Rifle Scopes March FFP 1.5-15x42 MPVO Review and Comparison (w/ Nightforce and Athlon)

[Glassaholic]

Late last year March announced the coming of a brand new scope to the sport optics community, a scope that quite frankly many people were asking for, they wanted a MPVO that could rival the functionality of the 10x erector LPVO’s but offer a high magnification point usable for crossover and tactical applications with an offset RDS. I guess it should come as no surprise that the leader in high erector/short scope designs would be the first to bring such a unique design to the market. Let’s dive in and see how this scope compares to some other models available today.

WHAT IS A MODERN MPVO​

This term is relatively new. Most shooters are familiar with LPVO (Low Powered Variable Optic) made popular by 1-4x/1-6x/1-8x and now even 1-10x designs are becoming mainstream but all these optics have one thing in common, they start at 1x and their primary goal is to provide excellent performance characteristics at 1x with the top of the magnification being secondary. But what if the user wants a scope that’s primary goal is top magnification performance vs. bottom? Enter the Mid Range/Tactical Illuminated Reticle Dayscope or MR-TIRD which is not only a mouthful to say but, I don’t know about you, telling people I have a “Mr. Turd” on my rifle just doesn’t quite sound right. Anyway, the beginnings of this category used existing hunting designs in the form of the 3.5–10×40mm Leupold, a 2.5–8×36mm, and even a number of 3–9 designs made their way in as well, but then came 4x erector technology and eventually 3-12’s began to replace 3-9’s and even the venerable Nightforce 2.5-10x42 NXS was highly sought after. But all these scopes seemed to have various limitations in one form or another, either they were SFP designs, MOA only or some other function borrowed from the hunting world so that we never saw huge adoption from this design. Enter the modern Medium Power Variable Optic or MPVO, a scope that should meet the following criteria:

• Under 14 inches (preferably under 12 inches) – to work with clip-ons and be more aesthetically pleasing on shorter rifles
• Weigh less than 27 ounces (preferably under 25 ounces) – gas gunners and crossover shooters want to shave weight
• Maximum front objective of 42mm or smaller – to be streamlined and help decrease weight
• At most 2.5x of magnification at the bottom (preferably less) – usability with wide FOV for close and moving targets
• At least 10x magnification at the top (preferably more) – usability for distant shots and PID
• FFP optic – necessary for accurate holds throughout magnification range
• MRAD reticle that is usable at the bottom mag and usable at the top mag – because MRAD is the standard and the scope is used at both ends frequently
• Illumination that is bright enough to be seen during bright sun but also low enough to work with low light and NV gear (preferably with motion activation and auto-shutoff) – illumination may not always be needed, but it can sure help especially in high contrast and shadow situations

As you can see, once we start defining the criteria for this scope it really limits what is currently on the market as most fall short in some requirements while others fall short in many requirements with even fewer meeting all the requirements, this leads to many to compromise some feature which we’d prefer not to do. Thankfully a few companies are beginning to answer this call and March is one which is why it is the feature of this review.

THE SCOPES​

March FFP 1.5-15x42 - Athlon Helos BTR Gen2 2-12x42 - Nightforce ATACR 4-16x42
Why these scopes? Because the March is a 42mm design I wanted to compare with other 42mm designs and there aren’t many in the FFP world. The Nightforce is not an MPVO by definition but serves as the baseline for performance of a standard erector design while the Athlon represents a “budget” line made in China that would definitely fall into the more affordable category vs. the alpha class price of the March. So in some ways this is not a comparison of peers (since there are none to the March as of this writing), but a comparison of extremes. I had considered trying to obtain the new Leupold Mark 5HD 2-10x30 but being a 30mm objective I felt was too far away from 42mm and I do not feel the Leupold reticles are ideal from a true MPVO.
The March 1.5-15 FFP is the first MPVO to offer a 10x magnification ratio (March Genesis 6-60 and 4-40 are also FFP but dedicated ELR scopes not intended for lower power use). To give you an idea of just how small this scope is, here is a shot next to an ATI SAI 6 1-6x24

Ever since the Dark Lord of Optics (the Hide’s own @koshkin) introduced me to the March 3-24x42 over a decade ago, I have been fascinated with March’s shorter and lighter designs vs. most in the industry and the 8x erector ratio was icing on the cake. But with all things optics there are compromises, especially when trying to pack so much scope into a short body design so I chose the Nightforce ATACR 4-16x42 to serve as my baseline as this is a well-known optic within the community – known for its optical/mechanical excellence that when other scopes are compared to it, will give many a good reference of how they stack up, for better or for worse.

Keep in mind this evaluation is based on my own personal observations based on what my eyes “see” when looking through the scope. I pay meticulous attention when setting up my diopters for each scope making sure to fine tune them to my eye. My eyes are very sensitive to CA while some people cannot or have difficulty seeing CA when looking through the same scope. Everyone’s eyes are different, and my observations will undoubtedly be different from others. That being said, I try to be as objective as possible but, like all of us, do have my bias’, though I try my best to inform you of my own personal preferences so you can make judgement calls based on “your own preference”. It should also be noted that I am not paid by anyone to do these reviews, I do have some relationships with dealers and some manufacturers that help out some, but by no means am beholden to any particular manufacturer and those that I do work with are well aware of this.

SPECS​

The below specs are provided by the manufacturers which provide a good baseline for what these scopes offer. Highlighted in red is a potential drawback and in green is a potential benefit.

TURRETS​

This review does not cover the accuracy of each scope but covers the functionality – since any manufacturer is capable of producing a lemon it’s always a good idea to test your scope to ensure its mechanical accuracy.

Nightforce ATACR Turrets​

The ATACR line of scopes from Nightforce have a pretty good reputation for turret feel and the 4-16x42 with its large diameter 12 mil per rev turrets makes for a very pleasing experience, much better than the somewhat mushy and muted NX8 line from Nightforce. The Zero Stop/Lock button is unique among the ATACR line (and the cause for a lawsuit between NF and Leupold) but well worth it, I really like this feature that locks once you get to your zero and then the quick press of a button will release the turret. The actual clicks themselves are distinct albeit somewhat muted in audible response and there is slight wobble between clicks but the wide spacing make this turret pleasing to use. I like the fact that the elevation turret is somewhat low profile while the windage turret is capped.

March FFP 1.5-15x42 Shuriken Lock Turrets​

March has aptly named this unique turret locking mechanism “Shuriken” which is the Japanese term for what we would call a Ninja Star and these turrets perform on the same level, each click is very distinct and very audible with no noticeable play, in fact, it is my personal opinion that these turrets rival the Tangent Theta and Schmidt DT II+ design in overall performance – high praise indeed! But there’s more to this new turret than meets the eye, while the top of the turret resembles a ninja star a quick twist of this device reveals that it is an integrated locking mechanism, if you see white it is unlocked and if you see red it is locked and when it is locked nothing moves.

Athlon Helos BTR Gen2 Turrets​

The Athlon Helos BTR line is one of their budget line of scopes made in China. But to be honest, this scope impressed me both optically and mechanically. The clicks are very distinct and loud but there is slight movement back and forth; however, this did not cause any issue with trying to dial the solution at any time. My only issue with the turret is that it is somewhat tall but not overly so which should not be an issue for most shooters, just wish they would have put larger numbers on all that real estate.

Turret Mechanical Assessment criteria (ratings: = (equals) > (greater than) ranked highest to lowest):​

Turret Click Spacing Ranking: March 1.5-15 > Nightforce ATACR > Athlon Helos​

My rankings for turret click spacing have to do with both the distance between clicks and the resistance between those clicks (what I refer to as “tactile”). This is more or less a personal preference, but my hand feels better with wider spacing and good resistance but not so much that it’s difficult to turn or lends to over/under travel.

Turret Click Feel Ranking: March 1.5-15 > Nightforce ATACR > Athlon Helos​

This can be very subjective, but I am drawn to more distinct click feel and audible feedback with very little play between marks.

Turret Alignment Ranking: March 1.5-15 >= Nightforce ATACR > Athlon Helos​

I define turret alignment by the ability for the turret hash marks to fall directly on the indicator mark and not being offset while running the turret out to the extreme and back. Because of the nature of translating designs, they do rise pretty high above the center mark which gives a slight perception you are off mark if your eye is not perfectly centered. I much prefer the non-translating designs that do not rise and fall so preference is given for these designs. All three of these scopes utilize translating (rise and fall) designs.

Turret Reset Zero and Zero Stop Ranking: Nightforce ATACR > March 1.5-15 > Athlon Helos​

In order to reset zero on the Nightforce scope you have to loosen the side hex bolts on the turret housing, then spin the turret to align zero and re-tighten, this is typical of most long range scopes today. The Athlon offers a top coin/key screw that when removed the outer turret housing slips off and slips back on at zero, then simply re-tighten the top screw. March offers the coin/key adjustable zero stop mechanism that uses pressure; however, some may find an issue as this feature does not always stop below zero at the same spot – depending on how much torque you give it (with your fingers) you may stop short or overtravel from where you intended to set the actual stop. The Nightforce offers variable stop below the lock while the Athlon is fixed to about .6 mil below zero.

Total Travel Adjustment (Elevation) Ranking: March 1.5-15 @ 40 mrad > Athlon Helos @ 32 mrad > Nightforce ATACR @ 26 mrad​

Pretty self explanatory. There is variation of windage adjustment but as I almost exclusively hold wind with the reticle, this does not play a factor for me and therefore is not evaluated (however, the spec sheet above shows the exact amount for each scope for those who are interested).

Turret Locking Mechanism Ranking: March 1.5-15 > Nightforce ATACR > Athlon Helos​

The March Shuriken locking mechanism is one of the best I’ve seen as they allow you to turn the locking feature on or off with a mechanical plate separate from the turret housing itself; whereas, the locking mechanism of the Athlon uses a pull up to unlock and push down the turret to lock, this method can “fall” into lock depending on how you spin the turrets as well as causing a potential shift in POA when locking/unlocking. Nightforce offers the lock button which I really like but this only works at zero so isn’t a true lock with regard to hindering the turret from moving after you’ve set it to position.

Overall Turret Mechanical Assessment Ranking: March 1.5-15 > Nightforce ATACR > Athlon Helos​

A few years ago, Tangent Theta was simply the best of the best with regard to feel and function; however, I would say the S&B DT II+ and now the March Shuriken turret mechanism are encroaching on TT territory. I’d like to reiterate that my rankings are biased towards features, feel and functionality that I prefer so please keep this in mind – where I prefer more distinct sounding clicks you may prefer more muted clicks and would therefore rank other scopes in almost the opposite order in which I have.

MECHANICAL ASSESSMENT OF MOVING PARTS​

Besides the turrets you have other moving parts on a scope: the magnification ring, the parallax adjustment and an illumination module, which all require some type of adjustment. Sometimes manufacturers make the resistance too hard or too light. These parts are evaluated based on “resistance” which allows them to turn freely with two fingers, but not so loose that they could get bumped out of position accidentally. In addition, if resistance is so high that turning a dial would cause POA to shift - this would be considered a negative. Also keep in mind there may be QC/QA issues, these are samples of one and I have seen variance with different scopes at different times so while the scope in my review may have an issue (or not) it doesn’t necessarily mean you will observe the same.

Mag Ring, Parallax, Diopter and Illumination Mechanical Assessment criteria (ratings: = (equals) > (greater than) ranked highest to lowest):​

​

Magnification Ring Movement Ranking: Athlon Helos > Nightforce ATACR >= March 1.5-15​

The ideal magnification ring resistance (IMHO) is one that can easily be turned with two fingers – not so hard to turn as it may now affect your POA and not so light that a brush of your hand (or light bump into a barricade, branch, etc.) is going to change the setting. The Athlon was the nice surprise here offering what I’d consider the ideal mag ring resistance. The Nightforce and March weren’t far behind but required more effort to twist; however, I do not see an issue with POA change which is good.

Parallax knob Movement Ranking: March 1.5-15 > Nightforce ATACR > Athlon Helos​

The parallax on the March has the ideal resistance IMHO while the parallax adjustment on the ATACR was pretty light and adjustment on the Athlon was tighter than both but not bad enough that there would be POA shift when adjusting.

Parallax Forgiveness: March 1.5-15 > Nightforce ATACR > Athlon Helos​

What exactly is parallax “forgiveness”? I define this as how finicky it is to adjust the parallax dial in order to get parallax properly set for the distance to target from the scope, keep in mind the primary function of the “side focus” is to focus the scope at various ranges, but that dial will also set parallax. In a perfect world, when a scope is properly focused it should also be parallax free but this is not always the case and if you find that you get “in focus” sight pictures but parallax is “off” then you might try fine tuning the diopter slightly to see if that helps settle down parallax (or even improve IQ). Both the March and the Athlon showed excellent forgiveness while the ATACR was very good but required slightly more adjustment for closer targets.

Diopter Adjustment Rankings: March 1.5-15 > Athlon Helos > Nightforce ATACR​

The ATACR offers more of a traditional diopter adjustment that takes quite a few turns to adjust making it more difficult to find the ideal position for your eye. The March and Athlon offer a “fast focus” diopter allowing for quick adjustments, March and Nightforce offer a lock ring to help against slippage but it’s wise to use some kind of semi-permanent marker to mark the ideal setting for your eye. If you have not seen my PSA on setting up your diopter, it is attached, so you can look at the process to better set your diopter for your eyes (if you are used to the blank wall or blue sky method only you may be missing out on maximum performance of your scope).

Illumination Dial Features and Performance Rankings: Athlon Helos > March 1.5-15 >= Nightforce ATACR​

The Nightforce and March both feature a push button on/off method off the side focus dial; however, to adjust the Nightforce you have to keep pressing the button and it’s hard to know if you’re going up or down in brightness, but when you reach either the lowest or highest setting the reticle will flash and the next press will begin to go in the opposite direction; the NF is unique in that it can adjust between red and green illumination (part of the Digillum package) which can be switched by a long press of the side button, a slightly shorter press of the button will turn the illumination off. The March has a 6 setting dial off the side focus but it is situated in such a way that makes it somewhat hard to twist especially if you’re wearing gloves, for this reason I rank the March and Nightforce pretty close but give a slight edge to March as the ATACR push button adjustment is just not ideal IMO. One other feature to point out is that the March and Nightforce have an auto shutoff feature after 1 hour of use, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve forgotten to shutoff illumination only to find during my next shoot I have a dead battery, for this reason I carry a bunch of Duracell CR2032 batteries in my range bag so I wish all manufacturers would adopt some kind of illumination auto shutoff. The Athlon has my preferred method of adjustment with a ring on the outer dial of the side focus with on/off settings as you move throughout the range. My preference here is convenience over function which is what drives my rankings.

Illumination Daylight Bright, Coverage and Bleed: March 1.5-15 > Athlon Helos > Nightforce ATACR​

This particular March 1.5-15 has the dual focal plane reticle design which offers an SFP reticle which consists of a thick horizontal and vertical stadia lines which support a very bright fiber dot in the center, the scope also features a FFP reticle which offers the mrad spaced hash marks and tree. The Athlon comes up second brightest with easy daylight bright illumination across the entire FFP reticle; however, I did notice some slight bleed on the highest setting but it is not distracting. The Illumination on the NF ATACR is not daylight bright (oddly enough the Digillum on the NX8 is much brighter and it would be nice to see NF update the illumination modules in their ATACR series scopes), the whole FFP reticle lights up.

Overall Mag Ring, Parallax, Diopter and Illumination Mechanical Assessment Rankings: March 1.5-15 > Athlon Helos >= Nightforce ATACR​

When including everything above, I feel the March takes the blue ribbon here, part of the reason you pay the price for alpha class is superb mechanical performance and this is where I feel March delivers. Deciding between the Nightforce ATACR and Athlon is a more difficult decision as the ATACR also has a refined feel to it; however, this review is focused primarily on an MPVO type role and I feel the Athlon offers ever so slightly better functionality for that.

OPTICAL QUALITY​

I’m going to reiterate what I’ve written in past reviews as a reminder: One of the most difficult areas to assess with any manufacturer is the quality of glass they use in a given scope model, or rather, how the image looks to the shooters eye when viewing the sight picture through the scope. Traditionally when it comes to optics: one generally “gets what they pay for” and hence the higher end optics tend to have the higher end prices; however, with new design technologies we have seen some scopes punch above their weight class. It is impossible to take images through the scope to show the quality of the image to the shooters eye, this is because any image capturing device (e.g. camera) also has its own lens system which introduces its own optical aberrations and if the system is better aligned on one scope verses another it may throw off performance or rather the appearance thereof; therefore, you will not see any through the scope images (outside of showing the reticle) because I do not want to skew opinion based on IQ of one image over another. So, for this evaluation I took meticulous notes based on my naked eye observations under as best controlled conditions I could get outdoors. Scopes were tested at multiple magnification points: 2x, 4x, 6x, 10x, 12x, and 15x and a weighted average was obtained for the ratings below (I did not include 1.5x for the March and average for ATACR was between 4x-15x). Finally, I have separated out my evaluations on Pop and Edge to Edge sharpness with two separate criteria – close range using a test target and long range (> 500 yards), the reason being is that close range allows me to evaluate how well the scope can resolve a resolution target, contrast targets and color chart with as minimal effects from atmospherics while the long range testing gives more “real world” results – example, at close range edge to edge sharpness may look fairly poor when looking at letters, numbers and lines, at distance this effect may be diminished or appear less intrusive.

Optical Assessment criteria (rating: lower numbers are worse and higher numbers are best):​

Pop (Combination of Color, Contrast and Clarity) on resolution chart​

Pop is the ability for the image to really stand out and come alive. This is the overall impression your brain receives when first looking through the scope for any given magnification, keep in mind that some scopes have a better “sweet spot” than others, this sweet spot or the Goldilocks zone is where a scope performs best within its magnification range.

Pop (Combination of Color, Contrast and Clarity) at distance >500y​

How well does the overall image look when viewing objects at distance.

A special note on Pop/Contrast (what is micro-contrast anyway and why should you care)
Have you ever heard the term “pop”, or “wow” when someone looks through their first alpha scope, someone might say “that image really comes to life” or “there’s so much depth, it almost looks 3D”. These are all terms that relate to the ability of a particular scope to resolve something called micro-contrast. This is a term I’m familiar with from my professional photography days and it used to be that you could only gain this effect in your images by having a really good lens that actually resolved this detail, but these days you can enhance an image taken with an average lens through post processing; however, there is no post processing with riflescopes so it’s left to your eye to do all the processing of the image viewed through the scope which means to get that pop or wow, you have to have an optical formula that transmits that detail. But what is that “detail”, what actually defines that “pop”? This is where micro-contrast comes into play and if you watch some of ILya’s (@koshkin) videos you’ll hear him talking about micro-contrast. All optical/glass systems like riflescopes have this and an ideal description comes from - https://lenspire.zeiss.com/photo/en/article/micro-contrast-and-the-zeiss-pop-by-lloyd-chambers
Mr. Chambers writes: “Preserving the contrast of the subject matter is what makes an image look alive and real. High overall contrast with high micro contrast such as with ZEISS Otus lenses delivers what one might term “pop” or “3D rendering” or “brilliance” or the “bite” of fine details. High overall contrast and high micro contrast deliver a visual impact that is compelling. In low contrast conditions such as overcast skies, shadows at dusk, etc, it becomes even more important for a lens to deliver the maximum contrast, or the image looks even more dull and lifeless. In shade at dusk, I term this the “penetrating power” of a lens.”

This description is for a camera lens; however, the concept applies to riflescopes as well. In good daylight situations it might be very difficult for some to discern micro-contrast between scopes, especially with boring backdrops like steel plates stuck in brown dirt sitting in the bright midday sun; however, as noted above, when you get yourself into low contrast situations the lesser scopes begin to reveal their deficiency’s and when compared side by side you begin to see noticeable differences like being able to “see” into the shadows and discern more detail, is that a steel plate blending into the background or is it just a rock, is that a branch or the tine of that trophy buck or bull, that’s where scopes with better micro-contrast really come to life. In the long range community, you may have heard some say “this scope allowed me to see through mirage”, well no scope actually does that, it’s almost like saying my scope allowed me to see through fog; however, what these users are actually experiencing is scopes with better micro-contrast and while it may not allow them to “see through” mirage, it certainly helps to see more detail which gives that impression.

Contrast (High)​

My high contrast target has very bright white paper with very black lines, the numbers represent the smallest value I was able to discern.

Contrast (Low)​

My low contrast target has a gray background with darker gray lines, the numbers represent the smallest value I was able to discern.

Chromatic Aberration (CA) Center​

A hotly debated topic – CA, which is typically seen at the edges between high and low contrast objects in what is termed as fringing and usually comes in a band of color along the green/yellow and magenta/purple spectrum, some are greatly annoyed by this optical anomaly while others insist they cannot see it, one thing to know is it has little to do with your ability to hit a target, but can affect the clarity of the target (especially in lower light situations). I tested for both center CA and edge CA. One other area is CA sensitivity with lateral movement off the center of the scope, you can quickly induce CA in these situations which are often rectified by proper cheekweld/eye placement behind the center of the scope.

Chromatic Aberration (CA) Periphery/Edge​

Many scopes may have really good performance in the center of the image, but quickly fall apart as you move toward the edge of the image, better scopes will offer similar CA performance across all areas of the sight picture.

Color Accuracy​

If you’ve ever heard the term “it’s all in the eye of the beholder” that in large part describes the experience of color for each of us. It seems our eyes have different sensitivity to different parts of the spectrum and while I tend to prefer “warmer” images and am somewhat put off by “cooler” ones, others see colors differently. For some reason, most Japanese manufactured optics tend to be on the cooler side while many European optics tend to be more neutral to warm. For this reason I have always gravitated towards European optics; however, I am happy to say that March optics in general (not just this scope) have a color contrast that is much more in alignment with their European counterparts; likewise, the Vortex G3 and Nightforce ATACR have a neutral to slightly warm look that I like indicating the Japanese glass is finally catching on with what the European mfr’s have known for a while.

Resolution (Center)​

This is different from my line resolution testing, this is how “sharp” the image appears, I’m looking for details and the scopes ability to resolve those details.

Resolution (Edge)​

Same thing as center resolution but now I’m focusing my eye at the extreme edge of the sight picture and determining if there is any image degradation that occurs toward the edges. A scope can have very sharp center resolution but poor edge sharpness and it will give the user the impression that the overall IQ is not very good.

Resolution (Edge) at distance >500y​

I added in this test because I was beginning to notice that some scopes did not perform so well in the close testing but seemed to do better at distance, maybe it’s because I’m not using the edge of the scope as my POA but instead using it to pick up my target within the FOV, I still prefer a scope that has superb edge to edge sharpness, but found that some scopes did not bother me as much as I thought they would at distance even though they may show more distortion (at the periphery) than I prefer at closer distances, but outside of LPVO and some MPVO scopes, close distances are likely to not be a major issue with a scope designed for long distance.

Resolution (at max. Elevation)​

I set all scopes to 12x and dialed the elevation until it stopped at the top of the travel. This represents using your scope to the very limits of its usable travel. Obviously, some scopes have greater travel than others so keep that in mind. I also did not re-adjust parallax as I feel this is yet another area that takes time which could cause you to miss your game or lose time during competition, the idea here being “dial and shoot”, not “dial, fiddle, shoot”. You may disagree with my reasoning which is why I wanted to clarify my process.

Eyebox Forgiveness​

I have seen varied definitions of eyebox in the community, so to be clear, here is my definition which will help you understand what I am looking for – put simply, eyebox is the ability to be able to quickly obtain a clear sight picture when getting behind a scope. Yes, there is some relationship with exit pupil and eye relief, but there is more than that going on that allows a scope to have a forgiving eyebox. One thing to note with all these scopes, as magnification increases so does the finickyness of the eyebox.

Depth of Field (DOF) Forgiveness​

DOF forgiveness is the ability to have both near objects as well as far away objects appear “in focus” in your sight picture. An example would be to set your parallax at 500 yards and you notice that both an object at 200 yards as well as one at 1000 yards look relatively in focus. Something to keep in mind is that some scopes may have perfect focus but parallax is off and vice versa, if this happens to you try fine tuning your diopter a bit more, if still wonky send it back to the manufacturer and ask them to calibrate.

Parallax Forgiveness​

Similar to DOF forgiveness, you set your parallax at 500 yards and notice a target at 200 yards is parallax free, and a target at 1000 yards is also parallax free. If parallax is well controlled at 1000 yards, but I transition to 200 yards and notice a lot of movement then this would get a lower number value.

Focus Forgiveness​

How much, or rather how little, do you have to play with the side focus in order to get an object in focus as you change magnification. If I’m constantly having to adjust side focus to try and get the image “just right” that is not a good thing (for dynamic shooting sports and hunting) and so this situation would receive a lower number value.

Mirage (effect)​

This is another one of those terms that requires a definition. Mirage occurs because light bends to move through warmer, less dense air, this “bending” of light is the effect we see when our target appears to dance or wobble in the distance, we know the target is stationary but as the heat waves rise from the ground, the light is bent and gives the perception that the image is distorted. What I am looking for here is the ability of the scope to tame or limit the effect of mirage, within the community this is often referred to as “cutting through mirage” and some scopes handle this situation better than others. Keep in mind that my results were based on what I saw on the particular day I was testing; however, different atmospheric conditions can either decrease or increase the effect of mirage by quite a large margin.

Optical quality Test Results (higher numbers are better)​

RESULTS​

(To reiterate from above: Scopes were tested at multiple magnification points: 2x, 4x, 6x, 10x, 12x, and 15x and a weighted average was obtained for the ratings below (I did not include 1.5x for the March and average for ATACR was between 4x-15x).) Note: Testing at comparable magnifications is difficult because manufacturers markings aren’t always accurate and if you have to set between markings there’s an even greater chance magnification will be slightly off between scopes. It is pretty clear that the hands down winner from a purely optical standpoint is the ATACR; however, this should not really come as a surprise to those who know optics, the ATACR is a traditional (long) scope with only 4x magnification while the Athlon is shorter with 6x and the March shorter still with 10x erector. For those who’ve followed my reviews and posts over the years you know that I’ve tried to explain that while building shorter scopes with high erector ratios may be convenient and/or aesthetically pleasing, there are optical compromises that are made which is evident in the numbers above. This is a clear case of “you cannot have your cake and eat it too” and if you thought that, because you paid a lot more for the March, that it should perform on par with the less expensive scopes then someone should shove a little of that cake in your face like a surprised bride at her wedding. Seriously though, this is more about expectations which I’ll expound upon at the end of the review.

Field of View (FOV) in mrad​

We can look at most manufacturers specs and see that scope X offers XX feet at bottom magnification and XX feet at top magnification at 100 yards. This is great for knowing the extremes of your scopes magnification range, but what about in between, the results are not always linear. Some scopes have pretty poor performance at the bottom but end up doing much better than other scopes at the top (NF ATACR scopes are notorious for this). I should note that the diopter can have an effect on how much (or how little) FOV is seen; therefore, the results for each shooter with different eye corrections may yield slightly different values. My measurements here are from setting up each scope for my eye and then looking at the edge of the periphery where it meets the reticle to determine how much mrad of the reticle can be seen at a given magnification. Measurements were taken using the magnification indicator listed on the magnification ring and are prone to error due to mfr tolerance as well as my own ability to set perfectly. As such, take these values as a “general” rule, not as a hard fast rule - YMMV.

Mag	March 1.5-15	Nightforce ATACR	Athlon Helos*
4x	NA	NA	NA
6x	NA	NA	NA
10x	17.8 mrad	16.5 mrad	NA
12x	14.8 mrad	14.5 mrad	NA
15x	11.6 mrad	11.7 mrad	NA

* Athlon reticle does not extend to the edge of the sight picture throughout the mag range so no numbers were obtainable.

Low Light Evaluation​

I set all scopes to 12x to allow for a smaller exit pupil that will give my eyes a challenge in the failing light. From about 20 minutes after sunset, I begin testing both scopes side by side as the evening becomes darker and darker. These results are very subjective as the older I get the more my low light acuity has decreased. You may have very different results depending on your age and how good your eyes are. Keep in mind that you can always decrease your magnification to increase the exit pupil size to help in low light situations.

Resolution Line Chart (LPI)​

It’s one thing for me to look through a scope and judge resolution based on a 1-10 ranking, but it’s quite another to look at line/resolution chart and determine how many lines I’m able to resolve at a given magnification, my resolution testing above is a good “first impression” but the resolution chart does not lie and provides a more quantitative result (but still based on my own eye). For most results you’ll see a range – it is hard to resolve exact values with your eye and I would try to narrow it down as best I could but sometimes eye strain, perfect alignment, etc. would get in the way.

Other factors:​

Sight Picture (HD)​

• March 1.5-15: Good FOV but edge distortion takes away from overall experience
• Nightforce ATACR 4-16: Thick outer periphery but clean image overall
• Athlon Helos BTR Gen2 2-12: Really pleasing overall sight picture

Image/Reticle shift with magnification change​

• March 1.5-15: None perceived
• Nightforce ATACR 4-16: None perceived
• Athlon Helos BTR Gen2 2-12: None perceived

Focus Shift with magnification change (requiring parallax adjustment for best image)​

• March 1.5-15: None perceived
• Nightforce ATACR 4-16: None perceived
• Athlon Helos BTR Gen2 2-12: None perceived

Tunneling​

• March 1.5-15: None perceived
• Nightforce ATACR 4-16: None perceived
• Athlon Helos BTR Gen2 2-12: None perceived

Flare/Halation (direct sun on objective at 12x)*​

• March 1.5-15: None perceived
• Nightforce ATACR 4-16: Slight whiteout
• Athlon Helos BTR Gen2 2-12: Slight with minor eyebox misalignment

* Using a sunshade or ARD can significantly reduce flare.

Overall Optical Assessment Results: Nightforce ATACR > Athlon Helos > March 1.5-15​

Optically the Nightforce ATACR crushed it in these tests, but I knew going in this would likely be the case. As I mentioned above, the ATACR represents the more traditional design – it is a longer scope with the old standard 4x magnification/erector ratio. The March and Athlon represent newer designs that somewhat push the limits of optical performance in order to meet a different design criterion and as such their optical performance suffers as a result. Athlon took a bit more conservative approach and made their MPVO a bit longer which offers more opportunity for better optical performance which it delivers upon surprisingly well for its price point; however, if Athlon were to make a Cronus 2-12x42 with Japanese glass it might very well become one of the hottest MPVO’s on the market. March took an aggressive approach by offering the shortest scope on the market today (with a magnification up to 15x), not only that, they gave it an LPVO like 10x magnification/erector ratio which further stresses the optical design, but kudos to March for pushing the limits and giving many shooters what they had been asking for even if there are some compromises involved – simply put, there is no other scope on the market like the March so if you’re looking for something very unique and set your expectations appropriately I think you’ll be pleasantly surprised.

UPDATE 01/16/2024:
For the March 1.5-15x42: I was able to get out and do some more thorough testing with my resolution charts and such this past week and what I found surprised me, the resolution numbers were very close to the scope before I sent it in to March for the reticle upgrade, but what I'm seeing through the scope especially above 8x "appears" very different, the IQ just looks better and even next to the Athlon it looks better throughout. March has shared the following:

"Because the tree dots in the new reticle are larger, it may seem that the scope with the new reticle has a sharper image.
Also for FFP reticle replacements, we take out the inner parts and after we reassemble the reticle and parts, we readjust the image quality. We adjust the image quality to match the reticle. If the customer feels that the IQ of the returned scope is better, we are confident that the new reticle has had a positive effect."

Well I'm a believer, whatever they did has had a positive effect because my eyes like it much more than the previous experience with the original reticle. Maybe the adjustments to match the the reticle did the trick, but either way I am having a much better time with my 1.5-15 than previously and glad I opted for the reticle swap. I really love this Dual Focal Plane reticle and the daylight bright center dot, I'll be playing a lot more with this scope this year...

ERGONOMICS​

Overall Ergonomic Assessment Results: March 1.5-15 > Nightforce ATACR >= Athlon Helos
The overall ergonomic assessment is based on the features of the scope, how intuitive they are to use, how easy they are to manipulate. Location and function play a factor along with how smooth dials are to turn, etc. The layout of the March is just superb, from the knurling to the large numbers on the turret, the overall size and compact package. The Nightforce ATACR is one of the most well renowned sport optics in the industry and justifiably so, the scope is quality and offers great features like the unique zero lock button, the large turret numbers and hefty diameter is a plus, but if there was an area of critique it would be the rotating ocular that moves with magnification change (frustrating if you like flip caps) and the Digillum push button to change brightness – fix those issues in an ATACR Gen2 (with 6x erector) and we’re back in the game. The Athlon surprised me in how well it is setup and the overall feel, the scope definitely punches above its weight class.

FIT & FINISH​

Overall Fit & Finish Assessment Results: March 1.5-15 > Nightforce ATACR > Athlon Helos
What I’m looking for here is anodizing quality, how each piece interacts which each other, materials used and function as a working whole. Once again I think March edges out the competition, the scope exudes quality and craftsmanship, the turrets are a dream to use and everything is right where you want it to be. As mentioned above the Nightforce ATACR series kind of sets the standards for what a good scope should be, durability is felt at every turn with this scope (even if NF marketing has done a superior job of convincing the public that somehow their scopes are more durable than others), I also really like the nice matte black finish on this scope where many others offer a more “shiny” anodized finished which is the case for both March and Athlon. The Athlon brings up the rear here, but I was honestly surprised at how well I felt this Chinese scope was built and only time will tell if it can hold up to the rigors of daily use.

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly​

March 1.5-15x42
The new Shuriken (Ninja star) locking turrets are the real deal, these are Schmidt DT II+ and TT challengers. The scope is amazingly short and ideal for those interested in NV/Thermal clip ons and the scope does exceedingly well from 1.5-8x which is where night hunters will spend the majority of their time. The dual focal plane design is really unique and offers very bright daylight center dot illumination with a FFP design that lends itself to longer range shooting; however, the dots in the tree are unusable even at highest magnification (March has already designed a new reticle with thicker tree dots that will be available soon), but a different illumination dial design for easier manipulation of settings especially if wearing gloves would be welcomed. Finally, March needs to design non-translating turrets, that is - turrets that do not rise and fall as you spin them up or down, almost every manufacture not named Nightforce does that these days, I will likely harp about this issue until the cows come home.

Nightforce ATACR 4-16x42
This is probably one of the most sought after scopes for SPR/DMR style gas gun’s today and for good reason, it is very streamlined with excellent optical quality and mechanical features but it would be nice to get a daytime bright illumination module. Nightforce should invest in better multi-coating to help eliminate flare when the scope is pointed towards the sun, depending on position there can be significant flare and ghosting which shouldn’t be there at this price point, sure you can put on a sunshade or ARD to help eliminate this, but many will not be using that part for most of their shooting. Finally, they need to get rid of that rotating ocular. One final thought, Nightforce already has an NX8 line with an impressive 2.5-20x50 but for many this scope is too big and heavy, I’d like to recommend that NF consider a NX8 1.5-12x42 scope under 25 oz with a derivative of the FC-DMx reticle, that would shake things up a bit for sure.

Athlon Helos BTR Gen2 2-12x42
First off, use shorter names, just writing the above took twice as long as the March For the price of this scope there is really not much to complain about, it does everything it is expected to do at this price point and then some. I’d also like to see lower profile turrets that are non-translating. Finally, a Japanese Cronus version of this scope would be something that many would pay the additional cost for.

WHO IS IT FOR​

This is a new category for my reviews and allows me to draw some personal conclusions based on why I chose certain scopes to review and what I think was the design intent as well as who might benefit the most from the designs. Keep in mind this takes into account my own bias and not everything (or anything) I say here may be a conclusion that you would draw.

March 1.5-15x42
First and foremost, this is the scope this review was designed for and as such the primary focus was on a viable MPVO design. The March 1.5-15 certainly fits these criteria and does it in one of the shortest and lightest packages available making this scope an ideal candidate for those with a primary goal of night shooting with clip-on NV or Thermals. Aesthetically this scope is an ideal fit for gas gun platforms. But I can also see some within the hunting community being interested in this scope as well and that’s where things get a bit more tricky. If your goal is to have a superb 1.5-8x optic that has the ability to PID at longer distances or have the occasional desire to shoot above 10x then I think you’ll be pleasantly surprised, but if you think because you paid as much for the March as you did for your Swarovski and expect it to perform at 15x the same as your Swaro, well, I think you will be disappointed. * As is clear from my optical testing above, the scope struggles with IQ above 10x so for anyone wanting to spend the majority of their shooting above 10x I would likely recommend another design. So, what are you paying for if you’re not getting the same optical quality as other scopes at this price point with magnification up to 15x? Quite simply you are paying for the shortest, lightest, FFP MPVO scope available that has an incredible 10x magnification range, superb build and mechanical operation – there is nothing else on the market like it.

* UPDATE 01/16/2024: After the reticle swap the March is performing much better above 8x and I would alter my statement above to say that while the 1.5-15x42 is still not going to outperform an alpha class 4-16 or 3-15 scope at top magnification, the refinements March made to my scope definitely put it closer making the March a more viable option to shooters wanting a scope that pushes the extreme of optical engineering. I will shoot a lot more in 2024 with this scope and continue to update on my experience.

Nightforce ATACR 4-16x42
This scope is probably one of the most established and well-known scopes on the market today, its reputation precedes itself and there is not much I can say to add to that. This is a universal scope that is both at home on gas gun platforms, chassis rifles, hunting rigs, you name it. If the magnification fits your needs and you want a 42mm objective, there is really no better scope on the market today that is as versatile across platforms.

Athlon Helos BTR Gen2 2-12x42
Mostly due to the nature of the reticle designs, this scope is truly meant as an MPVO for gas gun rigs as well as those on a budget who would rather put money in their investment accounts than spend it on prime glass. That said, I do think this scope punches above its price with regard to optical and mechanical performance.

FINAL THOUGHTS​

In the end, my hope and goal are to give you enough information that can help you make a decision on which optic might be best for you. While the March 1.5-15 isn’t going to be replacing everyone’s Tangent Theta TT315M scopes, it does offer a unique design that is unrivaled in the marketplace today and those who set the proper expectations will likely be quite happy with everything this scope can do, but doing so much will also be a detriment that I’m sure many will disqualify it for and that is where some of the more traditional designs will come into play. I applaud March for taking on an entirely new design and pushing the limits of optical engineering and look forward to seeing how this will affect the MPVO market moving forward – will more manufacturers take note and finally give the MPVO market a shot with their own designs? Looks like ZCO is testing this out in the European market and maybe TT, Schmidt and Vortex might get involved. A couple manufacturers are using an OEM for a new 2.5-15x44 design; however, these scopes struggle with being a bit overweight or not offering mrad reticle/turrets, but maybe Zeiss LRP S3 will put there own spin on this design and come up with something viable for the FFP mrad crowd. The modern MPVO market is probably one of the most ignored markets from sport optics manufacturers but I think this will change in the coming years and we can thank March and Athlon and a few others for leading the way.

EDIT 01/16/2024: After additional testing with the March 1.5-15x42 after getting the DR-TR2B reticle upgrade I can say the scope is performing better with overall IQ, especially above 8x I notice a difference, the resolution has not changed but the overall image is more pleasing and easier for my eye making the experience behind the scope an improvement. I am enjoying this scope a lot more after the reticle change and will be curious my long term thoughts using it more this next year.

EDIT 09/12/2023: I posted this later in the thread but thought it was worth putting here:
The "market" perceives more is better, but this is not always the case, especially when it comes to optics. This is also an exercise in proper expectations - for example, thinking that the cheaper Nightforce NX8 2.5-20x50 is going to perform as good or better than the more expensive ATACR 4-16x42 is a bit unrealistic, but the perception is that the NX8 offers much greater magnification range so it "has to be better", but with high magnification erectors and short bodied scopes (NX8 series) there are compromises to the optical performance that must be made. If you understand those compromises, like finicky eyebox, DOF and parallax and potentially compromised IQ, and are willing to sacrifice those features for the overall benefit of the scope as a whole, I think you will be pretty happy, but if you go into this with the idea that the shorter scope with higher magnification is going to perform better optically vs the "older" design because it is newer then you will likely be disappointed. This is essentially what I tried to explain in my review of the March 1.5-15x42, in no way am I saying this is a "bad" scope, but if your expectation is for it to perform at the same level as other scopes that have a very different design criteria then I'd say your expectations may be askew and because of that your perception will be affected as well. No other manufacturer offers a FFP MPVO with 10x erector, there is nothing else to compare this to because March is the only one with a product like this, there isn't even an 8x erector product to compare to which is why I chose the 2-12, but a 6x erector is much more forgiving in design vs. a 10x erector.

As always, I am human, if you see any errors or issues with my review please let me know, I am always open to constructive criticism.

 

[Glassaholic]

UPDATE 09/12/2023: Steiner has entered the MPVO foray with their new H6Xi 2-12x42 (literally announced as I posted my review) which is an excellent example of how manufacturers focus primarily on the hunting community and ignore the competition/crossover community. The only reticle that Steiner has announced is a BDC reticle sick with MOA turrets. There is no Mil/Mil option which is what this scope needs to be considered in the competition/crossover community. Schmidt and Bender also came out with their 3-18x42 SFP scope and many are asking where is the 3-18x42 FFP mil/mil option which the crossover community would eat up, while not an MPVO this still serves as an example of how manufacturers seem to get close but not close enough.

 

[A.Redd]

Thank you for the review, I always look forward to them. It is a bit disappointing to read about the March optical qualities; I would have expected it to be a better optical performer. At this point, I would stay away from anything over an 8x erector. I owned the Schmidt 3-27 for a brief 3-5 days before I shipped it back to eurooptics for a refund.

 

[rhsc]

Nicely done! I particularly like that you chose to compare such disparate designs as doing so puts them all in perspective. They all sound like great scopes so long as you use them for what each is designed to do. The Athlon is the real surprise here, seeming to perform better than expected, and not by a little bit. I strongly agree that Athlon should make a Cronus version of this scope - that's something that I would be happy to spend the extra $$$ for. The only reason I have not bought the Helos is the fact it's made in China, and that hasn't been an easy decision because it ticks pretty much all the boxes for me otherwise.

 

[TheBigCountry]

Looks like I found my next budget scope in the Athlon.

 

[Burdy]

As always, great review. I was an early buyer of the March but cancelled my order shortly after release, my main issue was with the way the reticle design resolved. I ended up buying another Razor LH 4.5-22 instead to hold me over until something better comes along for my use case. I don't feel like I made a mistake at this point. As we have come to find out in the world optics, we can have a whole lot, we just, for some reason, can't have it all.

 

[Franko]

Thanks for the superb review. It is what makes the Hide such a great resource.

 

[jakelly]

Sounds like it would have been an awesome 3-12. Like the 3-24 might be the best 4-16.

And thank you so much for taking the time, Bill. You’re great.

 

[nrspence]

Great review, like you said hopefully this March scope push’s the market forward and we see other manufacturers come out with similar scopes.

 

[Bart]

Glass- a huge thank you for your time and effort-like Franco stated, you are one of the people that make this site great!
I have a couple of the athalon 2-12, and I like them but now I appreciate them even more
Thank you once again; this is a super informative review, made even better with the comparison scopes.

 

[db2000]

Another great review! Thanks for what you do. I have Helos G2 (that was quick to type ) in 420 and 624 and am pleasantly surprised how well I like them so far. They definitely punch above their class, even at their retail price. I paid $400 and $560 respectively and got $80 in OpticsPlanet bucks on the latter.
In fairness, I haven’t had much time behind the 420 but seems comparable to the 624. Like wine, whiskey and women, I might not be an expert but I like what I like.

 

[Thorbeast]

The 4-16x42 is my favorite ATACR, and one of my favorite scopes. It's such a easy and comfortable scope to use, the worst things about it are the rotating ocular (which isn't that big of a deal) and the illumination controls. It is kind of an odd scope, it's big and heavy for an AR, and not enough mag for a bolt action. It shouldn't be such a good scope, but it is. It's completely sufficient for both purposes, though you wouldn't think so. It just works better than it should based on the paper specs.

I wish NF would have scaled up the 4-16 for the other models. In my experience, it has better optics and a more comfortable user experience than the other ATACRs. I've always wondered if this was due to the 4x erector. Maybe the 5-25 should have been a 6-24, the 7-35 a 7.5-30? Both of those scopes tunnel at the bottom end anyway. I'm not seeing much of a difference between 30x and 35x. When would you need 35x and 30 wouldn't cut it?

I love the idea of the march (or a 1.5x nx8) but I've always been hesitant, thinking a true medium power scope (2.5-10 or 3-12) with red dot might be better for me, and I think you've made the case. A 3-12 ATACR with the fc-dmx at 22ishoz (basically a scaled down 4-16) would probably be my ideal medium power scope (and bring over the illumination and magnification controls from the 1x nx8). It's kind of crazy that I'm asking for a 3-12 when NF already make a 2.5-20. Just feels like NF tried to do too much with the NX8 scopes, they certainly have a place in the market, but I guess I value ease of use and consistent performance across the entire mag range, compared to an extremely wide mag range. I think that's what I like about the 4-16. Nothing changes from 4-16. No CA, no drop off in resolution, contrast or eyebox. I wish more scopes were like that, but that doesn't market well.

I'm really interested in seeing your thoughts on the 3-18 Steiner.

 

[BuildingConceptsllc]

As always, what a thorough and well done review. I am currently staying with my divide and conquer approach of one with a vortex gen3 1-10, (being the primary clip on rig) and the other with a LHT 4.5-22 (being the precision rig) and I think I will keep it this way for the time being. The March is really compact and fits so well on your ar , it's definitely tempting. Hopefully this design will do well enough to push the market forward and get something that does what March did here but with the optical performance a little closer to the atacr 4-16. If it weren't for the mag ring thing, daytime bright issue, and nf reticle I'd have a 4-16 but I also kind of got turned off of NV a few years back, which is off topic.

 

[jakelly]

The 4-16x42 is my favorite ATACR, and one of my favorite scopes. It's such a easy and comfortable scope to use, the worst things about it are the rotating ocular (which isn't that big of a deal) and the illumination controls. It is kind of an odd scope, it's big and heavy for an AR, and not enough mag for a bolt action. It shouldn't be such a good scope, but it is. It's completely sufficient for both purposes, though you wouldn't think so. It just works better than it should based on the paper specs.

I wish NF would have scaled up the 4-16 for the other models. In my experience, it has better optics and a more comfortable user experience than the other ATACRs. I've always wondered if this was due to the 4x erector. Maybe the 5-25 should have been a 6-24, the 7-35 a 7.5-30? Both of those scopes tunnel at the bottom end anyway. I'm not seeing much of a difference between 30x and 35x. When would you need 35x and 30 wouldn't cut it?

I love the idea of the march (or a 1.5x nx8) but I've always been hesitant, thinking a true medium power scope (2.5-10 or 3-12) with red dot might be better for me, and I think you've made the case. A 3-12 ATACR with the fc-dmx at 22ishoz (basically a scaled down 4-16) would probably be my ideal medium power scope (and bring over the illumination and magnification controls from the 1x nx8). It's kind of crazy that I'm asking for a 3-12 when NF already make a 2.5-20. Just feels like NF tried to do too much with the NX8 scopes, they certainly have a place in the market, but I guess I value ease of use and consistent performance across the entire mag range, compared to an extremely wide mag range. I think that's what I like about the 4-16. Nothing changes from 4-16. No CA, no drop off in resolution, contrast or eyebox. I wish more scopes were like that, but that doesn't market well.

I'm really interested in seeing your thoughts on the 3-18 Steiner.

Mark my words. Eventually the FFP scope market will mature and seek perfectly executed 4x, 5x, and even 3x erector ratios instead 7x, 8x, and 10x. It doesn’t work as well. It’s the belted magnum of our generations optics designs. The logic that had us seeking FFP and reticles that match the turrets is in direct contradiction to the logic that has us asking for 10x ratios.

 

[Burdy]

Mark my words. Eventually the FFP scope market will mature and seek perfectly executed 4x, 5x, and even 3x erector ratios instead 7x, 8x, and 10x. It doesn’t work as well. It’s the belted magnum of our generations optics designs. The logic that had us seeking FFP and reticles that match the turrets is in direct contradiction to the logic that has us asking for 10x ratios.

I am 100% in agreement here. The problem is, I can tell you, having talked with scope manufactures, and hoping to have a little bit of pull...the scope manufacturers don't want to go "backward." It's a fear that it will not sell to the general public because on paper it looks like regression. I am not saying that's an unfounded fear from their standpoint, but nevertheless that is the major roadblock that prevents us from getting what we know would functionally be superior.

 

[jakelly]

Yeah, it’s going to take some time. The scope companies are bureaucracies, one man over another and everyone afraid for their job. Not exactly an environment for risk taking.

We’ve brought in a huge amount of new shooters to extended distance shooting, which is great. They are looking at stats and reviews and looking to buy one tool that can “do it all” and is cheap. It’s a fool’s errand.

I shoot. I hunt. I use these scopes on the points, in the thickets, at night, and every other scenario when pursuing game. I’m fully aware of the costs, I’ve fully desensitized my wife, and am not looking for one stop solutions. Eventually the new guys are going to understand what real world performance is worth pursuing.

 

[Bart]

"I have fully desensitized my wife".
That, Sir, is baller. And a goal.
Much respect.

 

[Glassaholic]

Thank you for the review, I always look forward to them. It is a bit disappointing to read about the March optical qualities; I would have expected it to be a better optical performer. At this point, I would stay away from anything over an 8x erector. I owned the Schmidt 3-27 for a brief 3-5 days before I shipped it back to eurooptics for a refund.

I too had the Schmidt 3-27x56 for a short while, I expected/hoped for more, but similar to the 1.5-15 from March, the scope was designed to meet a particular goal and even if optically inferior it meets a goal that few other scopes can. I think the March 1.5-15 will fill a similar niche, it is not a scope for everyone but for those who love or need to live on the edge and require the extreme will make it work for them. Because the MPVO market is so limited at this time with little that is viable, meeting all the criteria, that alone could drive some towards the 1.5-15 simply because they is so little available.

 

[Glassaholic]

Nicely done! I particularly like that you chose to compare such disparate designs as doing so puts them all in perspective. They all sound like great scopes so long as you use them for what each is designed to do. The Athlon is the real surprise here, seeming to perform better than expected, and not by a little bit. I strongly agree that Athlon should make a Cronus version of this scope - that's something that I would be happy to spend the extra $$$ for. The only reason I have not bought the Helos is the fact it's made in China, and that hasn't been an easy decision because it ticks pretty much all the boxes for me otherwise.

Thanks, I really debated on whether or not to do something like this but glad I did. I think it's helpful to use a well known scope to serve as a baseline to give others a better idea of what to expect. I'm doing the same thing with my Steiner T6Xi 3-18x56 review.

I share your thoughts on buying Chinese, I do not like supporting the CCP and I'm frustrated that so many American scope companies still OEM out of China, but they do it for one reason - they're cheap and many Americans want cheap, or as is the case today under the current economic crisis we face, many have difficulty being able to afford better.

 

[Glassaholic]

The 4-16x42 is my favorite ATACR, and one of my favorite scopes. It's such a easy and comfortable scope to use, the worst things about it are the rotating ocular (which isn't that big of a deal) and the illumination controls. It is kind of an odd scope, it's big and heavy for an AR, and not enough mag for a bolt action. It shouldn't be such a good scope, but it is. It's completely sufficient for both purposes, though you wouldn't think so. It just works better than it should based on the paper specs.

I agree and also think "it works better than it should". Not many Nightforce scopes have piqued my interest due to some issue or another, be it narrow FOV at the bottom as is the case for the 5-25 and the most recent ATACR the 4-20.

I wish NF would have scaled up the 4-16 for the other models. In my experience, it has better optics and a more comfortable user experience than the other ATACRs. I've always wondered if this was due to the 4x erector. Maybe the 5-25 should have been a 6-24, the 7-35 a 7.5-30? Both of those scopes tunnel at the bottom end anyway. I'm not seeing much of a difference between 30x and 35x. When would you need 35x and 30 wouldn't cut it?

I think that may be a factor, the 4-16x42 being a 4x erector while all other (long range) ATACR's have 5x erectors. But I'd also say that scope manufacturing and optical formula's have improved since the 4-16 was released, even the ATACR 7-35 is fairly well known to offer better optical performance than the 5-25. When NF announced the 4-20 I really thought it was going to be "the replacement" for the 4-16 that many were waiting for but the weight and the tunneling/narrow FOV at 4x just didn't make sense (it was designed for a mil contract which likely has something to do with that). For these reasons I think the 4-16x42 continues to be such a good seller, and will be until we see an ATACR II 3-18x42 or similar.

I love the idea of the march (or a 1.5x nx8) but I've always been hesitant, thinking a true medium power scope (2.5-10 or 3-12) with red dot might be better for me, and I think you've made the case. A 3-12 ATACR with the fc-dmx at 22ishoz (basically a scaled down 4-16) would probably be my ideal medium power scope (and bring over the illumination and magnification controls from the 1x nx8).

The Bushnell LRHS 3-12x44 I think was the closest to this - it was made by LOW, same OEM that makes ATACR's and others. The LRHS/LRTS scopes punched above their class, but they were long scopes when the market seemed to be pushing for shorter and shorter which is what I think limited their appeal.

It's kind of crazy that I'm asking for a 3-12 when NF already make a 2.5-20. Just feels like NF tried to do too much with the NX8 scopes, they certainly have a place in the market, but I guess I value ease of use and consistent performance across the entire mag range, compared to an extremely wide mag range.

I was surprised NF went with an NX8 before an NX6 as well. I was an early adopter of the NX8 2.5-20 and was really disappointed but reviewed a newer version last year that rectified a lot of the optical abnormalities my early version had. Not sure if it's QC issue or if NF actually modified the optical formula for better performance in later models. But high erector plus short scope usually ends up in compromises mostly to the eyebox, DOF and finicky parallax department.

I think that's what I like about the 4-16. Nothing changes from 4-16. No CA, no drop off in resolution, contrast or eyebox. I wish more scopes were like that, but that doesn't market well.

You got it - it doesn't market well for today, but I think many don't realize what they are giving up to get shorter scopes with higher mag ranges. I think there's a reason why TT and ZCO (and NF) have stayed around 5x for their top scopes. The new Vortex G3 6-36 is the first 6x scope I've seen that comes close to matching the performance of the alpha class in all these areas and it sounds like the new S&B 6-36x56 may actually exceed them but I'm waiting for ILya's review on these top high magnification scopes to find out if that is really the case, either way, sounds like Schmidt's non-USA 6-36 could really shake things up.

I'm really interested in seeing your thoughts on the 3-18 Steiner.

I will try to get this out sooner rather than later, but even though I re-use some of my notes in each review, there is still a lot of specific write up that takes time.

 

[Glassaholic]

I am 100% in agreement here. The problem is, I can tell you, having talked with scope manufactures, and hoping to have a little bit of pull...the scope manufacturers don't want to go "backward." It's a fear that it will not sell to the general public because on paper it looks like regression. I am not saying that's an unfounded fear from their standpoint, but nevertheless that is the major roadblock that prevents us from getting what we know would functionally be superior.

I think this "fear" is what limits a lot of designs from manufacturers, many simply don't want to take the risk until the market has been proven. I would also say that SWFA has done a really good job of making some amazing 3x designs, you can get some amazing bang for the buck with a 3-9 scope. To use another market for comparison, look at the photography world, yes, there are some great high magnification zooms (my 5x Nikon 24-120 f/4 S still impresses me every time I look at images from it) but the "best" zoom lenses are still the 2.9x f/2.8 zooms like the 24-70 and 70-200. Why has none of the big manufacturers tried to come out with some amazing 4x f/2.8 zooms - would there be a market, would photographers be willing to pay the extra price?

 

[Burdy]

I think this "fear" is what limits a lot of designs from manufacturers, many simply don't want to take the risk until the market has been proven. I would also say that SWFA has done a really good job of making some amazing 3x designs, you can get some amazing bang for the buck with a 3-9 scope. To use another market for comparison, look at the photography world, yes, there are some great high magnification zooms (my 5x Nikon 24-120 f/4 S still impresses me every time I look at images from it) but the "best" zoom lenses are still the 2.9x f/2.8 zooms like the 24-70 and 70-200. Why has none of the big manufacturers tried to come out with some amazing 4x f/2.8 zooms - would there be a market, would photographers be willing to pay the extra price?

I'm a prime guys myself, only 2 lenses, 50 f/1 and 30/2.8 macro. I zoom with my legs.

 

[jakelly]

I think this "fear" is what limits a lot of designs from manufacturers, many simply don't want to take the risk until the market has been proven. I would also say that SWFA has done a really good job of making some amazing 3x designs, you can get some amazing bang for the buck with a 3-9 scope.

That 3-9 is great, and always sold out. I think I have 6 or so of them. I wish they’d update the reticle, cap the windage, and include some 3D printed zero stop shims. Then make a 4.5-14 big brother.

 

[Glassaholic]

Yeah, it’s going to take some time. The scope companies are bureaucracies, one man over another and everyone afraid for their job. Not exactly an environment for risk taking.

No it's not, especially in this economy, for established companies they want products they know will have significant ROI and I think that means continue with the status quo. I would look toward the "new" companies - those trying to break into the market to do something crazy, like a 10-30x56 that offers unparalleled optical performance for 1/3 of the price of alpha glass. If you could get a 10-30 that was optically as good as a TT 5-25 for 1/3 the cost would you at least be interested, I think I would.

We’ve brought in a huge amount of new shooters to extended distance shooting, which is great. They are looking at stats and reviews and looking to buy one tool that can “do it all” and is cheap. It’s a fool’s errand.

I agree, sadly this is how many scope manufacturers market their "cheap" lines - to the less informed who look at spec sheets and don't know the difference between okay glass, good glass and great glass.

I shoot. I hunt. I use these scopes on the points, in the thickets, at night, and every other scenario when pursuing game. I’m fully aware of the costs, I’ve fully desensitized my wife, and am not looking for one stop solutions.

Having a supportive wife is crucial to success

Eventually the new guys are going to understand what real world performance is worth pursuing.

I think that "eventually" is longer for some and shorter for others. I think the guy who walks into Bass Pro Shops with a budget of $400 is going to be pretty disappointed (but maybe not, sometimes you don't know what you don't know). It's only until you begin using your gear a lot in real world situations that you begin to realize or recognize that what looked good enough under the fluorescent lights of a brick and mortar is struggling to give you similar performance in the field. I think what may be happening with the rise of competitions is they go with their budget scope and struggle to even find a target that someone else had no issue finding, so we hear comments like, "I was at a comp and using scope A but couldn't find a target in situation X, but looked through scope B and was able to pick it up no problem". What competitions have done is open the door for a lot more shooters to see for themselves different gear that's not readily available, this is also why we get so many questions here on the Hide which reference "best scope for $1500" and the like. The good news is there are so many options at so many price points these days, I think there are good options for almost every budget - will there be some compromises, most likely, but level setting your expectations up front is wise.

 

[UNRL Ghandi]

I personally wouldn't have minded if they made this scope longer and/or 6-8x erector to get better optically quality. I should have mine back from Japan this month with the new reticle installed.

I like that March pushes the limits and tries new stuff but I'd love to see what they can do with a more 4-16x ATACR approach. Could they make a 3-15x or 4-20x high master wide angle focusing on optical quality first, then compactness? Give me best in class FOV on the low end and a nice clear image high end. If it weighs 36oz because they have to make it longer/bigger well that's why they make carbon wrapped barrels, titanium actions, 26 oz chassis, and push ups.

 

[mercracing]

I’m happy with mine. I plan to use mine for hunting and it will do well for that.

 

[jakelly]

@Glassaholic
When you and others keep doing honest reviews and putting these designs to the test, you do move the needle toward better understanding.

Would I be interested in a 10-30x56 with Alpha glass that’s noticeably cheaper? Yes, very. Would I actually prefer that scope to a 5-25x56? Definitely. Would I be interested in a top tier 2.5-10x40, 2.5-8x32, or 3-9? Yes, very.

 

[Glassaholic]

I personally wouldn't have minded if they made this scope longer and/or 6-8x erector to get better optically quality. I should have mine back from Japan this month with the new reticle installed.

I like that March pushes the limits and tries new stuff but I'd love to see what they can do with a more 4-16x ATACR approach. Could they make a 3-15x or 4-20x high master wide angle focusing on optical quality first, then compactness? Give me best in class FOV on the low end and a nice clear image high end. If it weighs 36oz because they have to make it longer/bigger well that's why they make carbon wrapped barrels, titanium actions, 26 oz chassis, and push ups.

March has made a name for themselves with short, light and high magnification. They broke that mold with the 4.5-28x52 using their first 6.2x erector and thats still my favorite March optically. Id love to see more with this erector but as you say, dont worry about size, pursue optical excellence. This is part of how ZCO came on the scene and stole the show, they didn't care about shortest and lightest, they wanted to make a superb optical/mechanical performer and they succeeded with their 4-20 and 5-27. I would love to see March put out a 6x or less scope that absolutely crushes it optically- don’t worry about being too short or too light, focus on giving it extremely forgiving eyebox and edge to edge sharpness.

 

[UNRL Ghandi]

I’m happy with mine. I plan to use mine for hunting and it will do well for that.

That's what I bought mine for and for where I hunt the 1.5-8x is going to do what I need taking an animal but I had hoped for a clearer image high end for observation purposes and for range time. I'm still debating on what I'll do with mine when I get it back. If I keep it I might move it to an AR platform to replace an LPVO.

 

[UNRL Ghandi]

March has made a name for themselves with short, light and high magnification. They broke that mold with the 4.5-28x52 using their first 6.2x erector and thats still my favorite March optically. Id love to see more with this erector but as you say, dont worry about size, pursue optical excellence. This is part of how ZCO came on the scene and stole the show, they didn't care about shortest and lightest, they wanted to make a superb optical/mechanical performer and they succeeded with their 4-20 and 5-27. I would love to see March put out a 6x or less scope that absolutely crushes it optically- don’t worry about being too short or too light, focus on giving it extremely forgiving eyebox and edge to edge sharpness.

Agreed. Call it the March FX SUMO line and let it compete optically throughout the whole magnification range with the big boys.

 

[mercracing]

That's what I bought mine for and for where I hunt the 1.5-8x is going to do what I need taking an animal but I had hoped for a clearer image high end for observation purposes and for range time. I'm still debating on what I'll do with mine when I get it back. If I keep it I might move it to an AR platform to replace an LPVO.

I have a Vortex G3 1-10 that I compare this to. I prefer the March because it gives me an extra 5x on the top end to see things better farther out. My current hunting situations don't allow for long distance shots, but I like being able to see things up close.

 

[TheBigCountry]

That 3-9 is great, and always sold out. I think I have 6 or so of them. I wish they’d update the reticle, cap the windage, and include some 3D printed zero stop shims. Then make a 4.5-14 big brother.

I think it was covered earlier that SWFA is in the middle of revamping the line and they are gonna be out within the next year or less, if I remember correctly.

 

[steve123]

Yes a very concisely written article, great job!

I've been super happy with my HG2 2-12's for what they are. I have the March DFP shorty 1-10 to compare with and playing with each in a side by side it makes me like the HG2's all the more. If this March didn't have 1x for self defense and a daylight bright dot I couldn't justify keeping it. There's still alot to like about my 1-10 so I'm keeping it.

I thought long and hard about buying the March in this article but after owning some other short March scopes, which are the 3-24x42 and the 5-42x56, I discovered my old eyes don't abide the optical compromises well.
Oddly my March Genesis 4-40x52 doesn't bother me??!! Maybe because its always optically centered since its external adjust, I don't know?? I'm keeping the Genesis too.

I heard from a reliable source at Athlon that some wishes we have for a Jap scope in a lightweight MPVO-ish form factor will likely be fulfilled in 2024. Oh boy, aye! Don't quote me though because I'm unsure what exactly they will come out with.

Not relevant to this thread but I got one of Athlon's new Ares ETR 15-60x56 target scopes and it has killer IQ. It honestly blew me away. I bring this up because if they can pull off anything close to it in a Jap MPVO that would be awesome.

 

[Faith7]

Thank you for the review, I always look forward to them. It is a bit disappointing to read about the March optical qualities; I would have expected it to be a better optical performer. At this point, I would stay away from anything over an 8x erector. I owned the Schmidt 3-27 for a brief 3-5 days before I shipped it back to eurooptics for a refund.

Agreed regarding the March.

 

[Faith7]

I too had the Schmidt 3-27x56 for a short while, I expected/hoped for more, but similar to the 1.5-15 from March, the scope was designed to meet a particular goal and even if optically inferior it meets a goal that few other scopes can. I think the March 1.5-15 will fill a similar niche, it is not a scope for everyone but for those who love or need to live on the edge and require the extreme will make it work for them. Because the MPVO market is so limited at this time with little that is viable, meeting all the criteria, that alone could drive some towards the 1.5-15 simply because they is so little available.

Thanks for another excellent review, Glass.
That said, I would not be willing to spend the money on this March for a magnification range that does not deliver superbly in virtually any department at all magnification ranges.
Now, for someone else, it may be worth it, so no problem there.
Again, thank you! F7

 

[steve123]

March has made a name for themselves with short, light and high magnification. They broke that mold with the 4.5-28x52 using their first 6.2x erector and thats still my favorite March optically. Id love to see more with this erector but as you say, dont worry about size, pursue optical excellence. This is part of how ZCO came on the scene and stole the show, they didn't care about shortest and lightest, they wanted to make a superb optical/mechanical performer and they succeeded with their 4-20 and 5-27. I would love to see March put out a 6x or less scope that absolutely crushes it optically- don’t worry about being too short or too light, focus on giving it extremely forgiving eyebox and edge to edge sharpness.

I totally agree!

I'm still trying different brands out here and there.
I bought a FFP Vortex Razor LHT 4.5-22x50 because I needed a really lightweight scope to go on a heavy rifle I use in offhand stages at a match I go to. For the money this scope costs, and the flagship designation of "Razor", I'm very disappointed in it.
The elevation turret has a lot of lash until locked down and because of that it doesn't go down into the locked position until I align the marks, also only 6 mil per turn which I thought I would be okay with, nope lesson learned. The windage turret reminds me of one on a $200 scope.
And glass definitely more like a scope half the cost/$1999 retail.


Looking back I wish I had dished out the extra money and got the March 4.5-28 even though its a bit heavier.

 

[Faith7]

March has made a name for themselves with short, light and high magnification. They broke that mold with the 4.5-28x52 using their first 6.2x erector and thats still my favorite March optically. Id love to see more with this erector but as you say, dont worry about size, pursue optical excellence. This is part of how ZCO came on the scene and stole the show, they didn't care about shortest and lightest, they wanted to make a superb optical/mechanical performer and they succeeded with their 4-20 and 5-27. I would love to see March put out a 6x or less scope that absolutely crushes it optically- don’t worry about being too short or too light, focus on giving it extremely forgiving eyebox and edge to edge sharpness.

I hope March is reading what you say here, Glass. Weight was, I think, the first thing that attracted me to the March line. But I have since cared less about weight and much more about optics (and general performance).

 

[Tictacticaltimmy]

I feel like March has some impressive accomplishments in their lightweight 10x erector scopes. What I would like to see is them dial back the radical design just enough to get better performance, but still be significantly lighter than the competition.

I wonder how big of an optical improvement March could get if they turned the 1.5-15 into a 2-16 and allowed it to be 1" longer and 1oz heavier?

 

[UNRL Ghandi]

I feel like March has some impressive accomplishments in their lightweight 10x erector scopes. What I would like to see is them dial back the radical design just enough to get better performance, but still be significantly lighter than the competition.

I wonder how big of an optical improvement March could get if they turned the 1.5-15 into a 2-16 and allowed it to be 1" longer and 1oz heavier?

Yeah my biggest gripe with FFP scopes combined with 8-10x erectors is the reticle becomes unusable without illumination on the low end. I want smaller low end magnification for larger FOV so if they can make a 3-15x with the FOV equivalent of a 2x by using their wide angle lenses and keep the reticle manageable in FFP with a 5x or 6x erector then I'd be in heaven. that's the sweet spot I'm looking for. Thought the DFP version would solve the reticle issue on a 10x erector but just missed. It was a good try though. I mean they did solve the reticle problem because DFP works great, optical quality just suffered on this model so maybe if it was a bigger scope maybe we'd have a winner.

 

[Faith7]

I feel like March has some impressive accomplishments in their lightweight 10x erector scopes. What I would like to see is them dial back the radical design just enough to get better performance, but still be significantly lighter than the competition.

I wonder how big of an optical improvement March could get if they turned the 1.5-15 into a 2-16 and allowed it to be 1" longer and 1oz heavier?

This sounds like a plan. Or even make the scope a couple of ounces heavier. I am not personally concerned with ultra-short (some may be), but weight.

 

[Burdy]

This sounds like a plan. Or even make the scope a couple of ounces heavier. I am not personally concerned with ultra-short (some may be), but weight.

Once it's short enough to get a small clip on in front with a 10" handguard I'm not sure what the point of being any shorter is.

 

[Faith7]

Once it's short enough to get a small clip on in front with a 10" handguard I'm not sure what the point of being any shorter is.

Copy. For my simple applications, again, ultra-short does not translate to value or need.

 

[Earnhardt]

Great review man!
Thanks!

 

[Glassaholic]

Once it's short enough to get a small clip on in front with a 10" handguard I'm not sure what the point of being any shorter is.

So what do you think a realistic length limit would be, are we talking 13" overall or less, or could you get by with a little over 13"?

 

[Burdy]

So what do you think a realistic length limit would be, are we talking 13" overall or less, or could you get by with a little over 13"?

12" or less is probably most ideal. Maybe you could get away with 13". The 14.2" of the LRHS is too long.

 

[DJL2]

Thank you for the review, I always look forward to them. It is a bit disappointing to read about the March optical qualities; I would have expected it to be a better optical performer. At this point, I would stay away from anything over an 8x erector. I owned the Schmidt 3-27 for a brief 3-5 days before I shipped it back to eurooptics for a refund.

I love March and that they push the boundaries on things... but, you have to choose your compromises. I'd venture that the March F 3-24x52 is a better performer optically - so how much do you need that 1.5x on the bottom? Yes, the 1.5-15 is super compact and one ounce lighter and comes with the better turrets - does that make it worthwhile? Maybe. It comes down to your must haves... different for everyone.

 

[DJL2]

I feel like March has some impressive accomplishments in their lightweight 10x erector scopes. What I would like to see is them dial back the radical design just enough to get better performance, but still be significantly lighter than the competition.

I wonder how big of an optical improvement March could get if they turned the 1.5-15 into a 2-16 and allowed it to be 1" longer and 1oz heavier?

If March really started crushing the 8x ratio that brought them to prominence for a lot of shooters, they'd still be well ahead of where conventional design is right now with 5x and 6x erectors. I feel like their FX 5-40 / 5-42 line was targeted on just that and it could be something to really focus and expand on. Granted they're still killing it with top notch stuff - plenty of match winners out there with March on their rifles, just not necessarily the Hide's preferred sort of matches (for which the FX 4.5-28 remains criminally under rated).

 

[Franko]

In my humble opinion March compromises too much to get their ultra high erector ratios and shortness. I like my 4.5-28 and think similar levels of compromise could bring us a really nice Dual Focal Plane 2.5-15 or 3-18 optics. I wanted to buy the 1.5-15 for a hunting gun but am going to hold off after reading about the kinds of compromises the optic came with.

 

[DJL2]

The March F 3-24x52 is arguably a very, very nice 3-18x optic with a great reticle in the TR1H... it just happens to say 24x on the mag ring ;-).

At 25 ounces you have March, Sightron, Vortex, and Leupold... not sure I can think of anyone else giving you a FFP scope with mil/mil in that weight class... and those four are all over the place in terms of feature set.

I worry that the FX 4.5-28 is a case of giving shooters a well optimized optic that delivers on what they said was important... and not getting traction... which means we can safely be ignored as group for not knowing what we want or not following through. ;-)

 

[Faith7]

The March F 3-24x52 is arguably a very, very nice 3-18x optic with a great reticle in the TR1H... it just happens to say 24x on the mag ring ;-).

At 25 ounces you have March, Sightron, Vortex, and Leupold... not sure I can think of anyone else giving you a FFP scope with mil/mil in that weight class... and those four are all over the place in terms of feature set.

I worry that the FX 4.5-28 is a case of giving shooters a well optimized optic that delivers on what they said was important... and not getting traction... which means we can safely be ignored as group for not knowing what we want or not following through. ;-)

I am not understanding the last two lines. Thank you.