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!!

March's warranty was 5 years. Did it change to 1 year?

I own the scope you asked about and 3 different NF scopes also. My March is a 2nd FP scope but they do build FFP units.

My 42mm works great as a field scope, it appears that some here feel that their opinions are fact. They need to correct their ignorance, as it does not serve them well.

I have not found the eye box critical either, maybe I am easier to please. I find the glass in my March scope superior to my NF scopes. But in truth I have a Leica that resolves better to my vision than the March.

The March scope's are much lighter than the NF models. Only you can decide if thats is a good thing.

I much prefer the reticles that NF offers and my favorite scopes are my FFP NF scopes.

As a side note, every April the good folks at Kelbly's have a sale. Its worth waiting until then if March is your cup of tea.

The warranty is still 5 years as far as I know!

Good luck,

Randy

I have not had a problem myself but at the match's I attend that has been the one and only gripe. If you do have a problem it is a big hassle to get fixed either by Kelbly's or March (Deon of Japan). really too bad that the best scope on the market has the worst service.

It is a fact. It can be measured. The 42mm version has a critical eye box and a finicky parallax adjustment. I have not met nor heard of anyone that knows what yhey are talking about, that feels differently.

There is a lot more to scopes that are going to be used away from the bench than "glass". "Glass" is the least important attribute of them all in fact.

March may make the benchrest scopes, I don't know, nor do I care. They do not make the best field scope. They have the features and if they did, they would dominate the LR sniper/Tac matches. They don't. They barely have a showing.

Good argument.

http://precisionrifleblog.com/2014/09/19/tactical-scopes-field-test-results-summary/

Great link! Thanks. Too bad the Bushnell weighs 32 ounces.

I had the March scope on my 6.5 SAUM for a few months. I liked the size and weight, the zero stop, and the design of the turrets. The parallax was an absolute joke. 100 yards to infinity in about 1/8 of a turn. Usable power was 15X. At 24 the reticle washed out, and resolution got poor. IMO if you want more power, you need to go larger than 42MM objective.

I replaced it with a Bushnell 3-12X44 LRHS, twice the scope for half the money.

scenar i hear the 4-16x42 PMII works well for a 42mm

Please share with us this measured fact of which you speak. I am not trying to be argumentative at all just trying to separate fact from opinion.

I would truly welcome seeing these measurements and knowing the credentials of those doing the reporting. If it has substances so be it, but I want to see it to believe it.

Randy

Actually he does not make a good argument at all. at LR sniper/ tactical matches most shooters use a FFP scope. March only makes one FFP scope and it is obviously not very good at all.
Most hunters use SFP scopes and March makes several good ones.