- Thread starter Hoody2shoes
- Start date
I love my capped Gen 1 with the odd sized factory mount! I am also beyond impressed with how responsive March is. Are any other optic related companies even close to being as responsive?
@Happiness Is A Warm Gun agreed. How bright is that center dot actually? Coming from an atacr so I'm used to looking a fusion reaction happening in front of my eyes
I haven't had the chance to look through an atacr. I have previously had a Vortex Gen 3 1-10, delta stryker 1-6, and still have a kahles k16i. My March is brighter than the kahles, but not quite as bright as the Vortex. The vortex was super bright though, so the March is more than bright enough for my uses. From YouTube videos I have seen, the Vortex is brighter than almost all other lpvos in comparisons, but i think the NF is right there with it.
I believe since that version they updated to fiber dot illumination
@Tictacticaltimmy what do you mean?
My bad, I ASSumed based on a review video where it appeared pretty weak, and assumed it must have been updated since it is fiber dot. March claims that it was just the camera that made it look dim:
Looks really cool. March has always impressed me but they keep improving and refining which is just awesome to see. I'm going to have to get me one of the new ones at some point soon.
I prefer capped turrets on an LPVO, so this is good. March is maybe the best precision-oriented LPVO, because of the parallax adjustment.
I think they are pretty close on the reticle.
I'd prefer the center dot to be closer to .6mil at 1x.
Also, the only things that should be in the 2nd focal plane are the thin lines and the center dot. The thick lines should be in the first so they move out of the way when you zoom in. As it stands it's just too thick.
Target at 700
I'd prefer the center dot to be closer to .6mil at 1x.
Also, the only things that should be in the 2nd focal plane are the thin lines and the center dot. The thick lines should be in the first so they move out of the way when you zoom in. As it stands it's just too thick.
Target at 700
Attachments
Looks good to me, since you presumably will be holding for wind. This is with just 5mph wind at 700M, high elevation.
Too each their own. I'd still prefer the thick lines in the first
Another thing that I like about the March lpvo is that it is still effective on 1x even if the battery dies due to the cross hairs being visible. My old Vortex 1-10 and other ffp lpvos that I have watched videos on tend to not be great on 1x without the battery powered red dot.
How important that is seems to be very subjective to the individual. I personally love it because I am a big believer in redundancy.
How important that is seems to be very subjective to the individual. I personally love it because I am a big believer in redundancy.
March is correct, at least based on my example. I believe the reviewer even said the same thing.My bad, I ASSumed based on a review video where it appeared pretty weak, and assumed it must have been updated since it is fiber dot. March claims that it was just the camera that made it look dim:
The crosshairs would still be visible at 1x. In fact the 1x sight picture would remain exactly the same. Under mag the thick posts would move away leaving only the thin center line.
Basically this shitty potato drawing. Represents Max mag @Happiness Is A Warm Gun top is current with thiccc lines in second. The bottom is a poor reputation of 1st
Attachments
I see what you are saying now. As crazy as it sounds for any other company, you could try emailing March with your comments and see what they say back. We know they listen!
How Bright?
Just used it at the IDARM match. July, high alt, arizona sunshine. Shooting in various directions.
Never had an issue seeing the dot.
Just used it at the IDARM match. July, high alt, arizona sunshine. Shooting in various directions.
Never had an issue seeing the dot.
That has been my experience as well. I have no idea where it got started that the red dot was not bright. Was it from the supersetca YouTube video? Or somewhere else?
I remember seeing a YouTube video about the aimpoint rds being almost totally blue in color on YouTube. Then when i bought one, it looked nothing like the video.
Last edited:
For those that are running one, how does the DR-TR1 reticle look behind the optic?
It looks like it may be a little busy, but possibly not?
It looks like it may be a little busy, but possibly not?
The reticle is my only complaint with the optic. It's not bad but I find lpvo to be more suited for the 'hits on target' not 'hits in a specific spot on target' and was quicker with the fc-dmx. The March reticles are a bit too much on the precision side for me.
Color me confused about your most recent statement. The dual focal plane (DR-TR1) presents a very simple reticle at 1X . The reticle in the FFP doesn't really become apparent until you reach about 4X and at that magnification, it is not obtrusive at all. It comes into its own at about 6X and grows from there.
I don't use LPVO's. At my age, I don't play those games for which the LPVOs are most suited, so you will have to excuse my ignorance. I would think that for your "hits on target", your LPVO would be set at less than 4X and probably closer to 1X or so, where the Dual Focal Plane only really presents a straight crosshair with the illuminated central dot, in other words, perfect for your stated needs. If you decide to crank up the magnification to obtain "hits in a specific spot on target", that's when the FFP portion of the reticle comes into play to assist you in this endeavor.
In other words, straight crosshair with dot when used for "hits on target" and more precise reticle at higher mags for the "hits in a specific spot on target." This is the inherent concept of the dual reticle and it's what this optics does, and does very well.
I think you're getting hung up on the images above, at 1X and 10X. There's a whole range between those two magnifications.
I'm not talking 1x I'm talking about how this reticle performs on a carbine or mid caliber gas gun while utilizing magnification. I understand it's purpose but it's overly complex compared to other offerings without providing any actual benefit. The very fine aiming points would do better in a more traditional scope with a larger objective lens.
I can use my atacr for the exact same things, under various magnification settings, but it's laid out in a more simple manner without sacrificing usability
Too be clear I'm not knocking it entirely-it does work.
Ok. I think I'm starting to catch your drift. I'm sure you are aware there are 2 DFP reticles available for this riflescope: The DR-TR1F, which is the one with the tree reticle in the FFP, and the DR-1F, which has a simpler crosshair in the FFP.
marchscopes.com
Look at the reticles.
D10SV24FDIMLN34 (Dual, MIL, Normal, Illumi) | MARCH Scopes | DEON Optical Design CorporationMARCH Scopes | DEON Optical Design Corporation
MARCH Scopes Official Site
marchscopes.com Look at the reticles.
I'm aware and have trigger time on the tree. It's an OK reticle. Excellent idea just mediocre executionOk. I think I'm starting to catch your drift. I'm sure you are aware there are 2 DFP reticles available for this riflescope: The DR-TR1F, which is the one with the tree reticle in the FFP, and the DR-1F, which has a simpler crosshair in the FFP.
D10SV24FDIMLN34 (Dual, MIL, Normal, Illumi) | MARCH Scopes | DEON Optical Design CorporationMARCH Scopes | DEON Optical Design Corporation
MARCH Scopes Official Site
Look at the reticles.
"Mediocre execution"? Are you kidding me? There are very few dual plane reticles because they require very high manufacturing standards. Certainly beyond "mediocre execution."
I get it, you have decided you do not like the tree reticle. This is exactly why there are two reticles available for this riflescope. Now if you think the tree reticle could be improved, it would be good to make specific suggestions.
I get it, you have decided you do not like the tree reticle. This is exactly why there are two reticles available for this riflescope. Now if you think the tree reticle could be improved, it would be good to make specific suggestions.
Mediocre execution. On both. I have offered opinions. March has been receptive. You are confusing mediocre execution for me saying poor quality which I am not. These reticles are the direct result of designers not understanding the assignment. The non-tree version shouldn't even exist in this class of optic. Simply put, a better understanding of how these are supposed to be used would fix a lot of issues with the many minor things reticle wise that add up to mediocre at best.
A perfect example of March not fully understanding the use was the immediate upgrade to the 1.5-15 after it was released. Do you actually have time on the 1-10? Iirc you said 'you don't use lpvo's' so I'm going to assume you have no actual time behind it to give an actual opinion in how it performs
