It's good to hear mine wasn't the only one improved after the swap. I'm considering this scope to maybe, just maybe, be that unicorn I had been searching for most of my adult life. You know the one that sits atop 90% of my rifles. I really can't see anything coming out anytime soon that will check as many boxes as this one. If they had something in the 2-3x low to 20-28x high end with DFP it would cover the remaining 10% for me. So a 3-27x would do it.
The lightweight titanium rings from Marchscopes Europe have gained acceptance and somewhat of a following with some owners of the new March Majesta 8-80X56 HM WA, matching the grey of the body for quite a distinctive look. I saw several such setups at the just concluded 2023 US Nationals. They are also available in black.
www.marchscopes.co.uk At least out to 300 yds, that Barnes ammo easily out-grouped the Hornady 140 gr ELD Match, which was my prev 'range round'.
So is this a bullet thread, scope ring thread or what???
Glass: I really appreciate the depth, relevance, and objectivity of your review. Truly outstanding work; thanks for putting it together.
Thank you very much Mark, yes, I do plan to update the table but will keep the original results and include new results so a fair comparison can be made.
Awesome, thank you!
Loving it. My best all around scope. I did however prefer my Zeiss V8 for hunting. Has the edge in low light. Not by much but enough for me to run it solely as my hunting scope.
More light transmission in low light or just better IQ overall? Magnificaiton usable to 12x atleast or do the thicker subtensions get in the way at higher magnification? About to order one for my SR15 LPR, just wish there were some thinner subtensions.
This is a good question and I'm not sure I can pin down the correct answer. The V8 image in low light allows me better identification as it gets darker. That very well could be because the subtensions are thicker and obstruct what I'm looking at when at higher magnification. The subtensions are definitely on the thicker side so when there's 5-10 minutes of legal hunting light and a buck walks out 75 yards away in the field and I'm trying to count antlers or look for features of the rack to identify if it's one of the target bucks it's just easier to do with the V8. Not impossible with the March, don't get me wrong, but when you're hunting a field or in the woods trying to thread the needle between branches, a full Christmas tree reticle is unwanted and unneeded. I'm rarely at max magnification during my hunts and stay below 8x for everything but target identification so it's not a deal breaker for hunting with the March and it can be done. in my opinion, the March is not a specific tool for any one task. It's a jack of all trades and can do everything you'll need done well, but there is a better scope for hunting, target shooting, long distance, and competitions. If you're looking for one scope for your do-all rifle or to swap between different rifles this is it. For a precision gas gun I think it would be very hard to beat.
I enjoyed the quick review but I was a little confused and had to go look up stuff. If I understand correctly, you are comparing the lowlight capabilities of the Zeiss V8 (I can't see where you specified which V8 model) and the March-FX 1.5-15X42 (24oz and 10.6 inches). If you're comparing the March to the Zeiss V8 1.8-14X50 (25 oz and 13.5inch), that means you're comparing a 50mm objective to a 42mm objective. The 50mm objective will bring in quite a bit more light than the 42mm objective. If you're comparing it to the Zeiss V8 2.8-20X56 (29oz, 13.8 inches), that's comparing a 42mm objective to a 56mm objective.
Part of the reason I chose the 4-16x42 was because I wanted to compare similar scopes with similar objectives. I have experience with several NX8 2.5-20's and the last one was part of my review done prior to this one. Having said that, I feel the greatest deficiency with the NX8 2.5-20 is the reticle, while the Mil- reticles do very well for long distance, they really struggle with low magnification and that is exactly what I found with the 2.5-20, even with bright illumination it did not give me what I was hoping for, for this reason I have advocated for Nightforce to offer the FC-DMx reticle in the 2.5-20 or at least some hybrid blend of the Mil-XT and DMx to allow for very bright and usable 2.5x use. This is also my only issue with the Steiner T6Xi 3-18x56 with MSR2 reticle, I love the reticle as a crossover design but due to poor illumination, it is not very usable at 3x. The dual focal plane design of the DR-TR2B is ideal for a crossover rifle as well as numerous gas gun applications, as Ghandi mentions above, the thick SFP crosshair as well as the super bright fiber optic center dot make this "easy" at 1.5x and at higher mags the FFP hash marks and tree begin to come into play, I would love to see more dual focal plane reticles make their way into the MPVO market.
Which reticle do you feel is better at the lower end of their respective ranges, the Mil-XT in the NF 2.5-20 or the Gen 3 XR in the TT Marksman 3-15?
Neither, but if forced to choose I suppose I would say the Mil-XT. NF has much better illumination than TT so that helps too. A much brighter illumination module in TT scopes would breathe new life into crossover use for the 315M and hunter lines. As much as I love the TT315M being limited to only the mil-dot reticle for low mag use is a bit frustrating.
I am hoping to see new things from TT and ZCO this year at SHOT though I won't hold my breath.
I'm assuming the Gen 2 XR suffers from the same issues? On paper, I could deal with that easier than the Mildot option. I am stupid and don't count very well, I need my MILS numbered.
Agreed. After seeing the DFP work in the DR-TR2B I've decided for scopes where I plan to spend most of my time on the low end of the magnification range I want DFP. For scopes I plan to spend most of my time in the high end, FFP.
From a manufacturing perspective it has got to be very difficult to meet the needs of everyone, but as the crossover world gains more and more traction (maybe through NRL Hunter) I hope to see more changes. I've been asking for a good crossover reticle from ZCO since my first 4-20, the only reason I do not have a ZCO on any of my rifles right now is due to their reticles. Don't get me wrong, I understand a lot of guys love their reticles, just not for me, that's where the Gen3 XR excels for longer range (but stinks for low mag work). It's a tug of war in some respects and some scope companies truly don't understand the market or their market research is flawed.
That is correct Gen2 XR suffers from the same issue as Gen3 for low mag work
You make a good point and it highlights the balancing act that many manufacturers must go through. I agree with your final statement, while many of us may not prefer a thicker reticle it is highly doubtful any of us have ever missed using one, it's more about personal preference with regard to long range but for short magnification work that reticle is a lot more important especially if one of the intended uses is to potentially hit little vermin running around (like pigs, yotes, et al).
Yeah, currently the 2XR has same thickness as 3xr. Too thin for that mag range in my opinion.
Ok, please explain that to me again because I am confused.
The thickest parts of the DFP reticle "move" toward the center of the reticle as you increase the magnification which is the opposite of an FFP reticle. For example, the DR-TR2B reticle SFP horizontal lines aren't even close to the FFP portion of the reticle but end up at 2.5 mils from center at 15x, so you have these thick lines at 2.5 mil horizontal and 4 mil on the bottom of the vertical lines (see reticle diagram below). This muddies up the reticle picture for me as it gets too close to center in my opinion. With FFP reticles, if there are thicker vertical and horizontal lines they move outwards as you move up through the magnification range, in some cases being completely out of the sight picture at the highest magnification, giving a better sight picture in my opinion.
For me, the NF
I realize I am probably in the minority, but there are a few LPVO reticles I wouldn't be opposed to having in higher magnification scopes.
I was a big advocate of .2 mil reticles when the SKMR first came out but over the past couple years I have gone back to a more "simpler is better" approach, if done right I still think a .2 mil reticle can be very useful, but I do not think we are handicapped as much as we think we are with .5 mil reticles, it is more of a perception.
I agree with your assessment that if the intent of this scope was to mostly use it at higher magnification and maybe have an offset RDS as a supplement, then the FFP reticle would be "better", but for best performance at low mag the DFP reticle is a really well done design. I too do not like the encroachment of the SFP reticle as you increase magnification, but only time will tell is this is really a hindrance in real world situations. So far it is an acceptable side effect of having a very bright fiber dot center for low mag use. If diffractive illumination were to be used in an MPVO that might even be better, but I am not sure as I do not know anyone who has done that yet - but hopefully coming.
I like the .5 hashes because I almost never shoot statically. I shoot static to zero, to test loads and to confirm dope, all those things I hate and do as little as possible. When shooting and moving, positional shooting, shooting under pressure or hunting, splitting the half is waaaay easier on my brain and faster to compute.
The difference between you and 95% of shooters is self awareness, not skill or experience;-).
I'm guessing there's nothing wrong with your March. As long as you can get a nice clean, in-focus picture of your target at whatever distance between 10 yards and infinity (and beyond...), you're good to go.
marchscopes.com This sounds very similar to what I first went through when I got the updated reticle back, almost thought the parallax was bass akwards and thought my brain had finally lost it, @koshkin helped me out by doing the opposite of what we normally do to set diopter, not sure if it reset something in my brain but it fixed the wonky issue that I think was more user error than mechanical.
I actually just got back from being able to play with this at distance at my brother's (I live in an urban location so 100 yards was my limit previously).
