Looking around for a new high end scope.
- Thread starter airgunmike56
- Start date
Not only March. Schmidt and Bender (S&B), which has been known to be at the top of high end/Tier 1 optics also had image quality compromises when they introduced their Ultra Short series of scopes. It's just the physics in scope design and engineering. March is closing the gap when they introduced their March-FX High Master 4.5-28x52.
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Here is a discussion (llnk below) of a March scope.
It discusses its small eye box and touchy parallax.
This discussion is rather helpful to give an idea of what issues and features to consider, especially when OAL and magnification are concerned.
Link:
www.longrangehunting.com
Matthias
It discusses its small eye box and touchy parallax.
This discussion is rather helpful to give an idea of what issues and features to consider, especially when OAL and magnification are concerned.
Link:
March F 3-24X52 initial impressions and video.
Got my March F 3-24X52 in and mounted it in my 6.5 PRC. I know there is a lot of commotion about the “eye box” and the touchy parallax. I set the eye relief up while the scope was at 24X, as well as the focus, to take out any extra play. Once I had it set the right distance from my eye, anything...
Matthias
Upvote 0
Nice!Here is a discussion (llnk below) of a March scope.
It discusses its small eye box and touchy parallax.
This discussion is rather helpful to give an idea of what issues and features to consider, especially when OAL and magnification are concerned.
Link:
March F 3-24X52 initial impressions and video.
Got my March F 3-24X52 in and mounted it in my 6.5 PRC. I know there is a lot of commotion about the “eye box” and the touchy parallax. I set the eye relief up while the scope was at 24X, as well as the focus, to take out any extra play. Once I had it set the right distance from my eye, anything...
Matthias
With my springers I never shoot at an animal past around 60 yards give or take. I've done paper punching and plinking out to 100 yards and the March scopes are stellar in that range, and well past! I'll sight things past 200 yards and have no issues with my March scope at all.
Upvote 0
I read the piece. Thanks. S7Here is a discussion (llnk below) of a March scope.
It discusses its small eye box and touchy parallax.
This discussion is rather helpful to give an idea of what issues and features to consider, especially when OAL and magnification are concerned.
Link:
March F 3-24X52 initial impressions and video.
Got my March F 3-24X52 in and mounted it in my 6.5 PRC. I know there is a lot of commotion about the “eye box” and the touchy parallax. I set the eye relief up while the scope was at 24X, as well as the focus, to take out any extra play. Once I had it set the right distance from my eye, anything...
Matthias
Upvote 0
Greetings, P671.@Sanctify7
It's good to see you've been diligently doing your research on choosing a scope. In regards to short bodied scopes having compromises in image quality, you are correct. A scope with a high zoom erector ratio (5× and up) and a scope body usually under 13-14", the compromises are shallow/narrow depth of field (DOF), finicky eyebox, and sensitive parallax adjustment.
I'm not sure if you ever visited this forum as part of your research. The forum layout might look familiar to you comparing it to AGN lol. If you want to expand your horizons and research in scopes, I suggest heading over to the Snipers Hide forum. Look under the subforum category "Observation and Sighting Devices". If you can get by the scope snobbery and flaming, you'll be alright lol. Don't get me wrong. There's still a lot of good info on that forum that will be a benefit to your knowledge.
Check out this comparison review by one of their members, Glassaholic.
Rifle Scopes - Alpha Class Long Range Scope Review - TT, ZCO, Schmidt, March, Vortex
For those who've known this has been coming, thank you for your patience, it is finally here, hope you all enjoy! Tangent Theta 5-25x56, ZCO 5-27x56, Schmidt & Bender 3-27x56, Schmidt & Bender 5-25x56, Vortex Razor G3 6-36x56, March G2 5-40x56, March 4.5-28x52 and Burris XTR III 5.5-30x56 It...www.snipershide.com
It's lengthy but a good read if you want to know what separates "high end", Alpha Class/Tier 1 scopes from the others. It's very well written and how a review on optics should be done IMO.
EDIT:
I know the link I posted above caters to powder burners but a lot of the members are rimfire shooters as well. Get what you need out of it.
First, thanks for the comment to me on my scope giddyup. It's been fun. I think it was you who said a few months ago that the "journey" was the fun?
Second, the above response finally clarifies a murky issue for me about the inherent deficiencies in compact scopes with even modest magnification ranges. Third, I checked out this article; it was informative, and I copy on the context. I appreciate you posting the link. (As many today, the reviewer needs a lesson in writing etiquette and manners. Here's where I am picky.)
Fourth, YouTuber Michael Mahoney, an admitted March guy, ranks some of his March scopes quite favorably with different S&B and Nightforce ones. But his concern--and mine--is for light compact scopes. I think I will have to presently leave out the S&B line for no other reason than I have enough scopes to work through. And, for whatever reason, I seem to find some of the March lines to be what I may be interested in. But the S&B scopes have recently come my attention, and this article furthered that awareness. The same applies to the ZCO scopes. They are highly touted.
Finally, I am honestly so far in over my head at one level with this scope talk. I am a 'simple' airgun user who just happens to have acquired a taste for quality scopes. I shoot at such modest distances, and my (present) needs are so basic, some of the things that would cause a shooter like the guy that wrote the article and many on this forum to make a choice are not as pertinent to me. I do like to learn, however, and store up what I get. I chuckle when I think of what I knew about scopes six months ago compared to what I know now, modest as that knowledge base is. I guess most of us could say the same thing, more or less.
And one more thing, if you don't mind: What do you think about March scopes? If you have already made a comment, perhaps you wouldn't mind repeating it. As I said previously, I am looking at the 2.5-25x42 or the 2.5-25x52. I am also intrigued by the 1-10x24 ( I think) with the dual reticle
Thanks a bunch. Your assistance is always appreciated. S7
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This is for particularly for Glenroiland, because we previously discussed the topic, and for all of you guys, of course. Here's the link/video: The review is by Michael Mahoney of the March 2.5-25x42. The reviewer says he had a distortion problem with his March 3-24 scope on the 3 and 4x, but no such problem existed with his 2.5-25. The relevant comment runs from about 4:20 to 5:04. (Of course, this is just one scope. If someone could verify that they too had such a problem, then there may be something going on here with this March model. I'd like to know, because I am cool towards the 3-24x as of right now.) On a side note, Mahoney also says some of his March scopes parallax down to mere feet, as in five or so, and that at 25x (!), and others go under ten yards. This is of paramount interest to me, and hopefully to some of you. Thanks. S7
Upvote 0
So, my March will parallax to under 10 feet easily..I'll double check when I get home, but I'd bet it's 6 feet or so.
Upvote 0
That's great. I am very interested to find out. And please tell me again what March you have. Thanks. S7
Upvote 0
Upvote 0
Upvote 0
Okay. I am seeing 25x25, and the lens cover blocks whatever may be additional. I guess it is a fixed power? S7
Upvote 0
It's a fantastic piece of machinery. Hard to find a flaw with it, except those mentioned already above.Oh! Thanks, and take care. This is the primary March I am looking at. S7
Upvote 0
I currently own the March-FX High Master 4.5-28x52 illuminated model with the FML-TR1 reticle. So far, it's my favorite reticle to date. Prior to purchasing it, I was also looking at the March-F 3-24x52. I figured that the price was somewhat close but I went for the gusto and ended up getting the March-FX 4.5-28×52 High Master.
Excellent optic with the Wide Angle lenses. It has the largest field of view out of all my optics. For a 34mm main tube, it doesn't weigh as much coming in at 29.8 ounces compared to others. One negative is I wish that the illumination was a little brighter. IQ is excellent when it's not close to the high or low end of the elevation range. I have it mounted on my AAA EVOL Mini .22 which IMO is a perfect match.
In regards to the March Compact series 2.5-25x42 and 2.5-25×52, these are SFP scopes. The March-F 3-24×42 and 3-24×52 are FFP. Not sure what you want and not a fair comparison. I know mmahoney is a member here but I haven't seen him post lately. You might want to reach out to him.
Now on to Zero Compromise Optic (ZCO). I recently picked up the 4-20×50 with MPCT-1 reticle. All the praise it's been given is deservedly so and is at the top end in what I own. I'm no scope reviewer and I can't write enough good about it than what's been said. The only negative is that it focuses down to 25 yards but I have it mounted on my AAA EVOL Paradigm .22 which is set up for longer distances.
In regards to S&B, I have never owned or looked through one so can't comment much on it.
Last edited:
Upvote 0
You have some really nice scopes.
I have looked at the 4.5-28x52, but it is a bit heavy for me, though it is not heavy in the bigger picture. I am also contemplating whether I prefer the first- or second-focal plane. As of now, here is my order of preference: The March Compact 2.5-25x42; the March Compact 2.5-25x52; and perhaps third is the March 1.5-15x42 in the March-FX line, which has the illuminated dual reticle. And yes, I absolutely want the 10-yard parallax. Both M. Mahoney and Glenroiland have parallaxed down to stunning distances of under 10 feet. Great glass, overall strong quality, light weight, and magnificently close parallax distances are what have me right now. I have already thought of contacting Mahoney and may do soon. I didn't know he was a member. (I previously said his videos may not be the most professional. I retract that statement, and may delete it. He is fine to me, and I always learn something. And I am not saying this because I found out he was a member. The more I watched his videos, the more I became impressed with his assistance.) Thanks for sharing. S7
I have looked at the 4.5-28x52, but it is a bit heavy for me, though it is not heavy in the bigger picture. I am also contemplating whether I prefer the first- or second-focal plane. As of now, here is my order of preference: The March Compact 2.5-25x42; the March Compact 2.5-25x52; and perhaps third is the March 1.5-15x42 in the March-FX line, which has the illuminated dual reticle. And yes, I absolutely want the 10-yard parallax. Both M. Mahoney and Glenroiland have parallaxed down to stunning distances of under 10 feet. Great glass, overall strong quality, light weight, and magnificently close parallax distances are what have me right now. I have already thought of contacting Mahoney and may do soon. I didn't know he was a member. (I previously said his videos may not be the most professional. I retract that statement, and may delete it. He is fine to me, and I always learn something. And I am not saying this because I found out he was a member. The more I watched his videos, the more I became impressed with his assistance.) Thanks for sharing. S7
Last edited:
Upvote 0
S7,
just to chime in with a consideration, just looking at the magnification and objective lens — maybe to narrow things down — maybe to muddle the waters again.....
(No. 1) March Compact 2.5-25x42
(No. 2) March Compact 2.5-25x52
[corrected]
(No. 3) March FX 1.5-15x42
(A)
Without knowing your shooting scenarios: Do you really need such a wide FoV as a 1.5x (No. 3)? Even 2.5x (No. 1 and 2) seem pretty wide by most shooting scenarios (it seems that only shooting scurrying rats at 10y range would call for such a wide FoV).
With a 3x you might have all the FoV you'll need.
(B)
For FFP scopes only: The wider the magnification range the smaller the reticle when on lower magnification.
•All three scopes, No. 1, 2, and 3, have a 10-fold magnification range.
10-fold is fairly "extreme".
For comparison, typical magnification ranges are:
•6-24x and 4-16x have a 4-fold magni range.
•5-30x and 4-24x and 4.5-27x have a 6-fold magni range.
•2.5-20x and 3-24x and have an 8-fold magni range.
(C)
The larger the objective lens, the narrower the SPR (the sharpness and parallax range, in photography also called the DoF = depth of field). (cf. attachment below).
A narrow SPR means that for example, at a given parallax setting objects/quarry/windflags are in focus from 15y to 20y.
Whereas a wider SPR means they are in focus from 13y to 24y, for example.
Also: The higher the magnification in use, the narrower the SPR.
➔ Important for hunting critters that move a lot.
Your No. 2 has a larger objective lens than No. 1 and No. 3.
(D)
Your No. 1 and No. 2 have 25x top end magnification — your No. 3 only 15x.
In 15x the image of your quarry and it's killzone is aprox. 50% smaller than in 25x.
The adage "Aim small — miss small" is a good one.
For offhand shooting you won't be needing 25x. But for rested longer ranges you might want this.
I haven't heard anybody complain about having a scope with a magnification range that goes higher than needed at the time. But I HAVE heard many complain about not having enough magnification at the time when it was needed.
(E)
Your No. 2 has a larger objective lens that will permit more light (assuming all other factors being equal).
If you plan on filming through your scope, especially filming in slo-motion, you do need lots and lots of light.
Hope I didn't muddle the waters.....
Matthias
Attachment:
SCOPE Triangle #2 – to Balance High Magnification + Depth of Field (for Less Parallax) + Brightness
As PDF File:
View attachment SCOPE Triangle 2 – to Balance High Magnification + Depth of Field (for Less Parallax) + Bright...pdf
just to chime in with a consideration, just looking at the magnification and objective lens — maybe to narrow things down — maybe to muddle the waters again.....
(No. 1) March Compact 2.5-25x42
(No. 2) March Compact 2.5-25x52
[corrected]
(No. 3) March FX 1.5-15x42
(A) Without knowing your shooting scenarios: Do you really need such a wide FoV as a 1.5x (No. 3)? Even 2.5x (No. 1 and 2) seem pretty wide by most shooting scenarios (it seems that only shooting scurrying rats at 10y range would call for such a wide FoV).
With a 3x you might have all the FoV you'll need.
(B) For FFP scopes only: The wider the magnification range the smaller the reticle when on lower magnification.
•All three scopes, No. 1, 2, and 3, have a 10-fold magnification range.
10-fold is fairly "extreme".
For comparison, typical magnification ranges are:
•6-24x and 4-16x have a 4-fold magni range.
•5-30x and 4-24x and 4.5-27x have a 6-fold magni range.
•2.5-20x and 3-24x and have an 8-fold magni range.
(C) The larger the objective lens, the narrower the SPR (the sharpness and parallax range, in photography also called the DoF = depth of field). (cf. attachment below).
A narrow SPR means that for example, at a given parallax setting objects/quarry/windflags are in focus from 15y to 20y.
Whereas a wider SPR means they are in focus from 13y to 24y, for example.
Also: The higher the magnification in use, the narrower the SPR.
➔ Important for hunting critters that move a lot.
Your No. 2 has a larger objective lens than No. 1 and No. 3.
(D)Your No. 1 and No. 2 have 25x top end magnification — your No. 3 only 15x.
In 15x the image of your quarry and it's killzone is aprox. 50% smaller than in 25x.
The adage "Aim small — miss small" is a good one.
For offhand shooting you won't be needing 25x. But for rested longer ranges you might want this.
I haven't heard anybody complain about having a scope with a magnification range that goes higher than needed at the time. But I HAVE heard many complain about not having enough magnification at the time when it was needed.
(E)Your No. 2 has a larger objective lens that will permit more light (assuming all other factors being equal).
If you plan on filming through your scope, especially filming in slo-motion, you do need lots and lots of light.
Hope I didn't muddle the waters.....
Matthias
Attachment:SCOPE Triangle #2 – to Balance High Magnification + Depth of Field (for Less Parallax) + Brightness
As PDF File:
View attachment SCOPE Triangle 2 – to Balance High Magnification + Depth of Field (for Less Parallax) + Bright...pdf
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Just to throw another wrench in your decision lol, March is coming out with the Dual Reticle 1.5-15×42 in FFP next year but with a 34mm main tube instead of 30mm. Also, the turrets will be different. The new version will be under the March-FX line. The weight of the 34mm might come in around 23.99 ounces once they finalize it which is like 2 ounces more than the 30mm tube. It use to be only in SFP and a lot of people were requesting for a FFP version. It goes to show March is listening to their customer base. Good luck in your search.
EDIT:
I just went over your last post so I guess you're already aware that it was added to the March-FX line.
EDIT:
I just went over your last post so I guess you're already aware that it was added to the March-FX line.
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Dear Santa Claus...
www.zeiss.com
ZEISS LRP S5 5-25-56
FFP Precision Rifle Scope LRP S5 525-56 | ZEISS
www.zeiss.com Upvote 0