Attachments
Last edited:
Rifle Scopes Torn between the Atacr 7-35 and the March 5-40
- Thread starter Mclovinguns
- Start date
Thats the scope that got a basic refurb and was back on its way wasn't it? The only thing salvaged from an Aussie bushfire or something from memory.
Look, it really comes back to what the OP wants in a scope. I don't think anyone is denying the qualities of March and Nightforce, when you're talking "alpha" scopes. I've owned both brands, I like both brands. It really comes down to feature set and what one person is most comfortable in using. Try and get behind both scopes and see what takes your fancy.
So based on the above info, you peaked my interest as I know a handful of lads in Aussie SOF. I sent some texts late last night and the answers I received from guys in the know over there (active guys), say there are no March scopes being used. March is not a program of record. Nightforce is the new day optic in use with 2CDO and SASR and they ARE using the Tremor 3 reticle. Apparently NF was selected last year; Nightforce BEAST's on their 338's and 4-16's on their 308's. Nightforce is their program of record for day optics.
With the info I have found from those certainly in the know, I am throwing the BS flag in the ring. So, is there a March 5-40 being T&E'd by an individual within SF and now that means that Aussie SF are using March? That's certainly misleading!
They are however, very keen on the new 7-35 ATACR. They are just waiting to get the T3 reticle variant in hand. They have been very pleased with Nightforce since their transition from their old Schmidt & Benders.
March didn't have access to Tremor 3 , which some units have as a reticle in their ballistic
solver . Nightforce now own Tremor reticles , so that really makes NF the default option
for this application ,
Schmidt & Bender , Hensoldt and others were also excluded because of this issue , and
were pretty pissed off as a result . You may be aware of the cost , expense and time it
takes to get Mil approval for general adoption of an item .
There are are many situations , missions where the operator may chose his own optic .
this is the scenario I was referring to , not general contract , or general use .
I am absolutely NOT going to go into details on a public forum about the activities and
choices of 4Sdn , ASIS or any other element .
solver . Nightforce now own Tremor reticles , so that really makes NF the default option
for this application ,
Schmidt & Bender , Hensoldt and others were also excluded because of this issue , and
were pretty pissed off as a result . You may be aware of the cost , expense and time it
takes to get Mil approval for general adoption of an item .
There are are many situations , missions where the operator may chose his own optic .
this is the scenario I was referring to , not general contract , or general use .
I am absolutely NOT going to go into details on a public forum about the activities and
choices of 4Sdn , ASIS or any other element .
Guys this is Sniper's Hide and not Benchrest Central ... there is a difference
The March stuff is a light crossover optic, but it does miss it as tactical scope compared to others.
The mils matter, and yes they addressed it, but at the same time, comparing the NXS to the latest March is not the same either. When you say you just have to know, well prior to the release of this information it was not widely known. They did not advertise it as such, otherwise mistakes would not be made. You can certainly adapt to anything, but if you buy an MOA scope and it's really an IPHY adjustment that is almost 20" at 1000 yards you would be wrong.
Nightforce also changed their glass, they changed their features, changed their scopes. The BEAST was not designed by the Japanese, that was done here. Same with the ATACR line. Going back to the NXS series is the same argument you are fighting.
I own the 3-24x42, and returned the 3x24x52, which was clearly the better scope of the two, but it did not serve my personal needs so there was not reason to buy it even at a discount. We never reviewed or used the 5-40x at any length. Though I have shot it, not enough to form a solid option, however it did not reach out to me enough to need one.
For what we do, elevation is a big key and recently that has been the focus of scopes like the 7-35x to get the elevation back. Same with the S&B, the 5-45x on a more aggressive base used in my review would end up with 85MOA of adjustment or in Mils it also has 26 Mils. The NF has more than both.
Saying a guy brought a privately owned March to war is pretty funny too. Same thing IOR Says, as they gave a single SF guy one years back and he carried it. IOR crowed about that as well. Military contracts generally have an testing phase, that testing identifies a bunch of issues. Some bigger than others, most small for the average guy. But here Military contracts can and do matter.
Back in the day at Rifles Only there was always a March around as one of the friends of Jacob Gottfredson used to bring them from Japan as far back as 2002. He published a huge gun magazine in Japan and always run March, but he was a bench rest and would constantly ND with his 8oz trigger.
They are a respectable scope and we are certainly splitting hairs but the NF is a better choice for a cross over tactical rig and not an F Class option. I agree, if you are building an F Class or Bench Rest gun, the March is a good choice. On my AI not so much ... I will stick with NF and S&B, even Vortex before I opt for a March
If you own it and like it, good on ya... Me not so much, especially because personal interactions with the distributors/ reps do matter. How they treat people is important, that goes to how they will handle problems the end user may or may not encounter. It's a character thing. There are others I have had squabbles with and it shows in the directions I move, because it weighs in on my decisions, just like anyone else.
The March stuff is a light crossover optic, but it does miss it as tactical scope compared to others.
The mils matter, and yes they addressed it, but at the same time, comparing the NXS to the latest March is not the same either. When you say you just have to know, well prior to the release of this information it was not widely known. They did not advertise it as such, otherwise mistakes would not be made. You can certainly adapt to anything, but if you buy an MOA scope and it's really an IPHY adjustment that is almost 20" at 1000 yards you would be wrong.
Nightforce also changed their glass, they changed their features, changed their scopes. The BEAST was not designed by the Japanese, that was done here. Same with the ATACR line. Going back to the NXS series is the same argument you are fighting.
I own the 3-24x42, and returned the 3x24x52, which was clearly the better scope of the two, but it did not serve my personal needs so there was not reason to buy it even at a discount. We never reviewed or used the 5-40x at any length. Though I have shot it, not enough to form a solid option, however it did not reach out to me enough to need one.
For what we do, elevation is a big key and recently that has been the focus of scopes like the 7-35x to get the elevation back. Same with the S&B, the 5-45x on a more aggressive base used in my review would end up with 85MOA of adjustment or in Mils it also has 26 Mils. The NF has more than both.
Saying a guy brought a privately owned March to war is pretty funny too. Same thing IOR Says, as they gave a single SF guy one years back and he carried it. IOR crowed about that as well. Military contracts generally have an testing phase, that testing identifies a bunch of issues. Some bigger than others, most small for the average guy. But here Military contracts can and do matter.
Back in the day at Rifles Only there was always a March around as one of the friends of Jacob Gottfredson used to bring them from Japan as far back as 2002. He published a huge gun magazine in Japan and always run March, but he was a bench rest and would constantly ND with his 8oz trigger.
They are a respectable scope and we are certainly splitting hairs but the NF is a better choice for a cross over tactical rig and not an F Class option. I agree, if you are building an F Class or Bench Rest gun, the March is a good choice. On my AI not so much ... I will stick with NF and S&B, even Vortex before I opt for a March
If you own it and like it, good on ya... Me not so much, especially because personal interactions with the distributors/ reps do matter. How they treat people is important, that goes to how they will handle problems the end user may or may not encounter. It's a character thing. There are others I have had squabbles with and it shows in the directions I move, because it weighs in on my decisions, just like anyone else.
This is from a S&B
Like most all fanboys your info is second or third hand fragmented, skewed, false and emotionally and financially vested.
Like most all fanboys your info is second or third hand fragmented, skewed, false and emotionally and financially vested.
Last edited:
March certainly had access to the Tremor 3 as did others, they just chose not to pursue it as a reticle option. Its not restricted. Horus makes their money from royalties of licensing reticles. https://horusvision.com/licensing.php Nightforce obviously saw the benefit in having it available early on as I seem to recall seeing it at SHOT show the prior year thinking, when is Hodnett gonna stop? Seems like just as one Horus reticle was hitting the market, there was a new one in the works. I've seen the progression first hand.
I know Nightforce did not win by default just because of a reticle. It was chosen because it met the performance requirements of the solicitation and performed better than others which provided justification to purchase and award a contract. Wait, those are called Tenders down there, right? I'm sure if another scope performed better, that the T3 would have been negotiated to be included if it did not have it.
I see the T3 in Steiner, Leupold, and Schmidt & Bender. I'm sure there are others. Hensoldt has had Horus reticles in their scopes before. I know Lowlight has shown the H37 in the 3.5-26 on here. Horus reticles are obviously accessible. Just requires action. See link in first paragraph. I suppose if you snooze you loose. The T3 is on fire around the globe with SOF. My job provides the privilege of working with some of the best warriors around the globe. T3 is what they want!
As I was educated at SHOT, Nightforce does not own Horus. It is a separate company that operates independently of Nightfore but has a common owner. It is just included in his portfolio of companies.
Just did a quick Google search of Horus and found this. - http://soldiersystems.net/2016/07/23/ray-dennis-group-acquires-horus-vision/
Explains the situation pretty well. Per the press release, it was acquired in July 2016. Not sure when the Aussie riflescope solicitation was but I am quite certain it was prior to the acquisition, so that has no bearing there.
4th Squadron and ASIS can be considered SF I guess. Depends on who you ask. I mean ASIS, the acronym should speak what their skillset revolves around. Shooting 50 cals seems counter intuitive to their actual mission but I digress.
I guess my whole point is that your comment about SF using them on their 50's was misleading. Doesn't mean they are not a good scope. It just appears as if you are trying to justify a financial and emotional investment and promote them to others using whatever propaganda necessary. Are they better? That is certainly not quantifiable; only subjective opinion, like many other scopes.
I threw in the BS flag because it was not passing the smell test. My sources pretty much confirmed.
Slightly off topic but I wonder why "The T3 is on fire around the globe with SOF." but not with PRS shooters, it seems even in NF scopes the H59 is slightly more popular.
Nice post Frank. The other comments are less so. BTW PreparedShewter, ASIS is a foreign spy agency and not SF. I'm sure a member of the Australian Special Air Services Regiment would take great delight in setting you straight on what their SF role is.
Current military doctrine has lowest common denominator training involved. Hence the Horus and a quick search will show an informative thread on that one with some useful comments by Frank. NF has got a fantastic marketing department and a great budget so everyone with basic shooting knowledge knows about them - they win on Brand awareness. Brilliant and I would love to be part of the machine.
But to say that the March 5 - 40 x 56 FFP is a light cross over optic is doing it a disservice. I'm surprised by the pigeonholing of this but a site that states it is dedicated to the art and science of Long Range Shooting. It is much like saying Bisley taught the WWI British sniping community nothing about how to shoot. March, and the guys who use this brand, and the guys who question the marketing BS, and get out and shoot the impossible, are part of the group of people who feed the new technology back into the military.
Skepticism is healthy. But I call BS on closed minds every day. No one brand is perfect and the next guy is working on taking down NF and Vortex in the same way they took down Leupold.
Current military doctrine has lowest common denominator training involved. Hence the Horus and a quick search will show an informative thread on that one with some useful comments by Frank. NF has got a fantastic marketing department and a great budget so everyone with basic shooting knowledge knows about them - they win on Brand awareness. Brilliant and I would love to be part of the machine.
But to say that the March 5 - 40 x 56 FFP is a light cross over optic is doing it a disservice. I'm surprised by the pigeonholing of this but a site that states it is dedicated to the art and science of Long Range Shooting. It is much like saying Bisley taught the WWI British sniping community nothing about how to shoot. March, and the guys who use this brand, and the guys who question the marketing BS, and get out and shoot the impossible, are part of the group of people who feed the new technology back into the military.
Skepticism is healthy. But I call BS on closed minds every day. No one brand is perfect and the next guy is working on taking down NF and Vortex in the same way they took down Leupold.
Very familiar with whom ASIS is and what they do. You must have missed my sarcasm. I will break it down in plain speak......when I said 4th Squadron and ASIS can be considered SF I guess. Depends on who you ask meant, ASIS and 4SQN think they are SF, but if you were to ask real Aussie SF; 2CDO and SASR, they will tell you otherwise.
ASIS and 4SQN are very relevant and their mission is important, but they are not SF.
Maybe he's referring to the 3-24 from years back, http://popgun.ru/viewtopic.php?p=199...2584#p19902596
Last edited:
According to the Internet, ASIS stopped having any military role in 1984 following a Royal Commission. They certainly wouldn't be using March scopes unless they have a time machine!
I may have been misinformed about availiabilty of the T3 reticle , the issue at the time
( going back a few years now ) would seem to be the manufacturers lead time getting
the reticle cell produced in time for the TE , not access . Apologies for any confusion .
I see we are still waiting for T3 in the 7-35 as PreparedShewter mentioned . The
Schmidt 5-45 doesn't have it yet either , I'm not privy to the reasons why it wouldn't be
included from the get go , if it was in such demand ? I suppose the commercial reality
is that scope manufacturers are going to get far more sales in the civ market than Mil ,
so its the civvy market first .
LL has been quite disparaging of the necessity and usefulness of Horus reticles
in general in a few past threads . Its a system : there are many out there . Great for
some people / applications and not others . Regardless , a hell of a lot of work to
to churn out all those reticles and get them accepted as many people as they have been .
David Tubbs DTR seems the same but different , with the inclusion of an aerodynamic jump
component . Yet another system to express a relatively simple concept .
( going back a few years now ) would seem to be the manufacturers lead time getting
the reticle cell produced in time for the TE , not access . Apologies for any confusion .
I see we are still waiting for T3 in the 7-35 as PreparedShewter mentioned . The
Schmidt 5-45 doesn't have it yet either , I'm not privy to the reasons why it wouldn't be
included from the get go , if it was in such demand ? I suppose the commercial reality
is that scope manufacturers are going to get far more sales in the civ market than Mil ,
so its the civvy market first .
LL has been quite disparaging of the necessity and usefulness of Horus reticles
in general in a few past threads . Its a system : there are many out there . Great for
some people / applications and not others . Regardless , a hell of a lot of work to
to churn out all those reticles and get them accepted as many people as they have been .
David Tubbs DTR seems the same but different , with the inclusion of an aerodynamic jump
component . Yet another system to express a relatively simple concept .
The Army is requesting the T3, so all scopes with the T3 usually go to units or for testing via the new contract processes. The demand for the Horus is a product of aggressive lobbying by agents who worked for Horus at the time. They poured a lot of time & Money into this in order to sway the decision makers to require all scopes have the Horus. - See Hodnett.
Dr. Ray, who owns NF also bought Horus, so it's separate from NF proper, but owned by the same guy.
Companies license the Horus reticle, it's about $400 per reticle. (Give or take a bit) I would guess that means any company can purchase the license and then have the reticle made through their own channels or it maybe they (Horus) say, you have to use ours. In which case that would create a backlog.
The issue beyond the price, as it increases the $400 per scope would be demand and focus. Not everyone is happy with the Horus, so most companies are not too quick to stock them. They sell but not like it would appear. Mil sales are a priority over civilian sales for a lot of these companies. S&B was fully focused on the Military market until this year, and NF bounces between the two but everything releases to the military first. There are scopes not even mentioned yet in the military hands.
Dr. Ray, who owns NF also bought Horus, so it's separate from NF proper, but owned by the same guy.
Companies license the Horus reticle, it's about $400 per reticle. (Give or take a bit) I would guess that means any company can purchase the license and then have the reticle made through their own channels or it maybe they (Horus) say, you have to use ours. In which case that would create a backlog.
The issue beyond the price, as it increases the $400 per scope would be demand and focus. Not everyone is happy with the Horus, so most companies are not too quick to stock them. They sell but not like it would appear. Mil sales are a priority over civilian sales for a lot of these companies. S&B was fully focused on the Military market until this year, and NF bounces between the two but everything releases to the military first. There are scopes not even mentioned yet in the military hands.
Frank nailed it. Horus invested heavily in its lobbying to military end users. It was the H58, then the H59 and original Tremor and shortly thereafter the T2 and now the T3 with a T4 for the spotting scope.
The T3 is a hybrid mix of the H59 and T2 and to me makes alot more sense than the T2 ever did. Finally, it appears as if the T3 may be the mainstay for several years to come. Todd has far reach. He trains SOF around the world and certainly the 5VEY's. He must be offering value to them as he stays booked out 18 months in advance.
US, Canada, UK, NZ and Australia have all adopted it for SOF. Its not wrong, just different. It works, but so does the old Mil-Dot. Veterans properly trained on Mil-Dots and similar traditional reticles can perform equally as well as those shooting Horus variants. I can take one either way. A Mil is a Mil. When I spend my own money, I buy the MIL-R and now the MIL-C. (I like NF when I spend my own money, but ultimately, when I'm fighting, I just want something that works reliably and sometimes the lowest bidder leaves low confidence - but the issued NF's have never let me down) I am a firm believer of having 100% confidence in my gear. Doing what we do, we can not question if our gear is going to work when we need it to. In the past, when LowLight and others from his era were going through Sniper school, training was longer and focused more on fundamentals. Those guys were taught and grilled how to have a Mark I eyeball to interpolate the coarse Mil-Dot and measure to .05 of a mil. While fundamentals are still a big focus, corners have been cut to more effectively train the least common denominator of shooter in a compressed time frame. Horus was a solution with all its hash marks and drop down grid.It also solved a problem with poor tracking scopes assuming it held its zero. Again, not wrong, just different, but it is certainly much easier to measure to .05 of a mil when all you have to do is break down between a .2 mil hash. It does work. Is it necessary.....depends who you ask. I don't mind it, but it won't be my personal choice that I spend MY money on. It kills bad guys dead and that matters more to me. I won't lie, I have come to enjoy the wind dots.
PRS shooters don't proliferate it as they don't need it. They are trying to simplify matters and they tend to be on the above average side of skill. They do, however, still prefer a drop down grid of some sort. Drop down reticles have proven to have merit.
I'm sure those available on the market today, while you may not know it, are paying their dues to Horus. I know alot of Mil guys who shoot PRS.....they shoot T3. Most likely because they know it and have confidence in it because they train on it regularly.
T3 exists commercially because the Military wants it. If a scope company is going to include it, I assume they see benefit in offering it commercially. Many of the guys I work around want the T3 or H59 reticle in their personal scopes that they use at work. The H59 is hugely popular still, but the T3 is making converts daily on the Mil side.
On a closing note, I did not mean to derail this thread. It wasn't about the Horus or T3 reticle. That topic has been beat to death around here. Its certainly a love or hate thing.
Lets get this topic back to ATACR 7-35 or March 5-40 if anything else of value can be added.
The T3 is a hybrid mix of the H59 and T2 and to me makes alot more sense than the T2 ever did. Finally, it appears as if the T3 may be the mainstay for several years to come. Todd has far reach. He trains SOF around the world and certainly the 5VEY's. He must be offering value to them as he stays booked out 18 months in advance.
US, Canada, UK, NZ and Australia have all adopted it for SOF. Its not wrong, just different. It works, but so does the old Mil-Dot. Veterans properly trained on Mil-Dots and similar traditional reticles can perform equally as well as those shooting Horus variants. I can take one either way. A Mil is a Mil. When I spend my own money, I buy the MIL-R and now the MIL-C. (I like NF when I spend my own money, but ultimately, when I'm fighting, I just want something that works reliably and sometimes the lowest bidder leaves low confidence - but the issued NF's have never let me down) I am a firm believer of having 100% confidence in my gear. Doing what we do, we can not question if our gear is going to work when we need it to. In the past, when LowLight and others from his era were going through Sniper school, training was longer and focused more on fundamentals. Those guys were taught and grilled how to have a Mark I eyeball to interpolate the coarse Mil-Dot and measure to .05 of a mil. While fundamentals are still a big focus, corners have been cut to more effectively train the least common denominator of shooter in a compressed time frame. Horus was a solution with all its hash marks and drop down grid.It also solved a problem with poor tracking scopes assuming it held its zero. Again, not wrong, just different, but it is certainly much easier to measure to .05 of a mil when all you have to do is break down between a .2 mil hash. It does work. Is it necessary.....depends who you ask. I don't mind it, but it won't be my personal choice that I spend MY money on. It kills bad guys dead and that matters more to me. I won't lie, I have come to enjoy the wind dots.
PRS shooters don't proliferate it as they don't need it. They are trying to simplify matters and they tend to be on the above average side of skill. They do, however, still prefer a drop down grid of some sort. Drop down reticles have proven to have merit.
I'm sure those available on the market today, while you may not know it, are paying their dues to Horus. I know alot of Mil guys who shoot PRS.....they shoot T3. Most likely because they know it and have confidence in it because they train on it regularly.
T3 exists commercially because the Military wants it. If a scope company is going to include it, I assume they see benefit in offering it commercially. Many of the guys I work around want the T3 or H59 reticle in their personal scopes that they use at work. The H59 is hugely popular still, but the T3 is making converts daily on the Mil side.
On a closing note, I did not mean to derail this thread. It wasn't about the Horus or T3 reticle. That topic has been beat to death around here. Its certainly a love or hate thing.
Lets get this topic back to ATACR 7-35 or March 5-40 if anything else of value can be added.
Last edited:
Moving beyond the childish name calling, I think this thread is done. I hope the OP has got their questioned answered.
Actually, despite the differences of opinion, or perhaps because of them, I found there to be quite a bit of good information to be gleaned from within the various posts. This information therein is something a non-connected person can't just find anywhere.
I find the reference to warranties very funny - do you all drive Kia's then?? 
At the level of S&B/March comparing on scope to another it is down to what you want from a scope, you are paying for it, it is a lot of money, do not be swayed by peoples opinion - define your needs and get behind your final few and decide - your eyes will prefer a certain scopes coatings to another - been demonstrated a good few time at the IWA (yes there are other shows other than 'shot' it's down to the 'colour' of the coating and what your eyes like.
Nightforce are nice scopes, always have been, but now they have (finally) caught up with what S&B were doing 15-20 years ago, but doing so with stooopid big turrets is just plain silly - and makes me ask if anyone who uses one has actually gone out and shot, just generally. I won't even get into buying a scope called 'Beast' FFS! you are post pubescent (assumed) and have a social security number!!
What has being used by the military got to do with anything? There has been numerous examples of military adopting both good and bad kit?
Sort out what you want, go look thru' it, buy it and go practice - pretty simple really.
Terry
ps March are hand build scopes by people who want to build a better scope = abut 1500 a year, the rest are production line
pss I'm not dissing anyone military or LEO, they have my respect and support, but using 'military' as a peak of judgment is a it flawed.
ppss others on here who know me can vouch for my pragmatism/honesty
At the level of S&B/March comparing on scope to another it is down to what you want from a scope, you are paying for it, it is a lot of money, do not be swayed by peoples opinion - define your needs and get behind your final few and decide - your eyes will prefer a certain scopes coatings to another - been demonstrated a good few time at the IWA (yes there are other shows other than 'shot'
it's down to the 'colour' of the coating and what your eyes like.Nightforce are nice scopes, always have been, but now they have (finally) caught up with what S&B were doing 15-20 years ago, but doing so with stooopid big turrets is just plain silly - and makes me ask if anyone who uses one has actually gone out and shot, just generally. I won't even get into buying a scope called 'Beast' FFS! you are post pubescent (assumed) and have a social security number!!
What has being used by the military got to do with anything? There has been numerous examples of military adopting both good and bad kit?
Sort out what you want, go look thru' it, buy it and go practice - pretty simple really.
Terry
ps March are hand build scopes by people who want to build a better scope = abut 1500 a year, the rest are production line
pss I'm not dissing anyone military or LEO, they have my respect and support, but using 'military' as a peak of judgment is a it flawed.
ppss others on here who know me can vouch for my pragmatism/honesty
^Agree. If some of you understood how military contracts work and how things are procured, youd understand just because something is in Mil/Gov use, doesn't mean its the greatest thing ever. It could be quite the opposite. It's called the "lowest bidder". Not saying thats the case here, but being adopted by the military is of little significance IMO.
I read this whole thread and learned nothing about either of the 2 scopes. Just that Lowlight doesn't like Shiraz.
And that March is just as bad as IOR? That seems like a low blow considering March has a good reputation for tracking accurately?
And that March is just as bad as IOR? That seems like a low blow considering March has a good reputation for tracking accurately?
They aren't talking about the optic's quality when making the comparison, only referenced that IOR sent a scope out with a solider and then touted that their scope was being used by Special Forces snipers.
I was refraining from commenting because this whole thread was cringe.
At risk of being called a fan boy for saying something positive about March, I have a 5-40x56 and I like it, a lot. I also own 2x gen 2 razors, Nightforce NXS, A couple Leupold VX7/VX7L's, a couple Swarovski Z5's, Gen I PST, a Razor LH HD, a Sig whiskey 3 and even a redfield. Throw in a few red dots and open sights and that about sums up my collection. I want to add an S&B to the collection as well but they don't offer one in the configuration I'm looking for. I'm not a brand loyalist.
When I bought my March, I was using the NXS primarily, and had thousands of rounds behind it. My first range session behind the March left me feeling like it was in a whole other level compared to the NXS. I went on a (different) forum and said how it made the NXS feel cheap by comparison, and got utterly roasted for saying so. I had them both at the range that day and was comparing them side by side. Not allowed to talk ill of NF, I was told I was wrong by people who had never even seen a March in person. Apparently it was inconceivable for a $3600 March to be better than a $2250 Nightforce in any way. Hey, opinions right... (I still stand by mine)
I haven't spent time behind the new NF offerings, but a mate of mine has S&B PMII and a NF ATACR, and he rates the ATACR higher. If I was looking for another 'big' scope, I would buy the ATACR next, because I like a bit of diversity. That's not an endorsement to say it's the better out of the 2 OP is asking about. I just feel I'd be missing out if I didn't try others. Like when I swore I'd never own a Vortex scope after spending time behind a mates Gen I PST, now I own more of them than any other brand.
Lowlight made a few comments that I think are outdated and incorrect. I bought my March quite a few years ago (2012). It is 1/6400 mils. The fact that it was 1/6400 wasn't a great secret that was exposed by some reviews, this was one of the first things I was told by the distributor when I was still considering the March, prior to purchasing. I'll admit, it wasn't advertised on their website, maybe it should have been? I believe they changed over to 1/6283 mils in the next release after the one I bought. So I think they've been using 1/6283 for at least 2 or 3 years now, possibly more.
Hairy Biker said all 5-40's were 1/6283. That's incorrect. There were 5-40's (including mine) that were 1/6400.
The comments about the Aus SF using March - I can't remember if I heard it directly from the AU distributor when I bought mine, or if I heard it second hand via a friend when he bought his a year or so after me, but that was going back a few years now. I thought I heard an order was placed for a few units? Don't remember, don't care, it was also well prior to the ATACR line of scopes being released.
Wish I could offer more advice to OP based on my experience, but I've never been behind an atacr so I can't tell you which one I prefer. I can tell you the 5-40 is a lot of magnification, more than I need, anyway.
My next scope is probably going to be a 3-24x52 March, not because I'm sold on the scope and love March so much that I want to marry it, but because I can't find anything else with the same features and quality of glass (FFP, mil/mil, 3x min zoom, min 15x max zoom, 30mm tube, zerostop) and I'd also happily own another March.
Last edited:
Bradaus -- oh be careful, you'll be accused of heresy.
I also felt, like you, making any positive comment re. March would be a waste of time so refrained, but like you I've actually owned a few different makes of scope,s over the years and now buy those that fit my needs and requirements.
For ref. I'm not taken in by silly names nor additional knobs or levers that are solutions to non existent problems, especially when the 'knob' is the size of a bean can. Also the fact that a scope is not used by the military- and?? I'm not military nor ever likely to be (now) so trying to emulate them does not influence my choice in scopes.
I also question the % light transmission claims - especially when they are not reference to any ISO standard to determine such claims - caveat I might be doing some makers a disservice here- but I cannot see the ref. on their advertising blurb?
So re. the OP - get behind both, forget the drivel, I personally do not think either of the two scopes you mention will let you down.
Brgds Terry
ps Bradaus you'll love the 3-24x52, I use one on a dual use range/deer rifle = spot on
I also felt, like you, making any positive comment re. March would be a waste of time so refrained, but like you I've actually owned a few different makes of scope,s over the years and now buy those that fit my needs and requirements.
For ref. I'm not taken in by silly names nor additional knobs or levers that are solutions to non existent problems, especially when the 'knob' is the size of a bean can. Also the fact that a scope is not used by the military- and?? I'm not military nor ever likely to be (now) so trying to emulate them does not influence my choice in scopes.
I also question the % light transmission claims - especially when they are not reference to any ISO standard to determine such claims - caveat I might be doing some makers a disservice here- but I cannot see the ref. on their advertising blurb?
So re. the OP - get behind both, forget the drivel, I personally do not think either of the two scopes you mention will let you down.
Brgds Terry
ps Bradaus you'll love the 3-24x52, I use one on a dual use range/deer rifle = spot on
Last edited:
Hey Fuckhead Its Marine Corps not "Marine core". the latter is what you go with your spandex wearing buddies to go work out at. And FYI that Staff Sgt. Marine sniper from the 80'S more than likely was a Distinguished national match shooter and you assume a lot on what his skillsets are.
"Marine Corpes"?? dude I give up you win..HAHA
In the 1980s in the USMC we traveled to Korea with our Sniper Rifles and shot with ROK Marines... in the mountains.
Guess what we had Dope for higher elevation. We also had a Sniper program in Bridgeport CA, more high angle shooting.
Who would you rather listen too, a USMC Scout Sniper or a Cowboy Action Shooter who from TX that like guns ? Remember T.H.s only formal training was 1 week at Rifles Only doing private instruction with Jacob. I spent 7 years working there. He came later and picked up the Horus contract after Jacob tossed it to the side because of Wes Harris. I was on the ground the first day, so there is a some basis for what I speak. The truth about that time might surprise you.
DA was not used in the 80s, but we did understand how to use a dope book as there was no software.
Oh by the way, My combat action came in 1988... peace time you say LOL
Guess what we had Dope for higher elevation. We also had a Sniper program in Bridgeport CA, more high angle shooting.
Who would you rather listen too, a USMC Scout Sniper or a Cowboy Action Shooter who from TX that like guns ? Remember T.H.s only formal training was 1 week at Rifles Only doing private instruction with Jacob. I spent 7 years working there. He came later and picked up the Horus contract after Jacob tossed it to the side because of Wes Harris. I was on the ground the first day, so there is a some basis for what I speak. The truth about that time might surprise you.
DA was not used in the 80s, but we did understand how to use a dope book as there was no software.
Oh by the way, My combat action came in 1988... peace time you say LOL
"As The Rifle Turns" damn this shit is better than the soaps my mom and sister made me watch when I was younger....Thanks fellas!
I'm tired of the whole 6400 versus 6378 versus 3.14 squared debate on March. If you think your 40x FFP is one or the other and would like confirmation, please email DEON directly and quote your serial number on the scope.
Don't know about marketing, but can relate a first hand story about Nightforce. About ten years ago or a bit more, when this forum was much smaller and a very different place, there was a young solider about to deploy to Iraq out of Fort Hood. He was issued a rifle with a Leupold that did not work - at all. He put up a post on here asking for help with the scope and also a few other pieces of kit. I live relatively close to Fort Hood and had two NF 5.5-22x50's. I connected with him and lent him one as well as a Phantom pack. He went to Iraq and one day I received a note that he was in a Humvee that was hit by an IED. The vehicle rolled over and he was thrown against his rifle so hard that the barrel bent some. He was very upset and concerned because the scope was scratched up and might be broken. I told him not to worry about it, just get well fast. He did and was released and sent back to his regular duties. He was issued a new rifle with the same NF mounted on the new rifle. The scope still worked just fine and he used it until the completion of his deployment.
When he was back home at Fort Hood, it was time to return the scope to me. He called and asked if he could buy the scope from me. Of course I agreed.
That sold me on Nightforce. That is not marketing, that is fact.
And as a footnote, the scope was SFP, MOA, low speed turrets, and no zero stop because they did not make them then. Miraculously it worked just fine.
Last edited:
Of course it worked just fine because the old NXS were built strong based on a design by the same guy who went on to design March. But, I would suggest all modern scopes of a certain quality would also survive a similar encounter. As would they survive a bullet strike where that NXS was hit. One mm towards the ocular and there would not have been any advertising but hitting empty space gives the ad man an opportunity to write nightforce-stories and appeal to themes of patriotism.
Now, looking at March construction again, on the 34mm tube the scope body wall is 4mm thick. http://marchoptics.com/warranty. No idea what a 7.62 x 39mm bullet in the same place and the same velocity would do but same sure being bounced around in a rolling vehicle would result in a functional optic at the end.
I still have two of those NXS model scopes. Optically, they cannot compare with the March 2.5 - 25x x 52mm and that meant passing up a shot on a trophy buck at the start of deer season for me.
Now, looking at March construction again, on the 34mm tube the scope body wall is 4mm thick. http://marchoptics.com/warranty. No idea what a 7.62 x 39mm bullet in the same place and the same velocity would do but same sure being bounced around in a rolling vehicle would result in a functional optic at the end.
I still have two of those NXS model scopes. Optically, they cannot compare with the March 2.5 - 25x x 52mm and that meant passing up a shot on a trophy buck at the start of deer season for me.
Given the huffing and puffing about the MILs issue with March scopes, I went directly to DEON to ask. Remember DEON is the company that hand assembles these scopes - one technician produces one scope per day - so they are not the assembly line set ups we see in other manufacturers.
The advice, direct from the guy who designed the scopes in question, is:
QUOTE
Some of initial March 3x-24x42 scopes are with 1/6400 mil spec however almost of them have been with 1/6283 Mil spec.
Regarding 3x-24x52 and 5x-40x56 it has been 1/6283 from the beginning.
Confirmation:
March-F 3x-24x42 except initial scopes : 1/6283 MIL
All of March-F 3x-24x52 : 1/6283 MIL
All of March-F 5x-40x56 : 1/6283 MIL
UNQUOTE
I have one of the initial 1/6400 3 - 24 x 42 scopes and I have several of the 5 - 40 x 56 scopes. Is it possible to tell the difference in elevation adjustment? No. Do I true my range settings by shooting on the range for every scope I own? Yes.
The advice, direct from the guy who designed the scopes in question, is:
QUOTE
Some of initial March 3x-24x42 scopes are with 1/6400 mil spec however almost of them have been with 1/6283 Mil spec.
Regarding 3x-24x52 and 5x-40x56 it has been 1/6283 from the beginning.
Confirmation:
March-F 3x-24x42 except initial scopes : 1/6283 MIL
All of March-F 3x-24x52 : 1/6283 MIL
All of March-F 5x-40x56 : 1/6283 MIL
UNQUOTE
I have one of the initial 1/6400 3 - 24 x 42 scopes and I have several of the 5 - 40 x 56 scopes. Is it possible to tell the difference in elevation adjustment? No. Do I true my range settings by shooting on the range for every scope I own? Yes.
Thank you for the clarification . Rumours are hard to kill round here .....
The click value is different. The reticle is the same. MILs are dimensionless function of angle measurement. The reticle is not and because it subtends a set distance in FFP, it will always do so. The click adjustment value moves the reticle. In the case of the this change in a small number of scopes made before 2012 you need to think in terms of the width of a bee's penis.
Now, regardless of the scope you have, actually getting out and shooting it across various distances is key. This will let you match your loads (or reloads) with the rifle and scope combination.
Now, regardless of the scope you have, actually getting out and shooting it across various distances is key. This will let you match your loads (or reloads) with the rifle and scope combination.
Turret does not match the reticle - Enough said, stop pretending it's not a big Fuck Up on March's part...
It only proves you have to check it, I would not trust it out of the box without first confirming.
But nice work marketing for them, I hope you get a kick back from DEON.
It only proves you have to check it, I would not trust it out of the box without first confirming.
But nice work marketing for them, I hope you get a kick back from DEON.
The true definition of a milliradian is based on a unit circle with a radius of one and an arc divided into 1000 mils per radian, hence 2000π or approximately 6283.185 milliradians in one turn, and rifle scope adjustments and reticles are calibrated to this definition.[SUP][1][/SUP] There are also other definitions used for land mapping and artillery which are rounded to more easily be divided into smaller parts. For instance there are compasses with 6400 NATO mils, 6000 Warsaw Pact mils or 6300 Swedish "strecks" per turn instead of 360° or 2000π, achieving higher resolution than a 360° compass while also being easier to divide into parts than if true milliradians were used.
The only constant regarding a MIL is the lack of consistency across the world. The conversations we had in 2012 have gone a long way towards making it more consistent within the scope building community.
The only constant regarding a MIL is the lack of consistency across the world. The conversations we had in 2012 have gone a long way towards making it more consistent within the scope building community.
in regards to this part of your post HB, were there other scope manufacturers other than March using the 6400 or other values that needed to be brought into line for consistency ?
No idea. As long as the manufacturer advertises what MIL value they use then we can work from that. I know my ballistics calaculator can handle two different types of MIL.
The original Leupold M3A was 6400 that is the difference in the literature between a Marine Mil and an Army Mil, it's not the oval dots vs round dot it's 6400 vs 6283.
The world may use different mils, but the scope building community does not and each time they have it was a mistake that was later corrected.
Not to mention most of those changes in the mil were for artillery where it really does not matter. The reason 6400 is used is that it is the military mil used for artillery and the spacing in the binos and used on a lensatic compass
The world may use different mils, but the scope building community does not and each time they have it was a mistake that was later corrected.
Not to mention most of those changes in the mil were for artillery where it really does not matter. The reason 6400 is used is that it is the military mil used for artillery and the spacing in the binos and used on a lensatic compass
And it is easier to do the math in your head when it is a round number.
What math ?
The difference is 3.43 MOA for 6283 or 3.375 MOA for 6400, that is what it related to when comparing.
After that, they are used exactly the same you just have a different linear value per mil.
Where it goes wrong is because it is no longer 3.6" at 100 yards but 3.53", now how do you round that square ?
please show how it's easier with a round number ?
The difference is 3.43 MOA for 6283 or 3.375 MOA for 6400, that is what it related to when comparing.
After that, they are used exactly the same you just have a different linear value per mil.
Where it goes wrong is because it is no longer 3.6" at 100 yards but 3.53", now how do you round that square ?
please show how it's easier with a round number ?
To bring this thread back just a little, here are some of my first impressions /initial thoughts:
Long story short I took my 7-35x56 out to the range yesterday and holy cow! Yes the reticle is too thick at 35x for shooting, but for an observation tool (target ID, etc.) man is that 35x top end beautiful! Instantly becoming my favorite scope, despite my general blah feeling toward the Mil-R reticle. I don't envision a scenario where I'd want to shoot at 35x anyway. Once this thing has the Mil-C in it, it'll be hands down my favorite.
The fact that it can actually resolve and well at 35x to me is amazing. I have it on a 40 MOA base and I'm getting 28.5 mils of elevation with a 100 yard zero on a 16" .308. Now, this is my first venture into a "high mag" (to me anything over 30x is high mag) scope; but that much travel to me seems downright incredible. According to Trasol, that's enough travel to get my 6.5 creed to 1 mile in the turret alone!
The 10 meter minimum parallax is fun for indoor dry fire. And the push button illumination works well. Not my favorite design as I prefer a rotating knob, but I do like that they give you both red and green. I actually really like the capped windage/beauty ring set up they have going on. Elevation turret is typical ATACR style. I wish they would do something similar to the 4-16 and make the turrets low pro with the zero hold button. I do like that NF does is mark the turret every .5 mils instead of just a larger hash. Makes quick dialing a bit easier.
To me this scope is brighter in low light against a gen 2 razor with both set at 25x-27x. Not sure if that is because of the 35x top end or not but nonetheless that is my observation.
I can't speak to the 5-40x March. I've never used one. But spec wise it doesn't have as much internal elevation. I know March glass is very good, but so is the NF. NF is here stateside so in the unfortunate event I should ever need to use the warranty, it should be a quicker turn around.
I can't wait to take this hunting with me. I predict it'll be perfect for the long range hunting here out west.
Better to have it and not need it, than to not have it and say oh shit.....
Long story short I took my 7-35x56 out to the range yesterday and holy cow! Yes the reticle is too thick at 35x for shooting, but for an observation tool (target ID, etc.) man is that 35x top end beautiful! Instantly becoming my favorite scope, despite my general blah feeling toward the Mil-R reticle. I don't envision a scenario where I'd want to shoot at 35x anyway. Once this thing has the Mil-C in it, it'll be hands down my favorite.
The fact that it can actually resolve and well at 35x to me is amazing. I have it on a 40 MOA base and I'm getting 28.5 mils of elevation with a 100 yard zero on a 16" .308. Now, this is my first venture into a "high mag" (to me anything over 30x is high mag) scope; but that much travel to me seems downright incredible. According to Trasol, that's enough travel to get my 6.5 creed to 1 mile in the turret alone!
The 10 meter minimum parallax is fun for indoor dry fire. And the push button illumination works well. Not my favorite design as I prefer a rotating knob, but I do like that they give you both red and green. I actually really like the capped windage/beauty ring set up they have going on. Elevation turret is typical ATACR style. I wish they would do something similar to the 4-16 and make the turrets low pro with the zero hold button. I do like that NF does is mark the turret every .5 mils instead of just a larger hash. Makes quick dialing a bit easier.
To me this scope is brighter in low light against a gen 2 razor with both set at 25x-27x. Not sure if that is because of the 35x top end or not but nonetheless that is my observation.
I can't speak to the 5-40x March. I've never used one. But spec wise it doesn't have as much internal elevation. I know March glass is very good, but so is the NF. NF is here stateside so in the unfortunate event I should ever need to use the warranty, it should be a quicker turn around.
I can't wait to take this hunting with me. I predict it'll be perfect for the long range hunting here out west.
Better to have it and not need it, than to not have it and say oh shit.....
Thanks for the 'hands on', as I've been pondering one of these with the new Mil-C.
Question though, when you say "too thick @ 35x for shooting", could you explain further?
Being it is a FFP optic, the reticle is 'covering' the same amount of target, regardless of mag. setting...
Question though, when you say "too thick @ 35x for shooting", could you explain further?
Being it is a FFP optic, the reticle is 'covering' the same amount of target, regardless of mag. setting...
Yea so even though it's covering the same amount, to me, it's so in your face that it can be distracting when trying to observe things. Not sure if I'm explaining that right.
The mil-c with the center dot in this scope to me will be a perfect combo and I can't wait until it comes out.
Better to have it and not need it, than to not have it and say oh shit.....
I actually just emailed them about 30 minutes ago asking that exact question and got this response:
"Hello William,
I don't have a definitive answer but have heard that the engineering department is talking about this in the 7-35 optic. Usually we make new releases during our show season. The next big show we have is in January at the Shot Show. Keep an eye on our website as well. Once we decide to make that reticle available it will be posted there first.
Respectfully,"
So it's a little disappointing to hear they seem to be moving a bit slow on that front, but despite that, it's still one hell of a scope I assure you.
ETA: maybe if enough people email/call them requesting this reticle, they'll move a bit faster.
Better to have it and not need it, than to not have it and say oh shit.....
