It seems like there isn’t much interest in March rifle scopes here. I was just curious why since I’ve had nothing but great luck with them. Maybe they are just more popular among benchrest shooters, I dunno. What are you thoughts? Thanks
Rifle Scopes No love for March?
- Thread starter Peterpan
- Start date
I have 2, and like them. However they are a very niche optic and I would hesitate to recommend them to someone without them getting behind one first.
Mine took some time to set up. Very critical and sensitive diopter adjustment. Other optics take a few seconds to get the diopter set right, my Marches took hours.
Mine took some time to set up. Very critical and sensitive diopter adjustment. Other optics take a few seconds to get the diopter set right, my Marches took hours.
Doesn't this thread come up about every three months or so? I just don't know how much more this old horse can take......LOL
It keeps coming up because someone always thinks it would be great to use a benchrest scope tactically. It would! lets use bench rest bipods, bench rest benches, bench rest rifles, and only shoot paper at known distances. Then we will never need a tactical scope, a tactical rifle, or even tactical trousers.
I haven’t been on this forum nearly that long... And also I looked several several pages back and seen nothing, so hence the post
Forgot to ask, are you the peter shooting in the Geissele Gas Gun series? If so you can take a look through mine at the finale. As I mentioned above, of the diopter is not perfect for you, you may not like it.
About the only application the March is ideal for in a tactical rifle is for a lighter weight DMR. For any other gun, there are better options for the price.
I assume you are referring to the 3-24x March, right?
The 5-40x56 FFP version is a much more mainstream option that is perfectly competitive with all the other similar scopes with the most direct competition probably being the 7-35x56 Nightforce. Like all other designs it has strengths and weaknesses, but it is much easier to set up properly than the 3-24x.
ILya
The 5-40x56 FFP version is a much more mainstream option that is perfectly competitive with all the other similar scopes with the most direct competition probably being the 7-35x56 Nightforce. Like all other designs it has strengths and weaknesses, but it is much easier to set up properly than the 3-24x.
ILya
Whoa, keep them tactical trousers on now. The March 1048 1049 1050 etc are variable 24 power scopes with decent looking reticles, the fma-2 for moa users and Millard fans the fm1-1. They come illuminated, are a first focal plane scope and have 120 moa internal vertical adjustment in the moa models.
.... seems like a tactical type of scope to me. If you can’t answer me on intelligent level please keep your tactical trousers on and just say nothing at all.
The 5-40 is interesting, but I'd probably opt for the Nightforce 7-35 if I had the money to spend.
I hadn’t looked at the 5-40 ffp scope. I like the zero stop and the available reticles. It weighs 31.4 oz vs the nf 7-35 at 39.3 oz. the Nightforce has more internal adjustment with 5x less magnification. They really look fairly evenly matched. Wish I could buy both lol
If it is the right scope for you, it is your money, go for it. Just don't come back here crying how much faster the Vortex guys can get their eye in the box.
Only time I may cry is when you take them tactical trousers off. The crying will be preceded by heavy laughter
Well, let's see. You title is an open ended question and even your OP was sorta casual and asked us readers what we thought.
So now you are only interested in detailed responses written by those that even care what you think. Why don't you just put your benchrest trousers back on for a minute and take the answers as you get them and say thank you?
Those who ask a general question and solicit opinions without qualification, and then attack anyone who doesn't specifically say what they want are commonly called "ask-holes" for a reason. If the only answers that you want to hear must be technical reviews, then perhaps that is what your op should have stated. If not, you get what you get.
I'll take that to the bank. I'll expect to hear how tinkerbell in kicking ass in the PRS.
Just kinda, keep in the back of your mind that the post that got your panties all up in a twist, had nothing to do with you, it was my response to Palmetto-Pride commenting how often this comes up. I could give a shit less what you run.
I don't hate the tight eye box on my 3-24. I find it actually helps ensure proper cheek weld and alignment to eliminate parallax issues. I also like the fact that it's a smaller scope and lighter in weight. I run a couple PH 5-25's as well for comparison.
I doubt anything associated with you will ever cross my mind. I would have no problem if you posted something of substance but instead you just type stupid crap in the hopes of getting a like outa somebody like minded. If you have nothing to respectively add backed up by some sorts of fact you need to stay off my post. Go Post your own thread about tactical trousers if u want
I’m interested in anything you have to say if related to my topic. As long as it factual based.
One of the competitors is named Peter Pan so I thought it may have been you.
I have had the 5-40 next to the ATACR and much preferred the Nightforce. Seemed brighter and had better contrast to my eyes. Neither scope had the diopter set for me so take that with a grain of salt. If I had to buy one now, it would definitely be the Nightforce.
I shoot a local gas gun series with the 3-24x42 and have been quite successful with it. The size fits a smaller rifle well. I tend to use less magnification than most, especially in this series where I prefer FoV for finding targets and tend to wobble less. I'm usually at 10x or below. Because of this the sensitive eyebox and parallax have not been an issue. If you're looking to put this on a larger gun or bolt gun where you will use more magnification, I wouldn't recommend it.
I tried to do the PRS gas gun series this year but scheduling wouldn't allow it. I am clearing my calander to make sure I can compete next year.
My info is dated and limited but I do have actual experience behind March scopes. When they were first announce I ordered 3-4 of them. Cannot remember. I based my order on the fact they were imported through Kelby's who are good folks as well as the specs on them. They took a few months to arrive. When I opened the first one I knew it was not for me. Hard to describe, just too delicate and quality did not seem too high quality. Finish and glass were not up to NF or S&B. Adjustments were not up to the others as well. Sort of an overpriced, poorly designed Burris. JMO YMMV
I sold all of them. They were quite in demand at that time and sold very well.
I sold all of them. They were quite in demand at that time and sold very well.
I just picked up a March 3-24x52 for my rimfire and lightweight hunting rifle. After playing with it a bit, it's definitely a nice scope, but it wouldn't be my first choice for a tactical/prs scope. The diopter is a bitch to setup. I can virtually turn the eyepiece 1.5 full revolutions and not tell a difference in reticle focus. I still have some work to do to get mine setup. The parallax adjustment is very touchy from 100 - infinity. A VERY small adjustment of the knob makes a large change. The turrets are superb. Very tactile clicks and the zero stop is very easy to set. Overall, it seems to be very well built. Glass clarity is subjective, but in comparison to my TT and S&B Ultra Short, I would put the March in 3rd place. Don't get me wrong, the glass is very nice and clear, but not quite as good as the other two I mentioned, to my eyes. The magnification range is a little much, IMO. From 20-24x, it appears to lose some sharpness and the picture gets a bit darker. I doubt that I'll use it over 20x very often. The FML-1 reticle is a bit thick, but overall I like it. It's simple and very usable. I got the non-illuminated version to save some $, as every other scope I have is illuminated and I never use it.
For a light hunting scope or cross-over type scope, I think the March is really good. It's small and light with a superb build quality. Turrets are low profile with a great feel. Glass is really good, but probably not the best out there to my eyes. For a true tactical/prs scope, I would choose a NF, TT, S&B, Kahles, etc, as they have features that would benefit that style of shooting (more forgiving eyebox, more forgiving parallax, more usable (less) magnification range.
For a light hunting scope or cross-over type scope, I think the March is really good. It's small and light with a superb build quality. Turrets are low profile with a great feel. Glass is really good, but probably not the best out there to my eyes. For a true tactical/prs scope, I would choose a NF, TT, S&B, Kahles, etc, as they have features that would benefit that style of shooting (more forgiving eyebox, more forgiving parallax, more usable (less) magnification range.
Dude, chill out. This is the internet, if you don't like what someone says, just ignore it.
In this case it wasn't too bad nor did it seem directed at you.
Then who was it directed to? At that point there wasn’t an internet full of people involved in the conversation
LOL
Other than the reticle, which isn't my preference, I like our FX 5-40!
Everything there is to feel/tactile about it is top notch.
Ours has the 10 mil/.1 turrets which is half the reason we bought it, the other reason is it focuses close.
You turn the mag down to 15x which is a standard setting for PRS, etc, and go at it, the eyebox, the diopter, and the parallax is more normal at that mag range. Turn the mag up higher, higher still, and those aspects adjustment gets more critical.
It's been a wonderful scope for us. I borrow it from my wife on occasion.
I don't, haven't ever, had any problem adjusting the diopter quickly to my eye???? The image focus at whatever distance either??? I'm a FT air rifle shooter so every scope that I've used that focuses this close is somewhat similar in that the depth of field is not the same as scopes with a longer distance minimum parallax setting, like 25y or 50y. You get used to it.
Other than the reticle, which isn't my preference, I like our FX 5-40!
Everything there is to feel/tactile about it is top notch.
Ours has the 10 mil/.1 turrets which is half the reason we bought it, the other reason is it focuses close.
You turn the mag down to 15x which is a standard setting for PRS, etc, and go at it, the eyebox, the diopter, and the parallax is more normal at that mag range. Turn the mag up higher, higher still, and those aspects adjustment gets more critical.
It's been a wonderful scope for us. I borrow it from my wife on occasion.
I don't, haven't ever, had any problem adjusting the diopter quickly to my eye???? The image focus at whatever distance either??? I'm a FT air rifle shooter so every scope that I've used that focuses this close is somewhat similar in that the depth of field is not the same as scopes with a longer distance minimum parallax setting, like 25y or 50y. You get used to it.
Buddly is one true badass motherfucker. dude benches 275 and has like 200 bow kills
I used to own a 3-24x42 and spent a LOT of time with 3-24x52 and 5-40x56 when I was putting together my reviews.
The depth of field of the 5-40x56 is not significantly different from most similar scopes. At the same magnification, it is a little deepr than the Kahles and similar to Steiner M. Minox and TT have a lot more depth to the DOF as does the 5-25x56 S&B.
The 3-24x March scopes have significantly shallower DOF at the same mag, and the biggest reason I sold mine was that I spent too much time messing with the side focus.
As far as build quality and tactile feel goes, every March scope I have seen was excellent in that regard and at this stage I tested about a dozen or so different ones.
ILya
The depth of field of the 5-40x56 is not significantly different from most similar scopes. At the same magnification, it is a little deepr than the Kahles and similar to Steiner M. Minox and TT have a lot more depth to the DOF as does the 5-25x56 S&B.
The 3-24x March scopes have significantly shallower DOF at the same mag, and the biggest reason I sold mine was that I spent too much time messing with the side focus.
As far as build quality and tactile feel goes, every March scope I have seen was excellent in that regard and at this stage I tested about a dozen or so different ones.
ILya
I had a 3-24x52. For PRS the small eye box and super picky parallax were not the type of fuckery I wanted to deal with on the clock.
If you’re on a square range on your belly and not moving, sure. I also felt like the scope was much more delicate than my s&b 5-20US and TT315 which I also had at that time.
No experience with the 5-40 but I’d go with the NF 7-35 at that point.
If you’re on a square range on your belly and not moving, sure. I also felt like the scope was much more delicate than my s&b 5-20US and TT315 which I also had at that time.
No experience with the 5-40 but I’d go with the NF 7-35 at that point.
Don't forget Ass Whoopin a mofo like they insulted your Quigley. ???
Pistols at high noon for insulting the honor of super scope
Last edited:
I thought it was soccer or basketball sized groups, either way he was real treat and that thread was way better than any recent comedies ive seen.
Seems to me that you'd be better off starting a "March scopes are awesome!!!" thread rather than asking your original question. Given the type of responses you seem to want.
Several people have said now that they are not good for tactical shooting. I do not own a March tactical scope but I do own other march scopes so I wanted to see what people thought of the tactical models. you remind me of a whiny grandma that can’t mind her own business.
Thank you to everyone that contributed that had actual experience with the tactical March scopes or had factual information they shared on the March tactical scopes. After reading the posts I will not be buying a tactical March scope. I will look at some of the other manufacturers that were brought up. Thanks again
I have always had my eye on the March 5-40x56; however, I would like to see them update their reticle offerings and provide a .2 mil hash Christmas tree style similar to the Minox MR4 or new TT Gen 3 XR, would also love to see the High Master glass make it into their FFP line. I've owned the March 3-24x42 and the 3-24x52, loved them both for what they were - small, light and high magnification while maintaining excellent image quality throughout, yes they do suffer from finicky parallax and lack of depth vs. some other tier 1 scopes, but put in the tiny packaging I am still amazed they perform as well as they do.
OP - you can check out the review I did of the March and other scopes in my signature link below, it's a couple years old now but provides some good info
OP - you can check out the review I did of the March and other scopes in my signature link below, it's a couple years old now but provides some good info
I have to agree , the build quality is very good , but they require skill to operate and are not for everyone.
There’s a huge choice in the market , shop around and get behind as many different brands as you can ,
A little ELR today . 3-24 on 6.5 x 47 off a tripod , 5th round impact on a 20 inch @ 2080 . 300 NM with
5-40 scope 3rd round impact in 15mph wind.
