Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics March scopes?

Anyone know anything good or bad about the March 2 1/2-25X42 scope?

All prices are in AUD
Tactical 2.5-25 x 42
Price: $2200.00
Crosshair, DE Plex or � dot

US Dollar 0.845322=1.0 AUD

I put one on a buddy's rifle and it is a sweet scope.

That guy that did the big expensive scope test here a couple of months back didn't like them. Most March scopes are SFP reticles and that doesn't fly in the snob tacticool scope world. I guess they still want to be able to range with them on any magnification.

I OK with just using my laser rangefinder myself!

March scopes cant be too bad if Stuart Elliot uses them !



http://www.500mflyshooter.com.au/in...y-michael-bell-subject-2-stuart-elliott/

I am fairly certain that the benefit of FFP is that holds are accurate, whether elevation or wind, at any power if holding instead of dialing is the choice for the shot. The snobs you demean are most certainly not "ranging" with these scopes. Lasers have replaced the reticle for years.

To the OP:
I own a March, the 3-24 FFP version. Nice scope but not perfect. The glass, build quality, adjustments are all excellent which would be the same for both SFP and FFP models. Both models are relatively lightweight and compact.

Thanks, gentlemen. I fail to see the value of ffp scope. I used my sfp mill dot on 20X by discovering where the impact were.

When my Swarovski gets back from Swarovski going through it I will sell it and get a new scope.

Have any of you compared the March with Nightforce for resolution and low light performance?

Yes. March has the better glass. Not even close. And I am a dedicated NF NXS user.

MOF, if you want to talk glass only, specifically, I think March has better glass than ANY other scope made. ANY.

Please keep in mind I have only looked through 2-3 of them at the 600yd range. BUT was able to compare side by side with NF, Sightron, Leupold, S&B, and Zeiss.

The scopes I looked through were friggin' amazing in every way.

I can't comment on how repeatable they are. I still run my NXSs and fixed Mark 4s...

Functionally they work. The mil versions use a base of 6400 mils for the adjustments, and will need a correction. Glass is very good. Parallax adjustment is fickle. The eyebox on the 42mm is very critical.


The 42mm is not a suitable field scope. The 52mm is better.

Hmm. Never looked through the 42mm, only the larger 52mm model.

All the scopes I compared it to were of between 50mm and 60mm objectives.....

I had the 2.5-25x42 and agree with the above. Eye box was terrible on higher powers. Glass was great though. Zero stop was excellent

I called March today and asked about the 42 and the 52. There is a $400 difference. I asked Jim to compare them in low light and let me know his discovery. That will help me make a decision.

I haven't given up on the Leupold 4-24X52 yet, though.

Get the new VX6 7-42, that looks badass.

7X is too much at the bottom end. My z5 at 5X was as high as I will use. I want more field of view than that.

I'd Get a Bushnell...I Here Their So Much Brighter..

When I compared my Nightforce, Bushnell 6500 and Minox 13X56, the Bushnell 4 1/2-30X50 lasted two minutes longer than the 13X56.

I have not used or looked through the exact model you are asking about but have looked through and used several March scopes, IMO I think March makes the best scope on the market right now. Only downside and a big one is the warranty.

What's the warranty?

Unless it has recently changed it is one year and original owner.

drover

Thanks. That narrows the field to Leupold VX-6 4-24X52 Boone & Crockett. I will get one on the way to compare with the Bushnell 6500. I sent the Swaorvski z5 5-25X52 BT in for any repairs it might need before I offer it for sale.

I will post the comparison for those who like to see outside the store comparisons on eye charts and deer antlers.

I believe the warranty is 5 years with March scopes, but I know if there was an issue, Kelbly's would take care of it for you!!