• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

March 4.5 28 and SB 320 owners I need advice

mjwilcox38

Private
Minuteman
Dec 7, 2021
98
21
North Carolina
I have a SB320 that I bought from Euro Optic as a DEMO this year, and it keeps breaking after I get it back from service. Looking at other scopes for rifle and the March looks interesting. Can someone that owns both tell me how the March 4.5 28 stacks up to the SB 320 optically?

How much of the March 4.5 28 bottom end of magification is usable? If you have used both of these scopes I would like your feedback to how they compare.. if both cost the same? Which one would you re-buy?
 
I'm not sure I understand your question about the bottom end of magnification being usable. The March-FX 4.5-28X52 HM runs from 4.5X to 28X and it's all usable. The FOV at 4.5X is almost 30 feet at 100 yards, which is huge for that magnification. I'm sure is smaller than the FOV of the S&B 3-20 @ 3X. But you can't compare 3X to 4.5X for FOV. On the other hand, the March has an FOV at 4.5X that as wide or wider than regular 4X scopes. Glassaholic has done some extensive testing and reports on the March-FX 4.5-28X52 compared to Tangent Theta. You might want to review that.


And you might want to review this recent thread.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: camocorvette
I have read his review and he didn't rate the 4.5 and the 10 power which is why I asked if it was usable at the bottom end. An example would be at 3 power on a 320 you can't see the reticle. I'd like some who has used both to give me there comparison.
 
Thank you, that was helpful. Do you own any other Alpha tier glass that you could personally compare your March scope with? I am just curious what others see when looking through a March.
 
What sort of ongoing issues have you had post service?
The clicks on the elevation turret continue to go mute and the parallax will not stay calibrated. Something about a metal hardness issue with production. I am awaiting Germany's contact I want them to just replace the scope. I bought it as a DEMO from Euro Optic.
 
The clicks on the elevation turret continue to go mute and the parallax will not stay calibrated. Something about a metal hardness issue with production. I am awaiting Germany's contact I want them to just replace the scope. I bought it as a DEMO from Euro Optic.
But my reason for this was to ask question about how March glass stacks up agains top tier manufactures. I know about the review with numbers for ratings but I wanted to talk to someone that owns March and one of the others ZCO, SB, TT to get thoughts.
 
OP, I had a friend ask almost this same question last week and this is how I responded. I’ve had both these scopes but surprisingly I’ve never had these two scopes together at the same time for any testing so take this with a grain of salt as it is purely conjecture based on independent experiences of both. I would say the Schmidt US 3-20 and March 4.5-28 compliment each other pretty well, meaning - performance characteristics between both scopes run pretty close. Eyebox, DOF and parallax fairly similar with maybe a slight edge to Schmidt. Optically, I’ve always felt the Schmidt fell off somewhat above 15x and think the 4.5-28 would actually perform better here. The March is shorter than the Schmidt making it more ideal for clipon use even though 4.5x might be a bit high, because of wide FOV I’m still able to see full screen of my Steiner C35 thermal and magnification does not appear to be pixelated at that mag. My final thoughts would be this - if you need 3x at the bottom the Schmidt is the obvious choice, if you don’t need 3x at the bottom the March IMO offers a better overall design. In the end I’d be happy with either scope. One last thing, I did not like at all the 18 mil DT35 turrets that Schmidt offers, in fact, I feel those are the worst turrets Schmidt has created to date, while the DT II+ turrets are their best. The March turrets on the original 4.5-28 are really good while the new Shuriken lock are superb, almost Tangent like in quality. Illumination on the US and March are about on par, neither are daylight bright by any stretch of the imagination but adequate when light gets low. At the current reduced price of the 4.5-28 I would not hesitate to say this is highly recommended.

Regarding reticle, neither are going to give you anything precise at bottom magnification. How do you plan on using the rifle at bottom mag? Are you tracking coyotes running by at 20 yards away kind of thing or?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Obi-WanKannoli
OP, I had a friend ask almost this same question last week and this is how I responded. I’ve had both these scopes but surprisingly I’ve never had these two scopes together at the same time for any testing so take this with a grain of salt as it is purely conjecture based on independent experiences of both. I would say the Schmidt US 3-20 and March 4.5-28 compliment each other pretty well, meaning - performance characteristics between both scopes run pretty close. Eyebox, DOF and parallax fairly similar with maybe a slight edge to Schmidt. Optically, I’ve always felt the Schmidt fell off somewhat above 15x and think the 4.5-28 would actually perform better here. The March is shorter than the Schmidt making it more ideal for clipon use even though 4.5x might be a bit high, because of wide FOV I’m still able to see full screen of my Steiner C35 thermal and magnification does not appear to be pixelated at that mag. My final thoughts would be this - if you need 3x at the bottom the Schmidt is the obvious choice, if you don’t need 3x at the bottom the March IMO offers a better overall design. In the end I’d be happy with either scope. One last thing, I did not like at all the 18 mil DT35 turrets that Schmidt offers, in fact, I feel those are the worst turrets Schmidt has created to date, while the DT II+ turrets are their best. The March turrets on the original 4.5-28 are really good while the new Shuriken lock are superb, almost Tangent like in quality. Illumination on the US and March are about on par, neither are daylight bright by any stretch of the imagination but adequate when light gets low. At the current reduced price of the 4.5-28 I would not hesitate to say this is highly recommended.

Regarding reticle, neither are going to give you anything precise at bottom magnification. How do you plan on using the rifle at bottom mag? Are you tracking coyotes running by at 20 yards away kind of thing or?
I use my desert tech for target shooting and hunting. Maybe 7 power at lowest. I have the DT2 turrets and they are a great design, just do not work properly. Euro Optic is currently out of the new March scopes with the new turrets, so may have to back order.
 
I use my desert tech for target shooting and hunting. Maybe 7 power at lowest. I have the DT2 turrets and they are a great design, just do not work properly. Euro Optic is currently out of the new March scopes with the new turrets, so may have to back order.
Thank you for that info.
 
OP, I had a friend ask almost this same question last week and this is how I responded. I’ve had both these scopes but surprisingly I’ve never had these two scopes together at the same time for any testing so take this with a grain of salt as it is purely conjecture based on independent experiences of both. I would say the Schmidt US 3-20 and March 4.5-28 compliment each other pretty well, meaning - performance characteristics between both scopes run pretty close. Eyebox, DOF and parallax fairly similar with maybe a slight edge to Schmidt. Optically, I’ve always felt the Schmidt fell off somewhat above 15x and think the 4.5-28 would actually perform better here. The March is shorter than the Schmidt making it more ideal for clipon use even though 4.5x might be a bit high, because of wide FOV I’m still able to see full screen of my Steiner C35 thermal and magnification does not appear to be pixelated at that mag. My final thoughts would be this - if you need 3x at the bottom the Schmidt is the obvious choice, if you don’t need 3x at the bottom the March IMO offers a better overall design. In the end I’d be happy with either scope. One last thing, I did not like at all the 18 mil DT35 turrets that Schmidt offers, in fact, I feel those are the worst turrets Schmidt has created to date, while the DT II+ turrets are their best. The March turrets on the original 4.5-28 are really good while the new Shuriken lock are superb, almost Tangent like in quality. Illumination on the US and March are about on par, neither are daylight bright by any stretch of the imagination but adequate when light gets low. At the current reduced price of the 4.5-28 I would not hesitate to say this is highly recommended.

Regarding reticle, neither are going to give you anything precise at bottom magnification. How do you plan on using the rifle at bottom mag? Are you tracking coyotes running by at 20 yards away kind of thing or?
Thank you for that info
 
I use my desert tech for target shooting and hunting. Maybe 7 power at lowest.
Looking at the FML-TR1 reticle at 7x I think it is very usable at this power.
I have the DT2 turrets and they are a great design, just do not work properly.
Do you mean there is a manufacturer defect, or that DT II+ turrets in general do not work for you?
Euro Optic is currently out of the new March scopes with the new turrets, so may have to back order.
None of the new Shuriken lock turret versions have been shipped yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chasing3
Looking at the FML-TR1 reticle at 7x I think it is very usable at this power. Thanks

Do you mean there is a manufacturer defect, or that DT II+ turrets in general do not work for you? I'm not thinking a manufacturer defect. I just think I got a Lemon.

None of the new Shuriken lock turret versions have been shipped yet. Ok. Thanks
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chasing3
I own the March and used to have the S&B 3-20 US. There isn't too much more I can say that @Glassaholic hasn't covered but here it is:
  1. The TR-1 reticle on the March works better for my eye on the low end vs the Schmidt Grid reticle (I'm a middle aged guy with middle aged eyesight)
  2. The DT++ turrets on the Schmidt are better than the turrets on the March. However, I have the old model so the new turrets might be an upgrade.
  3. The wide FOV on the March is really nice
  4. Optically (and from memory) I'd say they are pretty much neck and neck
  5. Fit and finish I'd say the Schmidt is the winner
Overall, I really like both the optics and the reticles. I went with the March as it's lighter, shorter, has more top end magnification, and is significantly cheaper. If I was shooting under night vision I would go with the Schmidt or even the new March 1.5-15.
 
Just bought a March from Europtic for a discounted price. Shot it today and very impressed. I had a S&B US 3-20 and wanted a ZCO 4-20 but the March on spec provided a better FOV and higher magnification. After using, I am very happy with the March FX 4.5-28 with FML-TR1 reticle. The reticle was great at all magnifications for my intended purposes. I would not hesitate to buy, considering it’s price vs current S&B new prices.
DF93BC47-5310-41A9-8F43-816BCAE0072C.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Man.... That's crazy SB can't get that figured out. Are they going to swap it? I would be sending that back to euro for a refund
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chasing3
LoL, I am still a fan of the S&B, just can’t find another I can afford. I think you, @Huskydriver, are buying up all the good used discounted US’s. I’ll just have to make it with my March. Ironically enough, the first high end optic I bought was a March 3-24x52. Liked the scope a lot, but the reticle was too thick, FML-1. This reticle in the 4.5-28 is great. Much better than S&B GR2ID for my intended purposes, lMHO.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: Huskydriver
LoL, I am still a fan of the S&B, just can’t find another I can afford. I think you, @Huskydriver, are buying up all the good used discounted US’s. I’ll just have to make it with my March. Ironically enough, the first high end optic I bought was a March 3-24x52. Liked the scope a lot, but the reticle was too thick, FML-1. This reticle in the 4.5-28 is great. Much better than S&B GR2ID, lMHO.

I'm actually stocked up on SB scopes for right now but @MOUNTIC I think has a 320 with dtii turrets he's letting go
 
So first of; i don't have a lot of time behind the S&B... And i don't have a whole lot of time behind the March. But... With the S&B i was like "ok, that's nice!". And when i had the March on the range for the first time i was like "Wow". That said, the S&B feels like a tank. With the March i feel like it's a bit more "fragile". Just from a very subjective haptic feedback. This doesn't mean it actually is "fragile". It feels finer, more like a fine instrument. What really sold me on the March is the field of view!! It's just awesome.

In the end i guess you would need to get your own hands on the March, have a look through it (on the range!) and then decide if it's the one for you. The only issue i noticed with all my March scopes is the sunshade loosening from shooting (piston AR). But that's a minor issue and fixable with a dab of blue loctite.
 
I have a March 4.5 x 28 and just bought a second one. I have 2 S&B Polar T96 3 x 12's and a Minox ZP5 5 x 25. I have also had and sold an S & B 5 x 25 PMII, a ZCO 4 x 20. I can honestly say that to my eye, the glass on all of them is very comparable. I can't imagine that you would be disappointed with the March because of the quality of the glass. For the size and weight and price it is hard to beat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Convex
I have a March 4.5 x 28 and just bought a second one. I have 2 S&B Polar T96 3 x 12's and a Minox ZP5 5 x 25. I have also had and sold an S & B 5 x 25 PMII, a ZCO 4 x 20. I can honestly say that to my eye, the glass on all of them is very comparable. I can't imagine that you would be disappointed with the March because of the quality of the glass. For the size and weight and price it is hard to beat.

How does your March perform in low light conditions compared to your other scopes--especially the Polar T96?
The designed smaller exit pupil is what's keeping me from pulling the trigger on it.
 
Last edited:
I will try and get out at sunset this week and let you know. I haven't put the two of them next to each other as sun was going down to really tell you how many minutes later thr polar wins by. I don't hunt with the 4.5 x 28 so it isn't really an issue. But I will get back to you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scottyman
Was able to compare the Polar T96 3-12x54, USO ER-25x58, March 4.5-28x52, and Minox ZP5 5-25x56. Sunset was 7:50, sunny day, maybe an eighth of a moon. Setup 2 tripods and rotated rifles in and out. Was looking at cows at 1200 yards and horses from 50 to 150 yards away. Generally I had the scopes set to 10 power. The Polar does not have parallax on the version I have. Sat out there looking from 7:15 to 8:30. The Minox and Polar were the last 2 standing. The March got dark first. The image at 1200 yards on 10 power looked a little farther away than the other three even when it was still pretty light out. The USO hung surprisingly close to the Minox and at 20x the scope edges really disappeared more than the March or Minox. To my eyes the USO was a better picture than the March and not as good as Minox, which surprised me, although it's huge so I guess ot shouldn't have been that surprising. But all three were still very good and the March went dark maybe 10 minutes earlier. Comparing to the Polar is not really fair because they are very different magnification wise. I would say if you don't care about size, get a Minox. If you want a scope to go hunting with that's smaller and lighter the Polar is great, or save some money and get a Meopta. But their is nothing wrong with the March, although you do lose something to get that compact package.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Glassaholic
Let me see. The USO ER-25 5-25X58 has a 58mm objective.
The S&B T96 Polar 3-12X54 has a 54mm objective.
The Minox ZP5 5-25X56 has a 56mm objective.
The March-FX 4.5-28X52 has a 52mm objective.

So you compared the brightness @ 10X in 4 different scopes all with different objective sizes and the one with the smallest objective was the least bright one @ 10x.

There is a reason why stating the proper specs of a riflescope is important; just using the magnification range is incomplete, you need to reveal the objective lens size. Then we know what the comparison is all about.
 
Just trying to answer Scottyman's question. My bad for assuming everyone in is familiar with the objective lens sizes in the scopes compared. While it is true that the March, with the smallest objective lens (52mm) was the least bright, the USO with the largest objective lens (58mm) was not the brightest.
 
I get what you are saying about a direct comparison. My main point is that I think not properly referencing the riflescopes when they are used in a comparison, is a disservice to the reader. Assuming that everyone is familiar with the objective lens sizes in the scopes compared is misplaced; I seriously doubt that, but then again, it's entirely possible I am the only one who didn't know any of the sizes beyond the March's. I did guess the Minox's at 56mm. The one that surprised me was the USO at 58; that's big, the biggest of the lot, and one of the biggest ever. I know of some 60s (Sightron), and I've heard of some 72s (Airbus?). But the vast majority are 56 or less. I also thought the S&B would be 56 also, but it surprised me at 54.
 
I get what you are saying and agree. My post would have been more informative had I referenced the objective lens size of the scopes I compared at the request of Scottyman (well two of the scopes were at his request, I added the others for my own knowledge). In hindsight I think I also could have done a better job with the way I organized the information in the post. Definitely not my best writing. Fixed original post to reflect objective lens size. And full refunds offered to readers.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: Rookie and Denys
OP, I had a friend ask almost this same question last week and this is how I responded. I’ve had both these scopes but surprisingly I’ve never had these two scopes together at the same time for any testing so take this with a grain of salt as it is purely conjecture based on independent experiences of both. I would say the Schmidt US 3-20 and March 4.5-28 compliment each other pretty well, meaning - performance characteristics between both scopes run pretty close. Eyebox, DOF and parallax fairly similar with maybe a slight edge to Schmidt. Optically, I’ve always felt the Schmidt fell off somewhat above 15x and think the 4.5-28 would actually perform better here. The March is shorter than the Schmidt making it more ideal for clipon use even though 4.5x might be a bit high, because of wide FOV I’m still able to see full screen of my Steiner C35 thermal and magnification does not appear to be pixelated at that mag. My final thoughts would be this - if you need 3x at the bottom the Schmidt is the obvious choice, if you don’t need 3x at the bottom the March IMO offers a better overall design. In the end I’d be happy with either scope. One last thing, I did not like at all the 18 mil DT35 turrets that Schmidt offers, in fact, I feel those are the worst turrets Schmidt has created to date, while the DT II+ turrets are their best. The March turrets on the original 4.5-28 are really good while the new Shuriken lock are superb, almost Tangent like in quality. Illumination on the US and March are about on par, neither are daylight bright by any stretch of the imagination but adequate when light gets low. At the current reduced price of the 4.5-28 I would not hesitate to say this is highly recommended.

Regarding reticle, neither are going to give you anything precise at bottom magnification. How do you plan on using the rifle at bottom mag? Are you tracking coyotes running by at 20 yards away kind of thing or?
Glass,
The remark on the new Shuriken turrets was assisting. I owned the original model and would be curious to try the new ones. Thanks. F7