Well I ordered from Optics Planet (I know, they are a mess) because they said they actually had the model I wanted in stock, quantity even listed. I even called first to double check and supposedly all was correct. All seemed well and I got the scope in hand after 2 day shipping. Got 10% off too so it was a great deal!

To make it an even better deal... They sent me the wrong scope! Same model, same reticle, but illuminated when I ordered non-illuminated. Now I have to decide what I'm going to do. If it were only this illumination matter, I'd lean heavily on keeping it. But...

The issue I'm having is I can't get the reticle perfectly clear with the ocular focus. I have it turned all the way in to get it almost right, but I can't go any more and it's still not perfectly crisp. It's surely usable, but I can see a faint line double to the reticle that comes and goes and the little hash marks on the vertical wire appear to bend downward. For this reason alone, it may have to go back. Anyone else have focus issues?

I guess I'll hold onto it for a few days and decide what I'm going to do. I've been playing with it for the last hour. Feels solid in the hands. You can tell the quality is top notch. The power ring is pretty stiff tho, hope it loosens up some. I don't mind the eye box or the parallax being a bit picky. I'd like to make it work, but it's honestly given me a headache tinkering with it for the last hour trying to get that reticle sharp.

No experience with them, but I’d not ‘settle’ for something less than right if buying a March scope.

Since it got dark, I turned on the illumination at dusk and those issues went away. The reticle sharpened up. Hmmm, now what?

Play with the parallax setting as well as the ocular focus. Parallax settings for some scopes will change the focus of the reticle.....I've found this to be especially true in short/compact for power scopes. Often these scopes won't have a specific yardage mark on the parallax adjustment knob.

Which model and what reticle did you get?

I got the 2.5-25x52 with the MTR3 reticle. This thing is driving me crazy.

Have you considered contact March to see what they think?

I really would like this scope to work. I sent March an email. Is that the only way to contact them? Do they have a US based customer service number? I really don't want to fight through a language barrier.

They will treat you right

I’ve been emailing back and forth with them throughout the evening. Really odd that I have to have the ocular maxed out turned all the way in to get even a usable image, which still isn’t perfect. I’ve never had to adjust any other scope that much. Anyone else have to adjust a lot, or unable to get a sharp reticle?

Usually the amount and distance you adjust your ocular is going be similar across different scopes....some have a little more or a little less adjustment range but the way you adjust it should be similar in distance and amount.

I mentioned earlier that you may need to adjust parallax to match with the ocular focus adjustment to get the best image for your eye....this has been the case for me on several scopes to get the sharpest focus and best resolution. This has been the case for me on all NXS 2.5-10x42's that I've used.

On some scopes, my ocular focus is different between high and low powers....the NX8 1-8 is the most obvious one in my case.

I've found these issues of different ocular focus and focus being effected by parallax settings which change with power and/or distance to object to be most common in shorter/compact scopes. I don't know if either of these are issues related to what you're seeing but it took me quite a while to find the combo needed on a few scopes.....and it made a big difference when I finally found it.

There's optical trade offs to get a lot of stuff going in a compact scope. I imagine this gets even trickier for a compact scope with such a wide power range.

I did some more experimentation today, and interestingly enough, The reticle gets nice and clear at higher magnification. It's only at the lower ranges that I can not get the reticle clean, no matter what I do with the diopter or the parallax adjustment. Anyone know what this means optically?

What’s it mean? Shoulda got a NF.......






It’s a joke for you brand sensitive types....

Ha, no offense taken. I've got an NXS and a SHV, both of which I like for their intended purposes, and I had a NX8 I strongly disliked. I really want to like this March. It's 90% there, but that last 10% is messing with my head!

And I also looked through my left eye, crystal clear! Darn it. Too bad I'm not wrong eye'd!

You need to get your eye adjusted!

Lol.

The whole head actually!

That would make me think you have a fair amount of uncorrected astigmatism. Nothing you can do with the scope's adjustments is going to fix that.

I would also contact Ilya Koshkin to get his thoughts. He has a lot of mileage with March I believe.

Well after extensive back and forth emails with a nice gentleman at March, he consulted with their engineers and says they can fix the issue with a modification that will allow for more eyepiece adjustment. Now the problem is I'm supposed to ship the thing back to Japan. I'm supposed to use something called EMS? I'm intimidated by this. I went to the EMS site and it is difficult to use and lacks detailed information. Their link to fill out a customs declaration form also didn't work. Has anyone used EMS before and can you give me a layman's explanation of the process?

I just had an eye exam a couple months ago. I have perfect 2020 in my left eye and I'm slightly nearsighted in my right eye with 20/40, not enough of a hindrance to require corrective lenses at this point. No mention of astigmatism. I have dozens of other rifle scopes and this has never been an issue. I've never needed much ocular adjustment from the factory middle zero setting. There is something unique to the optical design of this particular scope that does not allow enough adjustment for my eye. Interestingly enough, the gentleman from March said when he looked through the same scope without his glasses on, he had the same problem as me. Hmmmm.

Sorry, I'm not familiar with this person. Who?

Dark lord of Optics - on FB

I avoid FB like the plague!

He has his own website

https://opticsthoughts.com/

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/users/12154/koshkin

I have a bad feeling that you will jump through all the hoops and end up not being satisfied with the results. If I was in your shoes I would send it back to Optics Planet for a refund and try a different brand of scope. Just my 2 cents.

It would not surprise me if March made a new ocular for him and used the new design going forward. They are small enough to do that.

This is almost what is happening. The scope is probably flying over the Pacific Ocean as we speak.

Keep us posted!
It's good to know that someone there confirmed the problem so when he fixes it for himself, it'll probably be fixed for you too.

Yes please keep us posted. The rifle I want to put a March scope on is at the gunsmiths. I am interested in your customer service experience.

So far it's been excellent. Very responsive via email. Sympathetic, thorough, detailed and specific responses. No language barrier issues. I have a feeling this will all work out just fine.

Any updates?

Well I have the scope back in hand and their customization to get me more ocular adjustment worked! The reticle is nice and sharp now. It’s fantastic glass. The folks at March were great to deal with. Easy and prompt communication via email, in English. They did offer very detailed pictures and instructions for me to attempt the repair myself, but ultimately I wasn’t comfortable with doing so and opted to ship it back. They got to it quickly and shipped it back promptly with a letter confirming it had passed all their tests. Of course the customs procedure takes a little while so it does require some patience. Overall, I’m a happy customer.

Thanks for posting your experiences.

I'm looking to pick up a March with the FFP, FML-TR1H reticle, so glad to hear that they're going to take care of any issues a guy might encounter.

One question for you on the March scope in reference, do you find the image quality to be equal throughout the X range? Specifically, how's it look on low X? I know you have to give up some things optically in a high x range, shorter scope, but I'm just curious about your thoughts on it with this model.

Provided the parallax is adjusted properly, I do not notice any material degradation in image quality throughout the power range. I don't see any "give up" in image at all. If anything it's the eyebox which gets a bit tighter at high mag, but that's to be expected with a scope of this design. It's still very usable. And the low range image is excellent.

Personally, I don't need the 10X zoom range. I don't understand that need in the field (I'm not a benchrest or competition target shooter) and it can create other issues (which March definitely seems to deal with well I must say) with tunneling and eyebox constraints. I bought this scope because of it's build quality, simple reticle, outstanding turret design, and light weight. It just so happened to have a 10X zoom. Frankly, I'd be even more thrilled with it if it were a more typical hunting scope in the 4-6X zoom range. Pack this build quality into a lightweight hunting marketed scope that was 4-16X, 4/5-20X or 3-18X, and it would own the category.

SD:

Thanks for the report.

I'm in full agreement with you on the 10x zoom. I do like a big game hunting scope to go down to a low power such as 2-3X, but I personally don't need anything near 20+ X for big game hunting or the long range shooting I do. I've put 6x and 2-10X variables to good work at targets 6-800 + yds away.

I'm interested in a March for the same reasons you stated, and because they offer a couple of well thoughtout reticle designs that I like. I agree that if they offered a 3-12, 4-16, 3-15, etc with some of their reticle and turret options, they'd own the lightish weight, high end, long range hunting scope market. I think the same of NF: a few tweaks to their reticles to make them a little more hunter centric, and they'd appeal to even more folks.

I agree completely Starbuck.

I like Nightforce, and own several too, but what you are buying is pretty much durability (which is certainly worth it) alone. As a hunter, there isn't much else to love. Their reticles are just OK for hunting. Their glass is nothing special (with the exception of the ATACR, but the 34 mil tube is unnecessary), their turrets are obtrusive, and they weigh too damn much!

With this newfound consumer awareness of the importance of durability and zero retention, March has an opportunity here. There are really only 3-4 well known players in the rugged and reliable hunting scope market right now, and they each have issues. Schmidt and Bender = huge expense and heavy. SWFA = impossible to get and mediocre glass. Bushnell LRHS = discontinued and, Nightforce = heavy, just OK glass and reticles.

If March could emerge and show themselves as a player in the hunting scope market that is: 1. dead nuts reliable and can handle impacts (they do impact testing), 2. light weight, 3. good, usable reticles, and 4. great glass, they will have eliminated just about all tradeoffs and would own the market.

If NF just made the NXS 2-10x42 with the 4a reticle they would also grab more market share.

Yep! Same with the 3-10 SHV too.

Btw, March glass blows away all NF glass except for maybe the ATACR line, which lacks practicality imo, due to the tube size.

SDHNTR and Starbuck, I'm in 100% agreement with you on the March 3-24x42 and 3-24x52 scopes. I have a few that were custom built with a capped windage turret and the FML-1 reticle. They work well on a hunting rig. I like the capped turret, but the reticle could be about 25% heavier for my tastes. The 3-24x42 model is a nice upgrade to the Bushnell 3-12x42 LRHS. I've noticed the image in the 3-24x42 seems to darken at the higher powers, say above 15x. But to be fair to March, it's been about a year since I looked through the 3-24-42 at the range, so it may be my memory that's a little dim right now. That said, I haven't noticed this with the 3-24x52 version, which I've been using a lot lately. As you mentioned, there's no need for a 10x zoom range so I imagine if March came out with a 3-15x42 or a 4-14x42 with capped turret, forgiving eye box and a smidge heavier reticle they'd do quite well.

Well put LJB. A massive zoom range, except maybe one that starts at true 1x, is lost on me. For a hunting and/or tactical scope I prioritize an 8x zoom range below probably every other characteristic. This has been March's calling card and I don't get it.

Yes, the 52 mil version has no discernable darkening that I can tell, and I specifically looked for that. I think that optical design just works better in a scope with larger geometry. Personally, I'd take that exact same scope dimensions and reticle choices and just make it a 3-18x. If it proved as durable, or close to it, as a NF, we'd have found the best hunting scope on the market. FWIW, I thought the reticle was just a hair thin at first too, and then I turned the illumination on, problem solved.

NF does offer the 4a. But you'd have to know someone in Europe or Australia, etc who can work their way through customs to get you one in USA.


SD:

You mentioned that you had an NX8 and didn't care for it. What aspects of it were you displeased the most with? In what ways was it inferior to the March scope in reference? I spent some time with an NX8 2.5-20. I liked a lot about the scope, but I wasn't as thrilled with the reticle as I am with several other designs.

I actually think the glass in SWFA HD models is surprisingly good. It's not alpha, but I've been very pleased with the level of detail resolution you get with them. Especially considering what they go for. I'd love for them to offer a 2-12 or 3-15 HD with low pro elevation turret and capped windage; even better if they could offer it with a THLR style reticle.

In reality, I wouldn't feel just too slighted if I had to do the majority of my big game hunting with a 6X SWFA. There's certainly better options to fit specific needs, but it's a darn good all around scope, and you can't find a better value.

For my uses, and of the many scopes I've owned and used to this point, it's tough to beat the LRHS/LRTS in 3-12 for all around big game hunting. They're rugged, the glass is good, you get 10 mil per rev, and the reticles are well thought out and usable throughout the X range. I bought a couple of the gen 2 LRHS, but I haven't spent a ton of time with them yet; glass might be a touch better than gen 1, but I wasn't displeased with the gen 1's view. I do wish they still offered the 3-12 version.

All the functional reasons why I like this March better is why I didn’t like the NX8 2.5-20. It tunneled, it darkened, and the eye box was really finicky. It was not accommodating to field positions that were not ideal. I also don’t like rails and mounting that bugger pretty much requires one.

A few weeks back I couldn’t find one in Europe...
And it adds unnecessary costs.
If they can build them for Europe they should be able to offer it here in the states.

While you're at it, find me a diesel Toyota Hi Lux too!

When I bought my dodge (the second year they came out with the Cummins) diesel was cheaper than gas and it paid to get a Diesel engine.....

As I understand it, March scopes mission in life is to push back on the optical envelope, so to speak, by stretching the capabilities of the optics. They have very few 6X zoom scopes, the vast majority are 8X, and 10X. That is what sets them apart from all the other manufacturers. If they built 4X and 5X zoom scopes, they would be like everyone else and I don't think that's their style.

If you look at their offerings, you will see that they like to lead and innovate. For example, they were the very first riflescope manufacturers to incorporate ED glass elements in their riflescopes 14 years ago. All the March scopes are manufactured incorporating ED glass except for the 24mm LPVOs and the X/FX and Genesis categories, which use Super ED glass, again, a world's first.

They offer a dual reticle in their 1-10X24 LPVO (SFP and FFP both). They have the Genesis models with incredible amounts of adjustments, a world's first. They have the highest magnification riflescope on the planet; the March-X 8-80X56. The list goes on.

The March 2.5-25X42/52 SFP and the 3-24X42/52 are little marvels of optical engineering. If you think that 10X and 8X zooms are too much, just don't crank it past what you need. The new 1.5-15X42 is another optical marvel and if you think 15X is too high, stop at 10X. Easy peasy. I'm not understanding why people complain about having too much magnification.

The March scopes are incredibly strong, as strong as anything out there and stronger than most because of the way the tubes are made. Their 34mm tubes are veritable Abrams tanks. Yet, they are light because of the engineering of the scopes.

I would not hold my breath waiting for a mundane 3-15X42 when they have a 1.5-15X42 and a 2.5-25X42/52 already. They offer several reticles so you can choose the one you want.

Not holding my breath for any optics manufacturer to market a "mundane" FFP scope to suit shooting most of the world's non-dangerous big game from 10 - 600 yards in just about any condition imaginable. The Bushnell 3-12x42 LRHS is very good because it was designed by serious hunters, but is now discontinued. The Tangent Theta 3-15x50 has a great reticle but is too heavy (mass) and the 50 mm objective too large The 3-12x42 S&B PH only has about 3 MILs elevation travel. And like I said, the March 3-24x42 is very good but dims past 15x (the reason the 10x zoom range is wrong for the package) and the reticle is a touch too thin without illumination. At this stage in the game, it's not about innovation, it's about hitting the "mundane" sweet spot.

I hear what you are saying and I love the way you present your arguments; very cogent and logical. I only stated what my impression is from what I have observed with March. I do not speak for them in any way shape or form. This thread is actually a testament to the fact Deon (makers of March scopes) listen to customers and provide outstanding customer support.

That said, I would urge you to go to the March website, go to contact me and put in your thoughts as you have expressed them here. As we know, Deon is extremely responsive. Give it a day or two for them to respond and go from there.


https://marchscopes.com/about-us/ Scroll to the bottom of the page.

The 52 mil version solved the dimming issue with a scope that's just a bit bigger and a couple ounces heavier. A fair tradeoff, IMO. Yes, I'd still like to see a more standard 5 or 6X zoom scope. To me the draw is lightweight AND durability. No one else does both, there's a compromise with all other manufacturers I'm aware of. With a lesser zoom range, they could probably make it more lightweight. Or pack it into the current 3-24x42 mil scope body and not have the darkening issue. There's a huge desire to have light and rugged in a hunting scope. Some have tried. Swaro, Zeiss, Vortex, etc and they have all failed in the durability department. I understand March's niche with high zoom, and I've communicated this desire to them also. They don't want to enter a crowded market and want to do innovative stuff no one else is doing. I get that, but my counterpoint is that is still precisely what I'm asking for! Light AND durable IS a niche of it's own that no one else has mastered. Figuring that out without a compromise on one element or the other IS innovative!

For now, the 2.5-25x52 is the best compromise in a hunting scope I can come up with, even though it's giving me stuff I don't want or need and am "paying" for in one way or another ($, size, weight). I wasn't personally willing to accept the usability compromise with the 42mm version.

I'm very interested in light and durable.

How durable are they? Has anyone truly beaten on one and verified it's held zero, tracks correctly, and returns to zero correctly?

In my experience, simple things are more durable than complicated things. Even if build to the same standards, there's just more places to fail if something is more complicated. March is doing a lot with their scopes. I don't know if they will take a beating or not. If I was confident they would, I'd love to try one.

As a side question, as I'm a hunter and I don't shoot competitively and don't even know (or care) what Benchrest vs PRS vs F class all means. What is the purpose of an ultra high mag riflescope? 80X? What's that for? Or even half that! Why is there a market for such scopes? Hell, even off a bench at 20X my heartbeat alone throws crosshairs off target. What are people using these super high zoom ranges and ultra high magnification for?

They have a video briefly showing impact testing and beating on the scope somewhat, but you blink, you'll miss it. They apparently do impact test all scopes and verify on a collimator before they go out the door, like NF does, but I don't know if they are going to extremes like shooting them with shotguns and pounding big spikes into stumps with them. I did mention to March that they have an opportunity here to differentiate themselves as being strong AND lightweight, as nobody else is currently, but they'd need to market and demonstrate that durability better. Lightweight shows itself on paper and in specs. Durability is harder to quantify and needs to be demonstrated visually. They seemed to grasp and agree. Hopefully will see more obvious and visible durability testing from them.

+1 on the Hi lux.

I have had several retailers who I deal with ask NF if they had any intentions to offer the 4a in USA. The answer they recieved in every instance was a solid no. I agree with Jeff in that it shouldn't be that hard to offer a special edition in the USA every now and then when they are already making the scope.

I can answer that side question.

My favorite riflescope right now is a March-X 10-60X56 HM that sits on top of my F-TR match rifle. I have been shooting rifles competitively for 40 years and F-Class (F-TR) for 17 years. (Hence my screen name here.) This March scope has been on my rifle for 3 years now; I shoot 1000-yard competitions year-round, at least once a month. A match will be at least 66 rounds for the day. These are heavy bullets out of a .308 Winchester case loaded to a little beyond book maximum. I shoot at 50X on the scope all the time, regardless of conditions. The Super ED glass in the scope is not as affected by mirage as ED glass and especially non-ED glass. The target at 1000 yards is an X-ring that is 5 inches and a 10-ring at 10 inches in diameter. I have been doing this a LONG time and I can hold precisely on the target for minutes on end. You develop that skill over time.

I have some friends who shoot with the March-X 8-80X56 and they go all the way to 80X. I have found that 50X was perfect for me as I could see the entire target and part of the target on either side along with the target number, and not crossfire on the wrong target.

The 8-80X56 is also quite popular with the field target folks and their airguns for highly precise shooting. I've not ever done any of that.

Interesting. Thanks. That stuff is all so foreign to me. So I guess it's not important to see your hits in that application? Or do you have spotters? That's really important in hunting and that extra high mag shrinks FOV so much that even the slightest recoil makes it impossible to see hits.

I don't know about Benchrest. I've shot some PRS and for that I use a scope that tops out at 28X. Seeing your hits and misses is important, trace is critical but all the PRS rifles wear brakes and stuff so it's easier to control. In F-class, no, I do not see my impact or my trace. Well, that's not quite true, more on that in a second. In F-class, no brakes are allowed. The F-open guys have big front rests that will keep the rifle steady, and they can see the trace. My bipod dances on the flat surface and it moves left a little the same way every time. The recoil is a little fierce with the heavy .308 bullets used. When I was shooting a .223 at 1000 yards, the recoil was a lot tamer and I could actually see the trace sometimes and one I even say the spotter fly off the target when I hit it. Thankfully it was in the 10 ring.

The shots are all score and marked individually, either by a target puller in the pits or on the screen with etargets. The way I do it is when I take the shot, I let the rifle recoil, do a good follow-through by counting 1001, 1002 and then I start moving. The precision required demands the best gun handling I can muster and follow-through is critical.

I'm not much of a hunter; I am much more of a shooter and there's just not enough shooting in hunting. Also, there's a discipline that evolves when all your shots are scored and recorded. My F-TR rifle has over 30,000 rounds through it and is on its 6th barrel. My first March, the March-X 5-50X56 was on there for 7 years and about 22,000 rounds. Never an issue and maintained tracking perfectly.

Wow that's a lot of shooting! You must constantly reload. How do you ever find enough powder and components?

I've seen it stated that March scopes are tougher than NF. How much validity is there in this statement? If it's more than marketing hyperbole, how is/was this determination made?

It's not that I doubt that they are reliable and stand up to a lot of dialing, but getting to and hunting rough country adds another element to the use and abuse profile. Also, hunting rifles tend to be much lighter and cartridges tend to recoil more than competition rigs. Further, March are high end, more costly scopes, and people tend treat more expensive items better than they would, say, a $300 SWFA that came with free rings, or even a $800 Bushie LRTS.

It's all a process that I have "mastered" over the years. My loading equipment is pretty high end ($$$). I have a Giraud trimmer, a V4 autotrickler, a Redding T-7 press, a Giraud annealer and Lyman turbo cleaner. I always have a box of 100 cases in process somewhere. Crunch time comes when I go to the Nationals and need 400 rounds loaded, or when I go to the Worlds and needed 500 rounds.

Components have been an issue but I always plan for years ahead for things like primers, as they are the most difficult things to obtain in a crunch. Second is bullets; they come and go. I always buy in bulk like 1000s of bullets, and 500 cases, and so on. It's a process.

Some of the F-class shooters have reduced their shooting or even stopped altogether due to component issues. It's pretty bad. Planning is key, and searching on the internet.

LJB:

You framed it perfectly. I fully agree with your discernments on the subject.

And even though I already have a cache of them, and I'm still trying different scopes, I'm still scrounging the interwebs for more Bushie 3-12 LRHS/LRHT's. There's certainly better scopes by certain metrics, but not many put it all together as well as they do.

All good questions and we can talk about it, but I don't really want to compare NF and March; it's not my place and there's a lot of hearsay and stories.

Now, about those heavy competition rigs compared to light hunting rifles. Shoot 2 rounds with a hunting rifle and you're done for the day, maybe even 1 round. My day of shooting will be about 70 rounds. At a 2-day competition, it will be 140 rounds over those 2 days. Go to the Nationals and shoot MR and LR plus some team and you're over 400 rounds over say 8 days of continuous shooting

As for taking care of your equipment, I'm sure you're correct, but sh*t happens when you travel to competitions and move equipment around a lot. I can tell you stories. I've had my rifle fall off the cart a couple times over the years and land on hard stuff. I've had it fall over, and do other pirouettes. And when these big heavy rifles fall on the scope...

I've seen lots of scope failures over the decades of competition, and I'm extremely confident in my March scope compared to any other brand. That's as far as I will discuss.

FTR:

Thanks for the in depth response. Thanks, too, for being honest with your experiences. I'm ready to give one with the FFP FML-TR1H a whirl. Trying to decide if I want to go 42 or 52 on the objective.

For me, that was an easy one. Usability won out over the very small increase in size and weight. I went 52. Less darkening and much easier to get behind (more forgiving eyebox).

That's a pretty good testimonial. If you had one of those super heavy guns fall onto the ground, land on the scope and it still held zero, that's saying something! Of course assuming all March scopes are made to the same durability standards.

The 30mm tubed March scopes have a 2mm thick wall in the main tube, whereas the 34mm tubes have 4mm thick walls. The 30mm tubed March are very strong, and the March-X 5-50X56 as well as all other 56mm Marches and any other March scope with a 34mm tube, are immensely strong.

During a National competition, you shoot 4 days in a row at 600 yards (MR) and then 4 days at 1000 yards (LR). On the first match of the first day of the championship (either MR or LR), you have unlimited sighters and then 20 shots for record. After that, each match is 2 and 20. Depending on the venue, the first match of each subsequent day "may" allow a one minute blow off period to all the shooters to dirty up a clean bore, others just go 2 and 20.. I like to clean my rifle after every day, but not down to the metal. So I will take 3-4 shots during the blow off, more for bringing up the barrel to temperature. This blow off is not on a target, it's on the berm behind the target so you can't really see exactly where you're hitting and the berm can be quite a distance behind the target, for example at Raton.

So, when the event occurred, I was faced with the fact I had no chance to check the zero before going into the blow off period; I was going in cold. During the blow off, I observed that I was hitting in the expected area in the berm. So, the scope was not broken in pieces, the thin carpet had prevented scratches, and the bullets were going in the berm. Things were looking up. I figured I could adjust whatever was needed using my two sighters on target. When the target came up, my first shot was in the black at proper elevation. I experienced a huge sigh of relief. The displacement on the target was par for the course from day to day or even match to match during the same day, depending on the conditions. When you're pushing a .308 bullet 1000 yards downrange, the wind has a big vote in the results. All this to say, that at closer distances, I would probably not have seen a shift in zero.

My rifle weighs just under 17 pounds.

That's great. I appreciate your experience.

I've emailed back and forth with March a lot and I explained that I think they would be well served by proving their durability to the world. Show us how durable they are. Show us in great detail the impact tests, not just 2 seconds in an obscure video. Beat on em and show us how they hold up, like NF does (well maybe without some of the ridiculousness like shooting the scope with a shotgun!) Include durability in their marketing efforts with all their other features, great glass, good reticles and light weight. Demonstrate they can do all that AND be ultimately reliable after impacts and they'd set the world on fire. To date, no one else has proven they can do all three+: Light, alpha level glass, and extreme durability. The market is demanding reliability now. Walk the walk and show us. You'll sell more scopes.

I'm in full agreement with your thoughts on this matter. The market for a rugged, reliable, high end, hunter centric scope for a rifle that's meant to be carried is seemingly fairly wide open right now.

Once you've experienced a few lemons that don't track consistently and or don't hold up to getting knocked around, it's tough to use something you lost the faith in.

Yea. I lost confidence in Swarovski z5 5-25X52.

Same here with Swaro. Great view, but what's that worth in a rifle scope?