Rifle Scopes March 3-24x42/52 FFP FMA-1 ILL Ret. / 2-25x42/52 MTR3 ILL Ret. - Personal experience?

[grizzlestomp]

Hey everybody,

Many thanks to all for the guidance in my previous post to help pick out a specific scope.

I have narrowed it down to the four below. Does anybody have any experience with these specific scopes and reticles? Specifically, I know some people have complained that certain reticles in FFP scopes get huge at max magnification. I was hoping someone out there might have experience with the March FFP scopes who could weigh in on the effectiveness of their reticles.

I picked the MOA versions just because that is what I'm familiar with. More concerned generally with how the reticle actually looks at min/max magnification, and there is no way I'm aware of to actually look through one where I am located (Southern California).

Will be used with modified version of GAP Hunter - Templar SA, 6.5 GAP 4S, 24" Bartlein Sendero barrel, APA Little Bastard. Primarily for hunting 50-600 yards, but would like the option to reach out to 800+ if my skills and the conditions make that a possibility in the future.

Also, feel free to weigh in on the 42mm vs 52mm objective debate. I'm hoping I can get away with the lower profile 42mm objective, but if anyone has experience and I need the 52mm I'm willing to shell out the additional cash.

March 3-24x42 ILL. FMA-1 Reticle

March 3-24x52 ILL. FMA-1 Reticle (Out of stock at bullets.com)

March 2.5-25x42 ILL. MTR3 Reticle

March 2.5-25x52 ILL. MTR3 Reticle

 

[koshkin]

Well, first decision you have to make is whether you want a FFP reticle or a SFP reticle. You list both as options and you kinda need to decide this.

If you plan to use the reticle for holdover, correcting your own shot impact, etc, you have to go FFP. Personally, I am squarely in the FFP camp, but both reticle types work and it is a personal preference.

Between 42mm and 52mm objectives, it really comes down to how much time you are going to spend at magnifications above 16x or so. If you tend to use high magnification a lot, definitely go with the 52mm objective. If you will only use high magnification occasionally for, 42mm shoudl work fine.

Same argument for low light: if you will be shooting in low light a lot, a larger objective helps.

Aside from that, these are all very nice scopes. I have a fair bit of mileage with them and like them quite a bit. I do not use high magnification all that much, so for my personal purposes, I prefer Tangent Theta TT315M to any of these, but that is a personal preference. For people who want higher magnification available in a very compact package, March is an excellent option.

ILya

 

[grizzlestomp]

Well, first decision you have to make is whether you want a FFP reticle or a SFP reticle. You list both as options and you kinda need to decide this.

Between 42mm and 52mm objectives, it really comes down to how much time you are going to spend at magnifications above 16x or so. If you tend to use high magnification a lot, definitely go with the 52mm objective. If you will only use high magnification occasionally for, 42mm shoudl work fine.

ILya

How does the size of the objective depend on the time spent at high magnification. Do the higher magnifications result in reduced light transmission?

 

[mpk1996]

I have the march 3-24x42 but in mil/mil ret on a 6.5 saum. I had read the reviews about the eyebox and what not, and I personally haven't had any issues with it. I really like it for its size and weight. its exactly what I wanted in that regard. the glass is sharp and clear, so no complaints about that. even the parallax isn't as bad as these forums would lead you to believe. I have had zero issues removing parallax shooting out to 1000 here in the florida heat. the scope has tracked well, lining up with my previous data/scope setup. the 52 will pull more light, but at the cost of weight and length. I'm happy with mine and don't plan on getting rid of it. its perfect on top of my 22" 6.5 saum

 

[scf]

I have both the March 2.5-25x42 and 2.5-25x52. Both are illuminated with MTR 4 reticles. I highly recommend the SFP scopes if you intend to dial your holdovers. The lower end of your magnification range will be more useful. The 52mm will get you a few more minutes of time early and late but I can not quantify the amount. When I bought my 42mm the 52mm was not available, went with 52 on the second scope and have no regrets. Both are excellent light weight hunting scopes and will serve you well to 800 yards and far beyond. Both have large amounts of available vertical. If you intend to hold over on the reticle then the FFP scopes are your best choice.

 

[koshkin]

How does the size of the objective depend on the time spent at high magnification. Do the higher magnifications result in reduced light transmission?

It is an exit pupil issue. A 52mm objective simply provides for a larger exit pupil and at high magnifications it makes an appreciable difference.

ILya

 

[grizzlestomp]

Quick question about the Zero Stop feature on the tactical dials. I read on the March website (or one of its distributor's websites) that the zero hold function is only designed to work in some portion of the elevation range. It suggested a 20 MOA rail. Can anyone explain this?

 

[Clearlight]

Zero stop is very simple and reliable . First , zero rifle at chosen distance .
Turn centre spindle in elevation turret with coin or flat blade screwdriver
clockwise til it stops and your zero stop is set . Couldn’t be any easier .

 

[Hairy Biker]

You do not want your scope operating at the extreme of its travel. An elevated rail keeps the scope closer to the optical centre for a greater number of ranges. So if you are shooting a slow bullet at long range regularly, a rail that is more than 20 degrees is a worthy investment. But the trade off is that you might not get a 100 metre zero!