Rifle Scopes March Optics Glass Quality

[pcweidman]

Anyone have any experience here? Better than nightforce, not as good as SandB, Better than high Vortex or not......

4k for an optic is pretty high but so is 50x zoom without much added weight and length. I have know about these things for along time but college football gambling money has been nice to me and I might blow some! But, I dont care what your can zoom if you can see through the glass.

Thanks,
C

 

[KWilson]

Always going to be subjective to an extent when comparing glass but i am more than impressed with the quality of my 5-40x56. I strongly considered Steiner, Kahles, S&B but March offered what i was looking for at a similar price to the others. NF Beast would have been a serious contender if available. At the end of the day it is only a decision you can make.

 

[turbo54]

It's extremely subjective - even when you apply objective measurements/parameters to it.

My (primitive) understanding of optics engineering is that resolution and contrast are basically a direct trade off between one another, which is to say if you enhance resolution, you must give up some contrast, and vice versa.

A rifle optic tuned for absolute peak resolution would suck, because it'd be extremely difficult to actually see what you're looking at. A rifle optic tuned for peak contrast would suck because you can't resolve what you're looking at.

So, even though each of these parameters is "measureable", what really matters to the user is what balance between the two has been struck by the designer. This is where huge subjectivity enters.

That all said, I have a Premier Heritage 5-25 and a March 3-24, and have compared them side by side a number of times. Both have excellent, but decidedly different glass.

When looking at Orange 1" Birchwood Casey target dots on white paper @ 200 yards the difference becomes evident to my shooting partner and I...

The Premier is tuned for better contrast, whereas the March is tuned for better resolution.

We could easily make out the black "cross" in the target spots with the Premier but not so much the March.

However, we could make out the 6mm bullet hole in the orange with the March, but not so much the Premier.

You'd have to see for yourself and decide if the Deon/March engineers struck a pleasing balance for your eyes.

I really like my 3-24 March, though its small objective and high magnification result in a small exit pupil at high power, making for a pretty tight eyebox...nature of the beast though.

 

[phillip61]

college football gambling money has been nice to me and I might blow some!

Thanks,
C

I take it you never took the Razorbacks to win this season!

 

[pcweidman]

HAHAHAHA No I didnt and thank God I dont bet on my TIDE because what I thought was going to happen last night and what really happened were WAAAAAY off! I did really well on NFL last weekend and then the bowl games at the beginning of the week. A parlay MS State closing the deal brought me up to right over 4g's on the week and I am very recreational at this. Playing with house money and you get aggressive good things can happen!

I take it you never took the Razorbacks to win this season!

 

[pcweidman]

Turbo that is great!! Wow very logical once you look at it. My problem is I love to see the target way up close and big in the picture. However I have killed some things with a fixed 10x SWFA at 500 or so yards and all I do is dial and put the x on the vitals and down they go. You dont HAVE to be so surgical but when I am shooting and practicing during the summer I love that high magnification.

It's extremely subjective - even when you apply objective measurements/parameters to it.

My (primitive) understanding of optics engineering is that resolution and contrast are basically a direct trade off between one another, which is to say if you enhance resolution, you must give up some contrast, and vice versa.

A rifle optic tuned for absolute peak resolution would suck, because it'd be extremely difficult to actually see what you're looking at. A rifle optic tuned for peak contrast would suck because you can't resolve what you're looking at.

So, even though each of these parameters is "measureable", what really matters to the user is what balance between the two has been struck by the designer. This is where huge subjectivity enters.

That all said, I have a Premier Heritage 5-25 and a March 3-24, and have compared them side by side a number of times. Both have excellent, but decidedly different glass.

When looking at Orange 1" Birchwood Casey target dots on white paper @ 200 yards the difference becomes evident to my shooting partner and I...

The Premier is tuned for better contrast, whereas the March is tuned for better resolution.

We could easily make out the black "cross" in the target spots with the Premier but not so much the March.

However, we could make out the 6mm bullet hole in the orange with the March, but not so much the Premier.

You'd have to see for yourself and decide if the Deon/March engineers struck a pleasing balance for your eyes.

I really like my 3-24 March, though its small objective and high magnification result in a small exit pupil at high power, making for a pretty tight eyebox...nature of the beast though.

 

[pcweidman]

Turbo that is great!! Wow very logical once you look at it. My problem is I love to see the target way up close and big in the picture. However I have killed some things with a fixed 10x SWFA at 500 or so yards and all I do is dial and put the x on the vitals and down they go. You dont HAVE to be so surgical but when I am shooting and practicing during the summer I love that high magnification.

It's extremely subjective - even when you apply objective measurements/parameters to it.

My (primitive) understanding of optics engineering is that resolution and contrast are basically a direct trade off between one another, which is to say if you enhance resolution, you must give up some contrast, and vice versa.

A rifle optic tuned for absolute peak resolution would suck, because it'd be extremely difficult to actually see what you're looking at. A rifle optic tuned for peak contrast would suck because you can't resolve what you're looking at.

So, even though each of these parameters is "measureable", what really matters to the user is what balance between the two has been struck by the designer. This is where huge subjectivity enters.

That all said, I have a Premier Heritage 5-25 and a March 3-24, and have compared them side by side a number of times. Both have excellent, but decidedly different glass.

When looking at Orange 1" Birchwood Casey target dots on white paper @ 200 yards the difference becomes evident to my shooting partner and I...

The Premier is tuned for better contrast, whereas the March is tuned for better resolution.

We could easily make out the black "cross" in the target spots with the Premier but not so much the March.

However, we could make out the 6mm bullet hole in the orange with the March, but not so much the Premier.

You'd have to see for yourself and decide if the Deon/March engineers struck a pleasing balance for your eyes.

I really like my 3-24 March, though its small objective and high magnification result in a small exit pupil at high power, making for a pretty tight eyebox...nature of the beast though.

 

[Coletta]

The only problem that I have had with my March 3-24 was right before dark trying to watch deer at about 800. I was having to really strain my eyes, the eye box got too tight, and it was difficult to make out anything. My problem is the tradeoff of having a compact, lightweight, long range optic. Smaller objective, smaller exit pupil,... I think the 5-40 would perform much better in the same situation. All other function and clarity has been great. Some say that the eye box is not very forgiving, but I think it is more forgiving than many.

 

[steve123]

My few obsrvations/opinions were...The March 5-40 I used was probably the best glass I've looked through to date and the March 3-24 wasn't all that great - in there with Nightforce and maybe a little less. The glass in my S&B 5-25 is a pleasure to look through.

 

[918v]

One other important aspect of a rifle scope is ease of use. If you have to fight for the image your eyes will get tired. This is going to induce frustration, fliers, and furious anger. You'll hear people tell you not to look through the scope too long. This is why.

I have never looked through a March but my reading indicates that in the $3K league the March has the most unfriendly eyebox.

 

[turbo54]

I have never looked through a March but my reading indicates that in the $3K league the March has the most unfriendly eyebox.

It has nothing to do with price.

It's physics.

42mm objective, divided by 24 times magnification = 1.75mm exit pupil

1.75mm is small, meaning your pupil has to be in just the right spot to "catch" the image projection.

$3k is a lot to spend, it'd better be quality, and it is. Buying a 3-24x42 means willingly trading off a big fat exit pupil and correspondingly forgiving eye box to gain a lightweight, compact and low mounted scope.

 

[Shortcut]

March is purposely not making any scopes with 4x, 5x or 6x magnification. You don't buy a March if you want a scope like that. One can buy a Hensoldt 6-24x56, a S&B 5-25x56 or maybe even a BEAST 5-25x56.
However, if you want THE scope that offers you a broad magnification range and a versatality that nobody else offers you, forget about any other brand. The only one that rules that cathegory is March. March does not build what everyone builds but they play in a leagues of their own.
As mentioned above, issues regarding the eyebox, which I also do not consider as beeing such a big problem when compared with the regular competitors, are quite smal issues compare to the enormous advantages that March offers.
If eyebox is an issue, one should buy a Hensoldt. If not, March is an unbeatable choice.

 

[918v]

It has nothing to do with price.

It's physics.

42mm objective, divided by 24 times magnification = 1.75mm exit pupil

1.75mm is small, meaning your pupil has to be in just the right spot to "catch" the image projection.

$3k is a lot to spend, it'd better be quality, and it is. Buying a 3-24x42 means willingly trading off a big fat exit pupil and correspondingly forgiving eye box to gain a lightweight, compact and low mounted scope.

It's more than physics.

Eyebox forgiveness is not directly related to exit pupil. You can take several high power scopes and set them to have the same exit pupil and the Zeiss will have the most forgiving eyebox. The difference is night and day sometimes.

 

[Coletta]

Keep in mind the the 3-24 non-ill is about $2,300 (yeah, i know the illuminated is a lot more, but it shouldn't be). That puts it in a price category with ATACR, USO's, IOR's, Razor, Mark 4 and Mark6,... It keeps getting compared to the S&B's, Premiers,... which are around $1,000 more. I don't expect it to be as nice as the top tiers. I think is a great value when compared to many of the scopes in its price category. We can compare the the 5-40 with top tier scopes, but it is still not apples to apples because the march goes to 40x. The others would also be less forgiving if they were 5-40's. I agree that the compact size and 1:8 zoom comes at a tradeoff with eye box, but as stated before its not that bad.
No, I don't think it is the best, but I do like it. I will probably be looking for a Premier (maybe a Beast if I find one to play with) in the future because of a more forgiving eye box. I don't plan on selling the March though. I will probably move the March to a stubby .308 since it is small and weighs about a pound less.