to use. In my opinion, March has made their bed with the Benchrest crowd and aren't really interested in securing much of a customer base in the Tactical shooting community so far. It's a pity as with their magnification range and high-quality glass they could do quite well with just a little bit of effort.
I've been using mine on a gas gun for a few years. Took the win on a local DMR series the last two years because of it. I say "because of it" since one of the other shooters is obviously better than I but was limited by his 2.5-10 NF.
The series will be renamed the Geissele gas gun series this year and I intend to compete with the March again.
I've gotten used to the parallax and have started to appreciate it after spending time behind other high end optics.
I won't say it's the most durable of optics, but it did survive being mounted on an M14 for some time before I moved it to an AR. Those are known to eat optics.
The series will be renamed the Geissele gas gun series this year and I intend to compete with the March again.
I've gotten used to the parallax and have started to appreciate it after spending time behind other high end optics.
I won't say it's the most durable of optics, but it did survive being mounted on an M14 for some time before I moved it to an AR. Those are known to eat optics.
I'd buy the T1 again, it's a great long range reticle.
Mounted the FMA2 and shot a bunch today; for me, it's an outstanding target scope. The 1/8" dot is perfect for pinpoint accuracy and the focus and parallax beat the hell out of my 2.5-10 NXS.
The NXS glass is nice, but, for complete parallax free sighting the target will be slightly out of focus (blurry).
The March 3-24x52 is both crisp AND parallax free at any setting.
I'm going to ditch the NXS and put a 3-24x42 March on my Compass Lake AR. (x52 is just a tad large)
Mounted the FMA2 and shot a bunch today; for me, it's an outstanding target scope. The 1/8" dot is perfect for pinpoint accuracy and the focus and parallax beat the hell out of my 2.5-10 NXS.
The NXS glass is nice, but, for complete parallax free sighting the target will be slightly out of focus (blurry).
The March 3-24x52 is both crisp AND parallax free at any setting.
I'm going to ditch the NXS and put a 3-24x42 March on my Compass Lake AR. (x52 is just a tad large)
Last edited:
I stood behind a March tactical scope a few weekends ago doing a little spotting at 900yd steel. The glass flat out put me in a "wow" mindset instantly. Very nice picture probably the nicest looking glass I've ever seen through a scope but you know how that is. Different for everybody. Made my Bushnell Dmr2 glass look like total shit. I'd LOVE to hear some definitive tracking results with them.
Tracking has been done to death. They work.
Glass wise they even edge out Schmidt & Bender in regard to control over CA which is a pretty amazing feat for an 8x erector in a small package. I would say Schmidt has a bit more depth and maybe a tad better resolution, but yes, most people who finally get behind a March have that "wow" feeling. I bought my first March after some Hide members insisted that I'd love it a few years back, they didn't have the 3-24x52 then so my only option was the 42 and even that was pretty "wow", the 52 I got was even a step better. My only gripe with March is their mushy turrets, finicky parallax, thick reticles and poor illumination. I think if they offered a reticle even .02 mil thinner than the current FML-1 I would be happy but anything above 20x and that reticle is a beast, the FML-T1 offered the .2 mil hash, but they didn't thin it up any and I prefer the center dot, though I've wanted to look through one to see if I like it better than the FML-1.
I actually like the FML-1 a lot. I tend to spend a lot of time on lower mags (especially with the gun I have it on) so I appreciate the thickness. My other rifles have scopes with .2 mil hashes but for this one I'm glad its only .5. I tend to shoot a lot of movers with this gun, so having useable holds at 5x or even lower is really nice. The only thing I wish it had was a thin Christmas tree.
For those that spend more time at higher magnifications, I can see how the reticle may be too thick.
For those that spend more time at higher magnifications, I can see how the reticle may be too thick.
Serious, when I saw the specs it looked like everything was the same thickness as the FML-1, now you got me thinking again. Does anyone have any through the scope images of the FML-T1 at 24x and at 3x?
Here was the FML-1 compared to the SKMR, I was hoping to find something in between
I’m running a couple of 5 - 40 FX’s for general field use ,
and an 8 - 80 X for the occasional 1000 range comp . The
80 x was almost an impulse buy : I had to satisfy my
curiosity as to how it was possible to even build a scope
like that .
Very few things in life exceed our expectations and don’t
disappoint in some way . March optics have proved to be
one of those rare purchases that have never let me down ,
and actually get better with hard use . My first 5 - 40 is like
my favourite pair of shoes , it just works and fits me perfectly .
and an 8 - 80 X for the occasional 1000 range comp . The
80 x was almost an impulse buy : I had to satisfy my
curiosity as to how it was possible to even build a scope
like that .
Very few things in life exceed our expectations and don’t
disappoint in some way . March optics have proved to be
one of those rare purchases that have never let me down ,
and actually get better with hard use . My first 5 - 40 is like
my favourite pair of shoes , it just works and fits me perfectly .
^^^ 8-80x?!?, what does that even look like up near top mag. I wonder if it would be more fun to get that scope vs. a spotting scope
I have often wondered that for years. If the glass is as good as everyone says it seems like a bargain compared to a swaro STR
The 8 - 80 toes a little getting used to as you train your brain to work at the highest magnification. You will struggle diving straight into 80x because it is sensory overload.
So you work up in stages 40x to 60x then find a sweet spot that works for you between 70 to 80x for the application you are shooting. That condition is the critical one and you should not think of it as a straight 80x because you limited its usefulness.
At the highest powers, from a bench, you can put the aiming dot inside a 1 inch mark at 1000 yards and use those spots as aim off points.
So you work up in stages 40x to 60x then find a sweet spot that works for you between 70 to 80x for the application you are shooting. That condition is the critical one and you should not think of it as a straight 80x because you limited its usefulness.
At the highest powers, from a bench, you can put the aiming dot inside a 1 inch mark at 1000 yards and use those spots as aim off points.
And the 8-80 is not even a High Master scope, but the 10-60x56 is High Master, obviously FOV is not going to be as good but...I have often wondered that for years. If the glass is as good as everyone says it seems like a bargain compared to a swaro STR
Thank you Della, still looks pretty thick but if you say it's thinner than the FML-1 I'm going to trust you, I do like it better than the FML-1, can you still see the center cross at 3x or does it get washed out in the low mag?
That looks almost exactly like the AMR reticle on my kahles, and I only have mixed feelings about it.
I think the T-1 line thickness is 0.07 mil like the FML-1. Has anyone tried the FMA 2 which has a 0.1 MOA thickness?
http://www.bullets.com/shop/brand_march-optics/firstfocalplane/3-24x52mm-scope?src=march
http://www.bullets.com/shop/brand_march-optics/firstfocalplane/3-24x52mm-scope?src=march
Yes. See my post above. I put an FMA2 on a Daystate air rifle - it’s perfect for precision shooting. I’ll post pics as well.
My first March was a 3-24x42 with the FMA reticle and it was definitely thinner than the FML-1
I did a lot of work with the FML-T1 on the Scout site. I found it to be most effective (vision, clarity, form and reticle function) at 17 power.
Thanks guys. I only have SFP scopes and want to try a FFP scope. Would a March 3-24x52 with FMA-2 be a good choice for a .22LR used for paper targets ( or even a Vortex AMG) or would a 2.5-25x52 with MTR-4 SFP be better? There are just too many choices.
There are too many choices. The key question is ... what are you going to use the scope for? High level competition requiring fine accuracy and repeatable settings across a range of weather conditions 
or just fun time?
Just for fun shooting paper targets off my back deck. I want a nice scope to put on either a .22LR Vudoo I ordered or on my 1727 .22LR Annie. I had a Vortex Golden Eagle on the 1727 but took it off (was planning to put on the Vudoo) and put a 3-15X42 Razor HD LH on but I could use a bit more magnification for small targets.
If you have the money, I would not say no. It might lead to bigger things.
There’s a great vid on you tube showing thru the scope view
of an 8 - 80 : search for ‘ March 80x ‘ in you tube . It was done
by multiple World Champion shooter Stuart Elliot .
EDIT : there is also one named ‘1000 yard benchrest ‘ by the
same guy that’s well worth a look .
Many times I’ve used the rifle with the 80x mounted to use as a
spotter in the field , from 30x to 60x it’s spectacular . In good
conditions I’ve called shot position on steel way past 1500 ,
and had no issues seeing hits and misses out to 3000 .
Over 60x , the 56 front end limits light gathering compared to
a big spotter , but still it’s very impressive optical engineering .
It’s the Bugatti Veyron of riflescopes , no one has got close yet .
Other manaufacturers have been forced to follow March’s lead
with high mag , NF , Schmidt et al ... High mag is like having a
500 horsepower motor , you are not going to use it all the time ,
but when you really need it ( like finding a washed out target )
it’s greatly appreciated .
Last edited:
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.
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.
