Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Anyone using March?

Dont know why the guy didnt try a Swarovski.
http://swfa.com/Swarovski-5-30x50-Z6-30mm-Riflescope-P40472.aspx
Retical selection seems a bit limited but its only 21 ozs.
Not bad at all.

I prefer SFP for target work.But I have used FFP.And done pretty well.
I perfer FFP for game.
All my game scopes are S&Bs and all are FFP.
dave

yeah this is pretty funny. the tactical community thinks they always need FFP. FFP sounds great why wouldn't you want your reticle to stay the same size?? its just unusable at low power, and in a scope that maxes out at say 12-14x when are you going to be using the features of the reticle and NOT be on high power?? you will not be so FFP makes no sense in a scope like that. FFP does make sense in a high power scope though because even at 8x or so the FFP reticle is somewhat usable.

a 2% tracking error isn't going to show itself at 600 yards it may be a couple clicks at 1000 yards. which if your shooting at known distances and are allowed sighters its probably not an issue anyways.

If i'm "the guy", I have,and its junk..

I think he is talking about the rifleman blog guy that tested all those $5000 scopes that we fill our safes with.

One thing that puzzled me about the rifleman blog test was that apparently none of the scopes were put on rifles and tested while the rifles were actually shot. Maybe I missed it somewhere....

They were shot on rifles, however not enough to really test anything.



As an aside.... LR field competitions are filled with 3k-5k scopes.

What were the issues,if you dont mind my asking?

dave

Theres some totally serious optical money sitting on the line at Ridgway.
And everything in between.
Shot next to a guy the first season that had a BSA.All he could afford.The numbers on the knobs were useless.But it did repeat.Worked for the whole season.

March tactical knobs to me are perfection.Look feel and function are the "best" at least to my mind.

March scopes came to life because a benchrest hall of fame member wanted a better BR scope.

He shopped the idea to the major players most of which turned him down.

The "idea" was a no compromise build philosophy.

Deon optical said yes.
http://www.deon.co.jp/march/About-Us.html
The first scopes were full on BR high powers and really not much use for anything other then BR.If you have ever shot a fixed 40 or 50x scope you know what I mean..
From there Deon has branched out.
I think it pretty impressive.
When I talked to Kelbly about mine.
Its pretty much one guy sitting at a bench assembling one scope at a time.Hand built. A few have been sent back for repair but not alot.It will be interestng to see how the older BR scopes hold up as they age and the round count goes maga.


dave

Wow. There is some window licking going on here....

Let see- FFP. The "snobs" that think they need FFP do a hell of a lot more shooting and hitting in the field than "hunters" and a decently designed FFP reticle is completely usable at low and high powers.


Swarovski is complete crap for distance shooting. Fragile, wrong reticles, turrets, tracking, SFP and adjustment range.

Dave,

March Scopes are benchrest scopes, and if I shot BR I would probably use a March. As field scopes they are sorely lacking, which makes sense as their designers have no background in field shooting.

Naw,the serious window lickers arn't even here..yet.
Wait untill you start reading about how only one company "Knows" how to test scopes.And tapping a pencil on the objective bell can move the POA.
I have not had a hands on with a FFP March so ill leave that to others.
Im not really into the armyman game.If I was i'd just grab one of my Schmidts.Sounds like fun.

dave

Dave, the above quote pretty much covers it. They have a nice view tho.

This wasn't true when you bought your scope and still isn't true now.

March makes some great scopes, but there aren't 1/3 as many of them being used in competitions as there are Nightforce scopes.

I would say be more careful here....more know it alls here than any other site on the planet, site owner here is awesome and that makes a huge difference.

Apparently you dont shoot benchrest, a benchrest shooter by the name of Lou Murdica worked with March to bring the first scopes to America. first one I saw was a fixed 50X on a 6ppc bench gun and they are the main rival to the Leupold competition BR scopes. Nightforce makes some awesome scopes but are rarely used in benchrest because of weight issues, what competitions do you refer to that make Nightforce as dominant as you claim ???

One Question
Who else makes a variable 80 power scope that fits on a rifle.

When I was looking the Schmidt & Bender was the only other one (to my knowledge) making a high power variable and it was a 50 power Gigantic anchor of a scope.

March was able to make their scope at a practical size and weight for the 80 power that they sale.

As for their customer service. I my opinion they have been very polite and helpful. I dropped my scope and broke the shade tube off of it. and they shipped me another one very quick to replace it. Faster than other company's that I have contacted.

I wish I could afford another one.

Thank you boatanchor.
Lou Murdica is the HOF member I was thinking of.
The Nightforce is a bit much to make weight on 6mm PPC 13.5 heavy varmint.But for the 17 pound light gun and the unlimited rifles for 1000 yard BR.
Nightforce does pretty well.
NSX and BR Nightforces own 1000 yard BR.
Im thinking thats what the guy is talking about.
dave

I got to use a 3-24x52 FFP today. Eyebox is not all that fickle on the 52mm. I didnt want to ask the guy to take the scope off to mount it in the jig, but put the rifle in the vise and ran a limited tracking test on the board, and i could see no error at all.

I had very limited time with this scope, but really like it. I didnt want the big obj, but after doing a few measurments I'd have to use the same scope mounts on the 42 or 52 for the bolt to clear.

May pick one up..Still thinking on it, its not a cheap item.

http://marchscopes.com/tactical-3-24-x-52-ffp.html
There claiming 23.4 oz. for the non illuminated model.
Thats alot lighter then most.
Last thing i'd worry about is tracking.
Im thinking there were a few stinker 3-24x42s floating around.I've read quite a few reviews that had nothing bad to say about the x42 model.
Nice looking scope.


dave

Rosco,

I have a 3-24X42 non-illuminated that a friend traded to me. I've only had it 6 months and only shot several hundred rounds with it so this is not a comprehensive summery at all.

My impressions:
The glass is excellent. Right up there with my S&B's. The clicks are repeatable and the ergonomics are good. Regardless of the claims to the contrary, I didn't find the eyebox to be too bad either.

Mechanically, it seems pretty tough, but only time will tell about just how durable it is.

My only critique is the side focus/parallax adjustment for 100-infinity is very sensitive and only has a small amount of adjustment compared to NF & S&B.

Other than that, I found it to be a pretty nice scope for the weight and overall versatility.

I think if you get one, you'll like it.