I haven't seen a whole lot of info on these-
How are they in general? Thinking of throwing one of these on a 16" 6.5cm
How are they in general? Thinking of throwing one of these on a 16" 6.5cm
Last edited:
- Thread starter Hoody2shoes
- Start date
Had a 3 -24 x 42. Havnt tried the 52. Ordered mine with the TML reticle, which is similar to Kahles AMR. Heard they did a run with the TML for a Euro SF contract on DTA’s but can’t confirm. Ran it on a 6.5 x47, then moved it to a 300 NM improved. TML reticle great for larger targets, hunting etc. Centre Maltese cross was a little large for the really small PRS targets and ELR, but ok for everything else. Illumination was good, glass was excellent.
Dialled the piss out of it for 5 years, even got a 3rd round hit at 2700 somehow with the x47. ( lucky day maybe). Had to zoom out to 5 x from memory to use the bottom end of the tree for elevation. It shits me that so many reticles stop at 10 mil or so below centre, why? Having information way down the bottom of an FFP scope is super useful for transitioning between ELR targets, or identifying a target based on terrain features: IE ‘ 45 mil above/below the white rock ’ etc
Dropped it at least twice, once on the elevation turret bad enough to chip alloy off the turret. Tracked like a train, and perfect zero return every time. Should never have sold it as a package with the rifle, wish I still had it.
Dialled the piss out of it for 5 years, even got a 3rd round hit at 2700 somehow with the x47. ( lucky day maybe). Had to zoom out to 5 x from memory to use the bottom end of the tree for elevation. It shits me that so many reticles stop at 10 mil or so below centre, why? Having information way down the bottom of an FFP scope is super useful for transitioning between ELR targets, or identifying a target based on terrain features: IE ‘ 45 mil above/below the white rock ’ etc
Dropped it at least twice, once on the elevation turret bad enough to chip alloy off the turret. Tracked like a train, and perfect zero return every time. Should never have sold it as a package with the rifle, wish I still had it.
Thanks dude! Bump for more experiences
@stanley_white Thanks highlighting this thread for me. The reason I have not posted here is that, while I have looked through several March 3-24X42 and 52, I have never used one. On the other hand, there is a March-FX 4.5-28X52 with the PDK reticle on my AR-10.
However, now that I'm here, I'll post a few thoughts.
The 3-24X42 has been around for several years and is a proven design. It weighs in around 21 ounces, where the 52mm objective will bring it up to 24 ounces. At all the SHOT shows I've attended, hunters always wanted to see the 3-24X42 and X52. They are a great solid design with lots of magnification, when that counts. They have ED lenses and have always had ED lenses. They provide for a good DOF, especially the 42mm objective. It's a great lightweight, all-around FFP riflescope.
The March-FX 4.5-28X52 HM is a different animal. It's a short design with a wide-angle eyepiece. It was intended for the PRS shooters who wanted a light short riflescope. The wide-angle eyepiece provide for an AAOV of 24° (if memory serves), which is a wider FOV than most other riflescopes on the planet. Only the March Majesta 8-80XX56 with its 25° eyepiece and the March-FX 5-42X56 HM with its 26° eyepiece have wider FOV, as far as I know. The main tube of the 4.5-28X52 is 34mm with the wall thickness at 4mm. The 3-24X42/52 is a 30mm tube with a wall thickess of 2mm. This makes the 4.5-28X52 immensely strong.
I have used my 4.5-28X52 first on an AR-15 then moved it to my AR-10 when I tried a few PRS-competitions. I discovered I was too old and arthritic to play that game. Sigh. The 4.5-28X52 does come with a large elevation turret with big numbers (great for old people), and an inner wheel for the side focus, which provides increased granularity and ease of use. The wide FOV allows you to get behind the scope quicker than usual and I spotted a lot of my many misses in the uncluttered view through the riflescope.
The large objective and short design do affect the depth of field on the 4.5-28X52 but judicious use of the side focus will mitigate that.
I now just shoot my AR-10 in target practice. If I were to go hunting deer or pig, I would use that combo; the wide FOV is great for that and I have on tap, all the magnification I would ever need.
The OP did not state a purpose for the optics.
However, now that I'm here, I'll post a few thoughts.
The 3-24X42 has been around for several years and is a proven design. It weighs in around 21 ounces, where the 52mm objective will bring it up to 24 ounces. At all the SHOT shows I've attended, hunters always wanted to see the 3-24X42 and X52. They are a great solid design with lots of magnification, when that counts. They have ED lenses and have always had ED lenses. They provide for a good DOF, especially the 42mm objective. It's a great lightweight, all-around FFP riflescope.
The March-FX 4.5-28X52 HM is a different animal. It's a short design with a wide-angle eyepiece. It was intended for the PRS shooters who wanted a light short riflescope. The wide-angle eyepiece provide for an AAOV of 24° (if memory serves), which is a wider FOV than most other riflescopes on the planet. Only the March Majesta 8-80XX56 with its 25° eyepiece and the March-FX 5-42X56 HM with its 26° eyepiece have wider FOV, as far as I know. The main tube of the 4.5-28X52 is 34mm with the wall thickness at 4mm. The 3-24X42/52 is a 30mm tube with a wall thickess of 2mm. This makes the 4.5-28X52 immensely strong.
I have used my 4.5-28X52 first on an AR-15 then moved it to my AR-10 when I tried a few PRS-competitions. I discovered I was too old and arthritic to play that game. Sigh. The 4.5-28X52 does come with a large elevation turret with big numbers (great for old people), and an inner wheel for the side focus, which provides increased granularity and ease of use. The wide FOV allows you to get behind the scope quicker than usual and I spotted a lot of my many misses in the uncluttered view through the riflescope.
The large objective and short design do affect the depth of field on the 4.5-28X52 but judicious use of the side focus will mitigate that.
I now just shoot my AR-10 in target practice. If I were to go hunting deer or pig, I would use that combo; the wide FOV is great for that and I have on tap, all the magnification I would ever need.
The OP did not state a purpose for the optics.
Given your stated goals and choosing between the two models, I would concur with your choice because of the wide-angle of the March-FX 4.5-28X52. The FOV at 4.5X is similar (not equivalent) to the FOV at 3X of the 3-24X42/52. And at any equivalent magnification the FOV of the 4.5-28X52 will be 20% wider than the 3-24X42/52. Of course, we see the image in two dimensions so the total FOV of the 4.5-28X52 will be about (guestimate) 140% the one of the 3-24X42/52. It will weigh substantially more than the 3-24X.
You wouldn’t be unhappy with a 4.5-28x52. That is a scope I wish I had a role for so I could buy it again.
I think I read 31oz on the 4.5-28x52. Honestly that's not too much considering the class it's in magnification wise.
Yep, had it on a small frame gas gun when I did have one. At sort of the max weight I’d want for anything reasonable and at that weight barely more than an ATACR 4-16 with far exceeding capability.
That gun got a Razor 6-36 in the end for reasons, but if a balance of weight, size, and magnification are of value then the March F 4.5-28x52 is a great little scope for many use cases.
Last edited:
