Rifle Scopes March Tactical scopes

[ChrisF]

Hi Guys ,

I just had a look at a friends 2.5-25x42 March Tactical acope , looks very nice , and has nice feeling clicks .
The mrad version , has 10mil per rev , & is marked to 20 , and has 28mils total .

If they made a FFP model . I would be get one , its a very nice little compact scope ,

So any one know IF they ever intend to make a FFP version ?

Cheers Chris

 

[scotharr]

Re: March Tactical scopes

Do you really want a reticle that will get 10x fatter than it starts? I don't know how anyone could make a FFP with 10x mag range.

 

[Jon A]

Re: March Tactical scopes

Vs. having to be on a specific power in order to use the reticle? Yes. There’s no reason a good reticle design couldn’t be perfectly functional at both extremes of the zoom range.

S&B uses many of the same reticles in both their 3-12 and 5-25 and they work. While the P4 (for example) may be a bit thicker than some would like at 25X and the P4F might be a bit thinner than some would like at 3X, the reticles still work and the scopes are functional enough nobody is crying for them to be made SFP. A well thought out reticle sized somewhat between the two might not be optimum for each extreme of the power range, but it would work and most would much prefer that to SFP.

SFP is the only thing keeping me from ordering one of these things today.

 

[clmayfield]

Re: March Tactical scopes

I have to agree, a 10X mag difference is too wide to make a reticle functional at both ends. I think the Gen 2XR does a great job of being functional at both ends of the range at 5X - 25X, but it is just barely usable at 5X.

With a 2.5 - 25X, for example, the reticle would either not be visible at 2.5X, or be annoyingly fat at 25X.

I like the dual focal point concept... SFP crosshairs with FFP subtensions. It hasn't been executed yet, and I am sure it would be super expensive to make, but it would offer the best of both worlds.

 

[ChrisF]

Re: March Tactical scopes

Actually I am not interested in the 10x spread , would be happy with a 3-15x or 3-20x power range , what I like is the small size/weight & it looks very nice as well .

Also its a 30mm tube , in case some one did not pick it up .

FFP would just be the icing on the cake , and would tip me over to buying one .

Cheers CHris

 

[Papagrizzly]

Re: March Tactical scopes

I have several March scopes (10 to 60 x) and love the SFP. The tactical knobs are very pleasant to work with and have a stop ring that you can set your zero to and can always come back to it on the fly if you lose your position.

The optics are incredible. Simple.

 

[chili77]

Re: March Tactical scopes

Sorry, but:
<span style="font-weight: bold">A FFP does NOT get fatter on higher magnification!
A SFP gets fatter on lower magnification.</span>

Example:
FFP: at 20x the reticle covers 2,5mm; at 10x the reticle covers 2,5mm

SFP: at 20x it covers 2,5mm, but at 10x it covers 5mm

 

[Jburt]

Re: March Tactical scopes

If you're talking about subtends then you are right chili. You have it backwards otherwise. He is talking about the view of the reticle, not how much it measures. Make sense?

 

[chili77]

Re: March Tactical scopes

Yes, sorry for my bad english.

...but isn't the fact how much it measures the important point?

If you're shooting paper targets, you sometimes can not see the point you shoot at, if you turn down the magnification on a SFP.

Sometimes the highest magnification is not the best choice for shooting. Then my FFP always tells me "the truth" of what I am seeing.

Chili

 

[cobaltbomb]

Re: March Tactical scopes

chilli you are right in the way that a mil will stay a mil on a ffp reticle no matter what magnification one uses, so also the area that gets obscured by the reticle will not change .

yet the area that is obscured will look bigger on higher magnification then on low magnification, sinze you are zoomed in more on the picture.

to me the ffp vs sfp discussion is pretty obsolete. allthough ffp may be faster both work, just keep in mind to stay on the intended magnification for ranging on a sfp scope or a fraction thereof and calculate that into it.

for example on my sfp nightforce, i can range on the 10, 7,5 and 5X settings too perfectly, just have to multiply the mils i see or want to hold over with 2/3 or 1/2 or 1/3

 

[chili77]

Re: March Tactical scopes

Hi cobaltbomb.

You're right.
But the risk of failing measurement is too high (for me), because you have more variables.
A measurement error of 10m is about 50cm for a .308 at 1000m. This will be a miss.

 

[scotharr]

Re: March Tactical scopes

Laser range finders are way faster and more accurate that using your reticle. This makes the FFP scope very much an optional component in my mind.

 

[sobrbiker883]

Re: March Tactical scopes

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jburt</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you're talking about subtends then you are right chili. You have it backwards otherwise. He is talking about the view of the reticle, not how much it measures. Make sense? </div></div>

Umm, chili's got it right both ways. The thickness of the line covers more of the target as the power goes down on SFP, as does everything else about the reticle. I guess the exception would be SFP scopes are wet up to range at less than their max power (I don't know what March uses for their "ranging" power).

I just know that for me, I want to be able to hold over for elevation or hold off for wind and/or lead knowing that what I'm looking at is correct all the time, not just when I'm dialed tothe correct power.

Are the March's coming with other than 1/8 adjustment?

 

[ChrisF]

Re: March Tactical scopes


Go to march's website to se pics of the Tactical scopes as well as the mil options & pics of that as well .

I was mainly interested in the nice looking compact 2.5-25x42mm Tactical scope , and it is available with 1/4 moa or 0.1 mrad clicks , with lit or non-lit reticles .

I am even considering one given they donot make a FFP , I just wish they DID , very compact scope that would suit any one wanting to keep the weight & size down on their Tac rifle .


Later Chris

 

[RobertB]

Re: March Tactical scopes

I been shooting with their BR scopes for a while. When did they start with tactical? And are they true tactical scopes, or glorified BR scopes with tactical turrets?

 

[ChrisF]

Re: March Tactical scopes


I was very impressed with the 2.5-25x42mm Tactical model , and I can see that given the very small /lite & compact design , is going to be very attractive to LR Hunters trying to keep the weight of their rig down to as low as possible and still retain preformance .

The other March Tacticals are not as practical as far as I am concerned , the 2.5-25x42mm is the sweet spot for me any way .

Later Chris

 

[ChrisF]

Re: March Tactical scopes


Here's a couple of pics of the 2.5-25x42mm Tactical March scope , one is moa & the other mil .

Both are the lit model , so be aware that is why the para on the left is big , the non-lit reticle version has a much smaller knob ( as it is just controls parallex ) .

Website ( www.deon.co.jp/march )

 

[Papagrizzly]

Re: March Tactical scopes

Great photos. Kelbly and Deon are great companies to work with.

 

[264Charlie]

Re: March Tactical scopes

Rumors are in Sept we will see some new kit from them... maybe FFP. I really want a mil/mil March. I am just not sold on the reticle yet. I would use the scope as a 5 - 18 optic. I would think at 25 the exit pupil is getting too small to be useful and would be some add division of a mil.

The only mil reticle is marked in .05 at 20x... That only gives you 1.5 mils per mark at 5x... not so good for holdover stages. I guess you could run it at 10x but you are giving up FOV.

I really love FFP just pick the power and run...

 

[ChrisF]

Re: March Tactical scopes


I would be using it primarily in the 6-18x range , so what its like out side of these , dose not matter to me .

 

[CSTactical]

Re: March Tactical scopes

They are nice looking scopes.

Mike @ CST

 

[Mattrmvpd]

Re: March Tactical scopes

What are the prices???

I could NOT locate them on their site..

Matt (LEO SOUTH GA.)

 

[ToddM]

Re: March Tactical scopes

I love the low profile knobs, I'd seriously consider them if they did a FFP version but I don't think that would work very well with such a huge zoom range.

 

[saleen63]

Re: March Tactical scopes

The price for a 2.5x25x42 Tactical w/illumination is 2750 without illumination is 2150 both with the mtr reticule. Kelbys is the only is the us distributor for the U.S. The 5x32x50 is 3150 and the 5x50x52 march X is 3350. I think the cheapest is the hunting version and it is 1850.

 

[ChrisF]

Re: March Tactical scopes


A friend of mine , just picked up a 2.5-25x42 Tactical for $1900 USD , non lit

 

[Papagrizzly]

Re: March Tactical scopes

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mm128</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What are the prices???

I could NOT locate them on their site..

Matt (LEO SOUTH GA.) </div></div>

Contact Kelblys and speak with Hobie. They are very helpful and responsive.

 

[Lt. Arclight]

Re: March Tactical scopes

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Scooter-PIE</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Laser range finders are way faster and more accurate that using your reticle. This makes the FFP scope very much an optional component in my mind. </div></div>

And what if you happen to be a competitive shooter that enters and unknown distance match-and the match rules DO NOT allow range finders?

 

[Mattrmvpd]

Re: March Tactical scopes

I am NOT knocking them by any means... but it seems that there are several NEW scope companies coming on the market that I and many others have NEVER heard of yet their prices are extremely high for a product that has NOT had much field use.

I really hope that these companies are able to stay in the market especially with their high prices and relatively unknown status.

Matt.

 

[brand692]

Re: March Tactical scopes

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mm128</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am NOT knocking them by any means... but it seems that there are several NEW scope companies coming on the market that I and many others have NEVER heard of yet their prices are extremely high for a product that has NOT had much field use.

I really hope that these companies are able to stay in the market especially with their high prices and relatively unknown status.

Matt. </div></div>

Well, March isn't "relatively unkonwn." They may not be known in these circles, but they are very known in the BR community. And they have quite a reputation. It is the only optic I've ever seen that will resolve a 6mm hole at 600 yards.

But you have a point. Their field/tactical offerings have yet to be proven, as evidenced by this thread. There aren't a whole lot of people, here or anywhere, talking about March tactical scopes. And I think this is the place they would show up.

So, time will tell. I consider Leupold to thank for the vast majority of fine upstart optics firms. Leupold just never kept up in this department. They have the ability to produce high end stuff, but they just never did. Its 2010 and I have yet to meet anyone that has a MKIV with MIL turrets. Over time, as Leupold sat stagnant, other people have stepped up and provided the products that shooters want. I'm not ripping on Leupold, but I'm saying they had a much larger following in both the tactical and benchrest shooting communities several years ago than they do now, largely in part to the competition they created for themselves.

I'd have to say that simply looking at the people who have responded in this thread about owning a March tactical scope, that they are off to a rocky start in TACTICAL side of the house. At 2,700-3,000 bones, they are going to have to offer a FFP, MIL/MIL, illuminated, huge adjustment range, etc etc, optic before it will catch on. FFP, regardless of if people use it correctly, is the current buzzword in tactical shooting. March will have to get on board with that.

But, I think March is here to stay in the BR game. If you have the chance to look through one, do so. They are simply phenomenal.

 

[Mattrmvpd]

Re: March Tactical scopes

Brand,

Thanks for the info. I will take a look. And dont get me wrong I love free enterprise. I love even more seeing NEW companies come up and compete with others that have done JUST as you say by staying stagnant.

I quess really... i am kind of jealous

I wish i had the $3K in disposable income to pay out on a scope

But... not right now on a cops salary.... maybe in about 2 yrs or so when my doctorate degree is done.

Thanks again, and I will try to get a peak through one.

Matt.

 

[Papagrizzly]

Re: March Tactical scopes

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: brand692</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
But you have a point. Their field/tactical offerings have yet to be proven, as evidenced by this thread. There aren't a whole lot of people, here or anywhere, talking about March tactical scopes.......

If you have the chance to look through one, do so. They are simply phenomenal. </div></div>


Tactical use, by default, is going to have regular rigorous handling. I believe that March will need to adapt a heavier body to succeed in these circles. And, I completely agree on the quality of the glass - simply phenomenal.

 

[Jon A]

Re: March Tactical scopes

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: brand692</div><div class="ubbcode-body">they are very known in the BR community. And they have quite a reputation. </div></div>
Yes, their reputation for reliable tracking in the BR circles should mean much to people here as that's one of the things we care about the most.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Papagrizzly</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I believe that March will need to adapt a heavier body to succeed in these circles. </div></div>
How do we know the bodies aren't heavy enough (specifically the 1-10X and 2.5-25X)? The 2.5-25X is the same weight as the 4-16X and 6-24X PST's despite a smaller physical size and smaller objective; the 1-10X is within an ounce or so of the Short Dot. Knowing the use of thinner, lighter ED lens elements saves weight, that leaves plenty of room for a sturdy tube at their listed weights.

I don't know one way or the other but I think we need more evidence on their durability before dismissing them. Again, specifically the 1-10X and 2.5-25X which were ground up new designs for hunting/tactical, not converted BR scopes with tactical knobs.

 

[dcjs]

Re: March Tactical scopes

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jon A</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...Knowing the use of thinner, lighter ED lens elements saves weight, ...</div></div>
That is news to me.

 

[koshkin]

Re: March Tactical scopes

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jon A</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: brand692</div><div class="ubbcode-body">they are very known in the BR community. And they have quite a reputation. </div></div>
Yes, their reputation for reliable tracking in the BR circles should mean much to people here as that's one of the things we care about the most.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Papagrizzly</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I believe that March will need to adapt a heavier body to succeed in these circles. </div></div>
How do we know the bodies aren't heavy enough (specifically the 1-10X and 2.5-25X)? The 2.5-25X is the same weight as the 4-16X and 6-24X PST's despite a smaller physical size and smaller objective; the 1-10X is within an ounce or so of the Short Dot. Knowing the use of thinner, lighter ED lens elements saves weight, that leaves plenty of room for a sturdy tube at their listed weights.

I don't know one way or the other but I think we need more evidence on their durability before dismissing them. Again, specifically the 1-10X and 2.5-25X which were ground up new designs for hunting/tactical, not converted BR scopes with tactical knobs.</div></div>

Jon, I was going to test their 2.5-25x42 against some German scopes, but I had some personal problems to deal with and I kinda let that fall through the cracks. I just shot them an e-mail to ask if they have any loaners available for me.

As far as whether their scopes are heavy duty enough, you make a very good point: we simply do not know and there is no way to tell without some practical use. They are very well built scopes. Each one is effectively hand-assembled by very skilled engineers in Japan (it is a very small company).

One of the reasons they are fairly hefty is that their crazy magnification range requires a fairly large number of optical elements, and glass is pretty heavy. Similarly, the erector assembly they use is incredibly well machined, but still complicated and not light. The mechanicals are made out of some combination of brass and steel if memory serves me right, but I can check.

I was blown away by the resolution of their glass when I last saw the scopes, so I really should get my hands on one for a thorough test.

ILya

 

[gyr]

Re: March Tactical scopes

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lt. Arclight</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Scooter-PIE</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Laser range finders are way faster and more accurate that using your reticle. This makes the FFP scope very much an optional component in my mind. </div></div>

And what if you happen to be a competitive shooter that enters and unknown distance match-and the match rules DO NOT allow range finders? </div></div>

Or you miss i.e. because of wind? or shot low or high? With a FFP reticle you can spot and execute the necessary corrections inmediately; with a SFP, you have to guess your adjustment and then use the turrets.. or add the proper calculations in your head depending on the power and reticle relation as per manufacturer instructions.-

I also vote for a FFP March, would be grear for a light hunting rig.

 

[Papagrizzly]

Re: March Tactical scopes

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jon A</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How do we know the bodies aren't heavy enough (specifically the 1-10X and 2.5-25X)? The 2.5-25X is the same weight as the 4-16X and 6-24X PST's despite a smaller physical size and smaller objective; the 1-10X is within an ounce or so of the Short Dot. Knowing the use of thinner, lighter ED lens elements saves weight, that leaves plenty of room for a sturdy tube at their listed weights.
</div></div>

True - we need to know that their smaller power scopes are thicker bodied ones. I'll find out. All of mine are the larger power ones and I know for a fact that those bodies are thinner. I am a big believer in March scopes (have 6 of them).

 

[Jon A]

Re: March Tactical scopes

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: David S.</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That is news to me. </div></div>
That's what they say, anyway:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Beside the obvious advantage of lower chromatic aberration, the use of low and extra low dispersion glass allows for using less individual lens elements and thinner elements with lower surface curvature. This reduces other aberrations and also reduces the transmission losses associated with internal surface reflections. The thinner and lighter lens elements also allow for designs with more durable and stronger mounting at overall lower scope weight.</div></div>
Is that accurate? Advertising BS? I don't know one way or the other but had no reason to question it. If it is BS, that would be good to know. Thanks.

 

[koshkin]

Re: March Tactical scopes

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jon A</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: David S.</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That is news to me. </div></div>
That's what they say, anyway:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Beside the obvious advantage of lower chromatic aberration, the use of low and extra low dispersion glass allows for using less individual lens elements and thinner elements with lower surface curvature. This reduces other aberrations and also reduces the transmission losses associated with internal surface reflections. The thinner and lighter lens elements also allow for designs with more durable and stronger mounting at overall lower scope weight.</div></div>
Is that accurate? Advertising BS? I don't know one way or the other but had no reason to question it. If it is BS, that would be good to know. Thanks. </div></div>

The truth is usually in the middle and since the company is Japanese, there is also some stuff lost in translation.

ED glass does not really let you go with thinner lenses. It does allow you to construct a well-corrected lens system.

In order to have thinner and lighter lens elements, you need to use other (higher refractive index) glass types. If you recall, when Zeiss was first talking about their AOS some years back, they were saying the same thing.

ILya

 

[dcjs]

Re: March Tactical scopes

Like ILya stated (listen to him, he's way more knowledgeable than me when it comes to lenses

), there is a difference between "high refractive index" and "ED/HD/low dispersion" glass and the latter shouldn't directly lead to lighter optics with fewer lenses. In fact, of all the examples I know where companies offer spotting scopes as "normal" as well as "APO/HD/ED" versions, the latter is heavier.

As a tendency, in order to improve overall image quality, more lenses are used rather than less. Riflescopes, in comparison to photographic lenses for example, are pretty simple optical systems already.

 

[Jon A]

Re: March Tactical scopes

Thanks guys, that's good info.

 

[Papagrizzly]

Re: March Tactical scopes

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jon A</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How do we know the bodies aren't heavy enough (specifically the 1-10X and 2.5-25X)? The 2.5-25X is the same weight as the 4-16X and 6-24X PST's despite a smaller physical size and smaller objective; the 1-10X is within an ounce or so of the Short Dot. Knowing the use of thinner, lighter ED lens elements saves weight, that leaves plenty of room for a sturdy tube at their listed weights. </div></div>


Just talked to Kelbly's this morning and the 2.5 - 25X is the same thickness body as the rest of the March scopes.

 

[Jon A]

Re: March Tactical scopes

Did he mention how thick that was?

 

[koshkin]

Re: March Tactical scopes

David, I think you are overestimating my knowledge of optics by a fair bit, but thank you anyway. My primary expertise is in imaging and optoelectronics, rather than in classic optics, but I have been around lenses a fair bit in my day.

Jon A, Kelbly replied to my e-mail and it looks they have a loaner they can send me. I'll pit it against some Euro scopes and we'll see how it holds up.

ILya

 

[CSTactical]

Re: March Tactical scopes

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ILYA</div><div class="ubbcode-body">David, I think you are overestimating my knowledge of optics by a fair bit, but thank you anyway. My primary expertise is in imaging and optoelectronics, rather than in classic optics, but I have been around lenses a fair bit in my day.

Jon A, Kelbly replied to my e-mail and it looks they have a loaner they can send me. I'll pit it against some Euro scopes and we'll see how it holds up.

ILya </div></div>

Way too humble...there's a reason why they call him the "Dark Lord of Optics!"

Mason @ CST

 

[enkry]

Re: March Tactical scopes

I thought Koshkin was the Dark Lord of Optics?

 

[dar1246]

Re: March Tactical scopes

I owned 2 March scopes 10x60. The glass was excellent up to 40X but the tube would only let in so much light. The scope track like a dream.
I think the only concern I would have is the body. When I bought the scope. I was told to only put 10 inch pounds on the rings, no more. That had me wonder about the scope body. I might be wrong, but that worried me. The NF you can put 15 inch pounds on the rings.

 

[koshkin]

Re: March Tactical scopes

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Enkry</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I thought Koshkin was the Dark Lord of Optics? </div></div>

Somehow that whole "Dark Lord of Optics" thing stuck to me like glue over the years. I first kept it up since I found it funny, but then it took on a life of its own.

To clarify, my full name is ILya Koshkin. When I first came to SnipersHide, I started posting under by first name. On OpticsTalk, I started by using by last name. Never bothered to change that.

Back to March scopes:

I will be receiving a loaner March scope shortly. It is an illuminated 2.5-25x42 scope with MML reticle. I do not like to look at scopes solo. I think side-by-side comparisons are more valuable. I have an IOR 3-18x42 scope that I can use for that. I am also borrowing a 3-15x50 Premier from a friend of mine to add to the test (due to different objective lenses, this is not a perfect apples-to-apples, but it is close enough). I'll see if I can scrounge up some sort of a top end euro tactical scope with a 42mm objective lens as well, but I will probably have my hands full as is.

ILya

 

[elmerdeer]

Re: March Tactical scopes

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ILYA</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Enkry</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I thought Koshkin was the Dark Lord of Optics? </div></div>

Somehow that whole "Dark Lord of Optics" thing stuck to me like glue over the years. I first kept it up since I found it funny, but then it took on a life of its own.

To clarify, my full name is ILya Koshkin. When I first came to SnipersHide, I started posting under by first name. On OpticsTalk, I started by using by last name. Never bothered to change that.

Back to March scopes:

I will be receiving a loaner March scope shortly. It is an illuminated 2.5-25x42 scope with MML reticle. I do not like to look at scopes solo. I think side-by-side comparisons are more valuable. I have an IOR 3-18x42 scope that I can use for that. I am also borrowing a 3-15x50 Premier from a friend of mine to add to the test (due to different objective lenses, this is not a perfect apples-to-apples, but it is close enough). I'll see if I can scrounge up some sort of a top end euro tactical scope with a 42mm objective lens as well, but I will probably have my hands full as is.

ILya</div></div>
I cant wait for your observations regarding the 2x25 March tactical scope against the other scopes, as I have the 2 versions one for hunting and the other is the tactical but they are both with the du-plex recticules.
Elmer

 

[Rancid Coolaid]

Re: March Tactical scopes

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ILYA</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Enkry</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I thought Koshkin was the Dark Lord of Optics? </div></div>

Somehow that whole "Dark Lord of Optics" thing stuck to me like glue over the years. I first kept it up since I found it funny, but then it took on a life of its own.

To clarify, my full name is ILya Koshkin. When I first came to SnipersHide, I started posting under by first name. On OpticsTalk, I started by using by last name. Never bothered to change that.

Back to March scopes:

I will be receiving a loaner March scope shortly. It is an illuminated 2.5-25x42 scope with MML reticle. I do not like to look at scopes solo. I think side-by-side comparisons are more valuable. I have an IOR 3-18x42 scope that I can use for that. I am also borrowing a 3-15x50 Premier from a friend of mine to add to the test (due to different objective lenses, this is not a perfect apples-to-apples, but it is close enough). I'll see if I can scrounge up some sort of a top end euro tactical scope with a 42mm objective lens as well, but I will probably have my hands full as is.

ILya </div></div>

Be nice to my Premier!

I look forward to a thorough review of the March scope. If I might be so bold, I recommend you notify them that some owners of other tactical scopes frown upon a 5 year warranty, that is far removed from industry standard.

 

[koshkin]

Re: March Tactical scopes

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rancid Coolaid</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ILYA</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Enkry</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I thought Koshkin was the Dark Lord of Optics? </div></div>

Somehow that whole "Dark Lord of Optics" thing stuck to me like glue over the years. I first kept it up since I found it funny, but then it took on a life of its own.

To clarify, my full name is ILya Koshkin. When I first came to SnipersHide, I started posting under by first name. On OpticsTalk, I started by using by last name. Never bothered to change that.

Back to March scopes:

I will be receiving a loaner March scope shortly. It is an illuminated 2.5-25x42 scope with MML reticle. I do not like to look at scopes solo. I think side-by-side comparisons are more valuable. I have an IOR 3-18x42 scope that I can use for that. I am also borrowing a 3-15x50 Premier from a friend of mine to add to the test (due to different objective lenses, this is not a perfect apples-to-apples, but it is close enough). I'll see if I can scrounge up some sort of a top end euro tactical scope with a 42mm objective lens as well, but I will probably have my hands full as is.

ILya </div></div>

Be nice to my Premier!

I look forward to a thorough review of the March scope. If I might be so bold, I recommend you notify them that some owners of other tactical scopes frown upon a 5 year warranty, that is far removed from industry standard. </div></div>

I had nice chat with them at SHOT about that (they are very nice folk by the way). Their hands are a bit tied in that department for the time being, due to Japanese regulations. Apparently businesses below a certain size can not, by law, offer a warranty longer than that. If they choose to grow the business (and offer a longer warranty), their taxation rules will change dramatically. That is why these are effectively handmade, limited production scopes.

In order for March scopes to have a full lifetime warranty, it would have to be underwritten by the importer, Kelbly's, not by Deon. That kind of a step is a little difficult to justify for their volumes. Ultimately, there are some creative things to work around that, and if I like the scope in actual use I will try to pick it up with Kelbly's again.

ILya