Rifle Scopes March 5-42 Gen 2 PRS Edition – FML-WBR or FML-MT? Seeking feedback from those who've switched from tree reticles

[zenm@ster]

Hey, fellow shooters, looking for insights from those who’ve transitioned from a Christmas tree-style reticle to something more minimal. I’ve been shooting both centerfire and rimfire for 2 years, and I've done 3 PRS-style events using a tree-ish ZCO MPCT3X, Zeiss ZF-MRi, and Kahles SKMR4+. I'm now considering the March 5-42 Gen 2 PRS Edition, but I'm stuck between the FML-WBR and FML-MT reticles.

From what I gather:

• FML-WBR is a purpose-built PRS reticle by Brandon Rudge—clean, open-dot design, no top vertical stadia, .2/.5 MIL spacing.
• FML-MT is a minimalist MIL-style FFP reticle—thin lines, center dot, and seemingly better suited for precision than quick transitions.

Having only used Christmas tree reticles, the theory is that I will gain speed, clarity, and less clutter on target by switching. Would love to hear from anyone who has used both or gone tree → no-tree—especially in the 5-42 March. How does your split time, speed, or hit observation change? Do you miss the tree for fast holdovers, or does simplicity trump the Christmas tree?

Thanks for any thoughts, clips, or mental models!

 

[R_A_W]

Non-tree, shooting SKMR+. I cannot imagine ever going back to a tree.

FML-WBR is one of the best reticles available, it's the obvious answer if you're set on a March. My only (subjective) knock is it should have 2.0mil above center, as I routinely shoot >1.0mil hold unders

FML-MT is a terrible reticle, like most March reticles

 

[zenm@ster]

Thanks for the feedback. I am considering a K540i DLR as well. Good to hear you have had a good experience with the SKMR+. What Kahles are you running and what has been your experience with it?

 

[R_A_W]

k540i & very happy with it.

Glass is excellent & I completely underestimated how much I'd like the huge FOV. My opinions expressed here haven't changed much, the only thing I'd add is the K540i also performs exceptionally for a high magnification scope in poor lighting.

 

[CK1.0]

I’ve been shooting non-tree reticles for over a year now, first with Leupold’s PR3-MIL (fantastic reticle IMO, too bad the MK4HDs aren’t as fantastic), then with ZCO’s MPCT-1X (which is awesome and what I’m still running). I haven’t missed having a tree even once.

Now, when I look through tree reticle it seems almost like the glass/view is partially blocked/obstructed.

I’d go with the FML-WBR if I was getting the March (but arguably the MPCT-1X is still a little better due to giving a little more hold-under).

 

[Bevan]

Ah the winds of fashion, how they change

 

[beetroot]

Ah the winds of fashion, how they change

Shooting styles have changed, smaller targets and longer stage times means you can (and need to) take your time on shots.

The IPRF 22 championship in August was much faster than most people were used, meaning a tree reticle came in handy.
If things carry on in that direction then a tree reticle will basically become a requirement again.

 

[beetroot]

In the last 2 years of shooting have you ever used the tree in your reticle?

If not, then you wont be missing anything and will have the advantages you listed.
If so, then you will be giving up something.

I’m still in the camp of better to have and not use (often), than not have but need.
I don’t like grid reticle (Horus, Mil-XT, etc) as they do obscure a lot of the target, but a normal tree reticle doesn’t obscure anything in the centre of the reticle, so it’s not a problem.

 

[kthomas]

Shooting styles have changed, smaller targets and longer stage times means you can (and need to) take your time on shots.

The IPRF 22 championship in August was much faster than most people were used, meaning a tree reticle came in handy.
If things carry on in that direction then a tree reticle will basically become a requirement again.

Back when I was shooting a lot of PRS comps, stage designs almost necessitated the use of tree reticles. It was certainly an advantage, which is why they were so popular.

Doesn't seem to be the case anymore.

I have scopes with trees and without. Both work. I don't really have a strong preference for either, but I'm also not really shooting any comps these days.

 

[beetroot]

Back when I was shooting a lot of PRS comps, stage designs almost necessitated the use of tree reticles. It was certainly an advantage, which is why they were so popular.

Doesn't seem to be the case anymore.

I have scopes with trees and without. Both work. I don't really have a strong preference for either, but I'm also not really shooting any comps these days.

Yeah it used to be really common, then went out of fashion.

The IPRF really took me (and many others) by surprise as it was very different to the style of shooting we had been doing the last 2 years.

Just need to bring back unsupported shooting and we will have gone full circle.

 

[Lastsaint21]

You need options in PRS.. The Straight limits your options. Some of the Tree's miss the mark too in Rimfire. Say your are dialed for 200, so somewhere around 6 mils..and your next hold is 1.1. And say you have a 10 mph wind.. on some trees, you are in the part of the tree that doesn't have much wind hold there anyway.. All that being said, the tree still gives me more options..