Looking around for a new high end scope.

[Sanctify7]

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 2-25x52

(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 2x and 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.
•No. 1 has a 10-fold magnification range.
•No. 2 has a 12.5-fold magnification range.
•No. 3 has a 10-fold magnification range.

All these are 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
View attachment 311285



As PDF File:

View attachment 311284

Greetings!
I don’t mind the data at all. I don’t quite (yet) understand every single thing you said, but you got me thinking. For instance, at my beginner’s stage of scope stuff, I am only recently even considering FOV. To assist those who are trying to assist me, and to respond to your inquiry, I really only presently shoot at very humble distances: 15 or 20 feet to maybe 125 or so feet. I admitted in a previous post that I am really in over my head and out of my league with items like March scopes. But I like them.

I am not quite sure what you meant in bullet “A.” Are you saying that lower-end magnification equates to more FOV?
Next, I am trying to understand the parallax comments in bullet “C” with reference to the 42mm and 52mm objectives. Unless your distance measurements refer to width and not length; if they do, I got it.

I believe I get the rest. Also, I will check out the link, etc. when I have a bit sharper brain.
Thanks. S7

Edit: And one more thing: Scope number two is 2.5-25x52 and not 2-25x52. That was a typo.

 

[Sanctify7]

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.

Specs of compact and robust 1.5-15×42 FFP scope with a 34mm body tube is now posted on our product page | Products | MARCH Scopes | DEON Optical Design CorporationMARCH Scopes | DEON Optical Design Corporation

MARCH Scopes Official Site

marchscopes.com

EDIT:
I just went over your last post so I guess you're already aware that it was added to the March-FX line.

Understood. That dual reticle is a fascinating little piece of an idea. To your comment, even March’s 34mm scopes are light enough for me to consider them. Thanks, and glad to hear from you. S7

 

[killen1956]

march scopes is the only brand scope that i never had a problem with

 

[JungleShooter]

Sanctify7,

thanks for the correction on the magnification of Scope No. 2 — I edited my post.

I am not quite sure what you meant in bullet “A.” Are you saying that lower-end magnification equates to more FOV?

Yes! In general, the lower the magnification you use — the wider the FoV.

For most people, it makes sense to buy a variable magnification scope because the magnification can be adjusted to different shooting scenarios: e.g., in the morning you can take a gun with a 4-24x56 to shoot close range squirrels in the woods, and when you get to an open field, you can set up some targets at 200y (or prarie dogs).

When choosing a variable magnification scope it is important that the FoV at its lowest magnification is wide enough for your shooting scenarios (in the example, a wide enough FoV for squirrels).

For instance, at my beginner’s stage of scope stuff, I am only recently even considering FOV.
I really only presently shoot at very humble distances: 15 or 20 feet to maybe 125 or so feet.

FoV is a scope characteristic that is not really relevant for slow-paced target shooting.
Only if you have rushed shots like in PRS and of course when hunting does FoV become important — because it is critical to acquire the target quickly, or to maintain the target in the scope image:
When stalk hunting (= walking in search for quarry) quarry could pop up 10y away from you, and for that you'd need a wide FoV to acquire it.
Quarry that scurries around quickly (squirrels in the woods, close range rats) are hard to keep in the scope image if the FoV is too narrow.

Note that FoV is not the same as bottom end magnification. There are scopes with the same magnification range (e.g., 3-18x) but vastly different FoV (e.g., 43ft vs. 33ft).

How much FoV is needed is both an issue of personal preference and of shooting practice.
In the attached PDF below I give some suggestions.

Next, I am trying to understand the parallax comments in bullet “C” with reference to the 42mm and 52mm objectives. Unless your distance measurements refer to width and not length; if they do, I got it.

There are several points to consider (and sorry if I bore you with stuff you already know!).

● (a) Scopes, just like camera lenses, require to be focused in order to get a crisp, sharp image.
For that scopes often have "SF = side focus" or "AO = adjustable objective".

● (b) There is a second reason why this focusing is important: If the shooter's eye is not perfectly(!) placed in the center of the ocular an optical error occurs — unless the scope is focussed — meaning, "unless the parallax error has been dialed out."
This parallax error causes the reticle (and thus your point of aim!) to move around somewhat — causing you to miss your target.
This is especially true for close ranges and small targets. (Parallax error won't be giving you much trouble shooting a deer at 100y with its large kill zone.


● (c) This parallax error gets more pronounced under the following conditions:
• Closer range
• Larger magnification
• Short overall length of the scope [this I need to confirm, I don't have a link for that right now]
• Larger objective lens. E.g., 42mm in Scope (1) and (2) — vs. 52mm in Scope (3).
➔ A scope S1 with less parallax error might be "focused" or "parallax-free" from 13y all the way to 24y. Another scope S2 with more parallax error might only be focused or parallax-free from 15y to 20y.
S1 has a longer SPR (sharpness and parallax range, in photography also called the DoF = depth of field): 13-24y = 11y.
S2 has a shorter SPR (DoF): 15-20y = 5y.

➔ Of course, using the side focus or AO the parallax can be dialed out and all is fine.


●(d) So, when will a more pronounced parallax error as mentioned in (c) become an issue?
➔ When you don't have time to adjust the parallax!
That would be the case when stalk hunting (quick close range shots).
Or when the quarry is moving rapidly — and quickly moving out of the range that you had focused your scope to.
Again, for slow-paced target shooting this is not a factor.


Cheers,

Matthias


Attachment (PDF):
What magnification do I need?!?

View attachment SCOPES. What Magnification Do I Need.pdf

 

[steve123]

S7,

It looks like you can afford a March scope so I have a suggestion which might be fun for you. How about buying 2 or 3 used medium price scopes of different types that you don't already own to compare against, and the scopes you already own. Then sell the ones you don't prefer for what you paid for them to begin with.

Repeat this process until you've come to a conclusion.

This is a great way to determine what you like and don't like about rifle scopes. Part of the fun is the journey by trying different stuff!

If you buy a new expensive scope to begin with you might feel like it doesn't suit you for various reasons and you probably won't get all your money back if you sell it.

One personal example is I like my Athlon Helos G2 2-12x42's almost as much as my March DFP 1-10 but are 1/5th the price which I love . I don't need 1x on an airgun and use 12x much more. I'm not saying the March isn't better but I am saying for my purposes I'm perfectly fine with the 2-12 and its feature set.

Matthias, those are great posts!

 

[Sanctify7]

Sanctify7,

thanks for the correction on the magnification of Scope No. 2 — I edited my post.





Yes! In general, the lower the magnification you use — the wider the FoV.

For most people, it makes sense to buy a variable magnification scope because the magnification can be adjusted to different shooting scenarios: e.g., in the morning you can take a gun with a 4-24x56 to shoot close range squirrels in the woods, and when you get to an open field, you can set up some targets at 200y (or prarie dogs).

When choosing a variable magnification scope it is important that the FoV at its lowest magnification is wide enough for your shooting scenarios (in the example, a wide enough FoV for squirrels).






FoV is a scope characteristic that is not really relevant for slow-paced target shooting.
Only if you have rushed shots like in PRS and of course when hunting does FoV become important — because it is critical to acquire the target quickly, or to maintain the target in the scope image:
When stalk hunting (= walking in search for quarry) quarry could pop up 10y away from you, and for that you'd need a wide FoV to acquire it.
Quarry that scurries around quickly (squirrels in the woods, close range rats) are hard to keep in the scope image if the FoV is too narrow.

Note that FoV is not the same as bottom end magnification. There are scopes with the same magnification range (e.g., 3-18x) but vastly different FoV (e.g., 43ft vs. 33ft).

How much FoV is needed is both an issue of personal preference and of shooting practice.
In the attached PDF below I give some suggestions.






There are several points to consider (and sorry if I bore you with stuff you already know!).

● (a) Scopes, just like camera lenses, require to be focused in order to get a crisp, sharp image.
For that scopes often have "SF = side focus" or "AO = adjustable objective".

● (b) There is a second reason why this focusing is important: If the shooter's eye is not perfectly(!) placed in the center of the ocular an optical error occurs — unless the scope is focussed — meaning, "unless the parallax error has been dialed out."
This parallax error causes the reticle (and thus your point of aim!) to move around somewhat — causing you to miss your target.
This is especially true for close ranges and small targets. (Parallax error won't be giving you much trouble shooting a deer at 100y with its large kill zone.


● (c) This parallax error gets more pronounced under the following conditions:
• Closer range
• Larger magnification
• Short overall length of the scope [this I need to confirm, I don't have a link for that right now]
• Larger objective lens. E.g., 42mm in Scope (1) and (2) — vs. 52mm in Scope (3).
➔ A scope S1 with less parallax error might be "focused" or "parallax-free" from 13y all the way to 24y. Another scope S2 with more parallax error might only be focused or parallax-free from 15y to 20y.
S1 has a longer SPR (sharpness and parallax range, in photography also called the DoF = depth of field): 13-24y = 11y.
S2 has a shorter SPR (DoF): 15-20y = 5y.

➔ Of course, using the side focus or AO the parallax can be dialed out and all is fine.


●(d) So, when will a more pronounced parallax error as mentioned in (c) become an issue?
➔ When you don't have time to adjust the parallax!
That would be the case when stalk hunting (quick close range shots).
Or when the quarry is moving rapidly — and quickly moving out of the range that you had focused your scope to.
Again, for slow-paced target shooting this is not a factor.


Cheers,

Matthias


Attachment (PDF):
What magnification do I need?!?

View attachment 311674

JS, I read all but the PDF, and I will do that when my brain gets some more space. Thank you so much for all this data. And no, it is not redundant to me: you (and these other folks) are assisting me very much. Your information made me think much better about parallax and FOV issues. I am more attuned to the latter now, whereas before I was not.
S7

 

[Sanctify7]

S7,

It looks like you can afford a March scope so I have a suggestion which might be fun for you. How about buying 2 or 3 used medium price scopes of different types that you don't already own to compare against, and the scopes you already own. Then sell the ones you don't prefer for what you paid for them to begin with.

Repeat this process until you've come to a conclusion.

This is a great way to determine what you like and don't like about rifle scopes. Part of the fun is the journey by trying different stuff!

If you buy a new expensive scope to begin with you might feel like it doesn't suit you for various reasons and you probably won't get all your money back if you sell it.

One personal example is I like my Athlon Helos G2 2-12x42's almost as much as my March DFP 1-10 but are 1/5th the price which I love . I don't need 1x on an airgun and use 12x much more. I'm not saying the March isn't better but I am saying for my purposes I'm perfectly fine with the 2-12 and its feature set.

Matthias, those are great posts!

Greetings, Steve.
I am so glad you piped in here. No, I really cannot afford a March, but I may buy one anyway. Regarding your strategy, I copy. For one, an Athlon is one of the scopes I would like to peer through, either the Helos, or more possibly (?), the Midas TAC or the Ares BTR. You are a much more capable and truer air gunner than I am, so I hear you on the Helos.
I have some questions, please. One, I already asked someone this, perhaps on this thread, but I have forgotten and the thread is long: Are there certain optical improvements as one moves up the Athlon line from the Helos to the Ares? I don’t consider the Ares ETR (is that correct?) or the Cronus because their weight is slightly more than my upper limit, or the parallax is not there, at least from my current perspective. Two, what do you think about the Razor HD LHT? Where does it fit in this scheme of things?
Three, you didn’t happen to have an Athlon you wanted to sell, did you? I am not sure I am a buyer, but could be. And do know that 10-yard parallax is virtually a must for me. The Razor LHT goes down to 20 yards, which may be a deal breaker. Also, I presently own a Helix and a Sidewinder. How do they stack up to the Athlons? Lots of questions, I know. If it is too much, I understand.
Thank you very much. S7

 

[Sanctify7]

Sanctify7,

thanks for the correction on the magnification of Scope No. 2 — I edited my post.





Yes! In general, the lower the magnification you use — the wider the FoV.

For most people, it makes sense to buy a variable magnification scope because the magnification can be adjusted to different shooting scenarios: e.g., in the morning you can take a gun with a 4-24x56 to shoot close range squirrels in the woods, and when you get to an open field, you can set up some targets at 200y (or prarie dogs).

When choosing a variable magnification scope it is important that the FoV at its lowest magnification is wide enough for your shooting scenarios (in the example, a wide enough FoV for squirrels).






FoV is a scope characteristic that is not really relevant for slow-paced target shooting.
Only if you have rushed shots like in PRS and of course when hunting does FoV become important — because it is critical to acquire the target quickly, or to maintain the target in the scope image:
When stalk hunting (= walking in search for quarry) quarry could pop up 10y away from you, and for that you'd need a wide FoV to acquire it.
Quarry that scurries around quickly (squirrels in the woods, close range rats) are hard to keep in the scope image if the FoV is too narrow.

Note that FoV is not the same as bottom end magnification. There are scopes with the same magnification range (e.g., 3-18x) but vastly different FoV (e.g., 43ft vs. 33ft).

How much FoV is needed is both an issue of personal preference and of shooting practice.
In the attached PDF below I give some suggestions.






There are several points to consider (and sorry if I bore you with stuff you already know!).

● (a) Scopes, just like camera lenses, require to be focused in order to get a crisp, sharp image.
For that scopes often have "SF = side focus" or "AO = adjustable objective".

● (b) There is a second reason why this focusing is important: If the shooter's eye is not perfectly(!) placed in the center of the ocular an optical error occurs — unless the scope is focussed — meaning, "unless the parallax error has been dialed out."
This parallax error causes the reticle (and thus your point of aim!) to move around somewhat — causing you to miss your target.
This is especially true for close ranges and small targets. (Parallax error won't be giving you much trouble shooting a deer at 100y with its large kill zone.


● (c) This parallax error gets more pronounced under the following conditions:
• Closer range
• Larger magnification
• Short overall length of the scope [this I need to confirm, I don't have a link for that right now]
• Larger objective lens. E.g., 42mm in Scope (1) and (2) — vs. 52mm in Scope (3).
➔ A scope S1 with less parallax error might be "focused" or "parallax-free" from 13y all the way to 24y. Another scope S2 with more parallax error might only be focused or parallax-free from 15y to 20y.
S1 has a longer SPR (sharpness and parallax range, in photography also called the DoF = depth of field): 13-24y = 11y.
S2 has a shorter SPR (DoF): 15-20y = 5y.

➔ Of course, using the side focus or AO the parallax can be dialed out and all is fine.


●(d) So, when will a more pronounced parallax error as mentioned in (c) become an issue?
➔ When you don't have time to adjust the parallax!
That would be the case when stalk hunting (quick close range shots).
Or when the quarry is moving rapidly — and quickly moving out of the range that you had focused your scope to.
Again, for slow-paced target shooting this is not a factor.


Cheers,

Matthias


Attachment (PDF):
What magnification do I need?!?

View attachment 311674

Hi, JS.
I now copy on the parallax data. Thanks again for all the great information. S7

 

[steve123]

Greetings, Steve.
I am so glad you piped in here. No, I really cannot afford a March, but I may buy one anyway. Regarding your strategy, I copy. For one, an Athlon is one of the scopes I would like to peer through, either the Helos, or more possibly (?), the Midas TAC or the Ares BTR. You are a much more capable and truer air gunner than I am, so I hear you on the Helos.
I have some questions, please. One, I already asked someone this, perhaps on this thread, but I have forgotten and the thread is long: Are there certain optical improvements as one moves up the Athlon line from the Helos to the Ares? I don’t consider the Ares ETR (is that correct?) or the Cronos because their weight is slightly more than my upper limit, or the parallax is not there, at least from my current perspective. Two, what do you think about the Razor HD LHT? Where does it fit in this scheme of things?
Three, you didn’t happen to have an Athlon you wanted to sell, did you? I am not sure I am a buyer, but could be. And do know that 10-yard parallax is virtually a must for me. The Razor LHT goes down to 20 yards, which may be a deal breaker. Also, I presently own a Helix and a Sidewinder. How do they stack up to the Athlons? Lots of questions, I know. If it is too much, I understand.
Thank you very much. S7

Hi S7,
I haven't looked through any of the newer Hawke's or the R-LHT so I couldn't say one way or another.

If you mean the Ares BTR G2 2.5-15x50 these have decent glass and for whatever reason the optical prescription suits my eyes well. Unlike the Ares BTR G1 and G2 4.5-27x50. See this is what I'm getting at - I wouldn't know this unless I had tried them.
This 2.5-15 is an optical upgrade over the Helos G2, just not by much.

But one thing specifically with the newer Athlon G2 scopes which sets them apart from some other scopes I've tried in the same price range is the Turret feel - Those Athlon turrets have a distinct click feel, lines on the turret center with the indicator line on the housing, very little lash, and have a solid stop on the zero stop, etc.
There's one particular scope Co that goes for $500 I know of that has turrets that are so crappy they couldn't have done a worse job, LOL!!!
See if I hadn't gotten to try the "good" and the "crappy" I wouldn't have known.

A friend of mine also experiments with different brands of scopes. Long story short he'd bring them over and we'd try them out. We came to different conclusions??? Some preferred some aspects about certain scopes because of "personal preference".

You might be disappointed with 20Y min parallax adjust. You'd have to shoot on lower power at 10Y which is a compromise that isn't worth suffering if you'll be shooting closer in often.

The only scope I have to sell is a Talos 4-16x40 which is SFP and which is a lower end scope.

 

[Sanctify7]

No list of "high end" scopes would be complete without mentioning March Scopes.

MARCH Scopes | DEON Optical Design Corporation

MARCH Scopes Official Site

marchscopes.com

I don't have a broad experience with high-end scopes, but I've got one March scope and it's lovely.

Okay,

After ‘Marching’ on for a while now, I have finally tracked the initial poster or ‘culprit’ who put the March site up. I had heard of March in very respectful tones previously but knew nothing about them. Well, I have spent, and am spending, lots and lots of time studying the March lines. They certainly have some lines and models that suit my concerns almost to the last detail. The trick for me may be to find an outstanding sale or a used one in top shape. Do you have any March scopes, delooper?

Thanks a lot. I think. S7

 

[Sanctify7]

Hi S7,
I haven't looked through any of the newer Hawke's or the R-LHT so I couldn't say one way or another.

If you mean the Ares BTR G2 2.5-15x50 these have decent glass and for whatever reason the optical prescription suits my eyes well. Unlike the Ares BTR G1 and G2 4.5-27x50. See this is what I'm getting at - I wouldn't know this unless I had tried them.
This 2.5-15 is an optical upgrade over the Helos G2, just not by much.

But one thing specifically with the newer Athlon G2 scopes which sets them apart from some other scopes I've tried in the same price range is the Turret feel - Those Athlon turrets have a distinct click feel, lines on the turret center with the indicator line on the housing, very little lash, and have a solid stop on the zero stop, etc.
There's one particular scope Co that goes for $500 I know of that has turrets that are so crappy they couldn't have done a worse job, LOL!!!
See if I hadn't gotten to try the "good" and the "crappy" I wouldn't have known.

A friend of mine also experiments with different brands of scopes. Long story short he'd bring them over and we'd try them out. We came to different conclusions??? Some preferred some aspects about certain scopes because of "personal preference".

You might be disappointed with 20Y min parallax adjust. You'd have to shoot on lower power at 10Y which is a compromise that isn't worth suffering if you'll be shooting closer in often.

The only scope I have to sell is a Talos 4-16x40 which is SFP and which is a lower end scope.

Hi, Steve.

Thanks for the data. I think you may have sealed the doom of the Razor HD LHT by saying I may be disappointed with the 20-yard parallax. I sort of knew this, but I was very happy with the scope otherwise. It is so stinking light, and light I like. I am going to further investigate the Athlons from the Helos to the Ares. I may spring for one and begin that strategy you mentioned previously. I have just found a Midas TAC 6-24x50 on SWFA. I like some of the Athlon reticles—by the way—and the TAC just makes the upper limit of present weight allowance. Is $459.00 a good price for a new TAC, or is it a very good or average price? I am assuming the TAC will give me an idea of what the Helos would look like optically, give or take? Is that so? Are there key differences that I have missed? (BTW, I think I read you helped design the Helos. Is that correct?


Thank you.

 

[steve123]

I used both my Helos G2 6-24 and my Midas TAC 5-25 earlier this week. More features on the HG2 and slightly more refinement in the MT with superior glass. The MT doesn't have illume if that is important to you.

Haven't kept up on prices so I couldn't advise on that.

I didn't design anything.
I only helped a little with my ideas of what things I like in scopes but more so on "some" of the reticles. The higher ups take or leave whatever they want. The team at Athlon did their job and the engineers at the factories did theirs as well.

 

[delooper]

Okay,

After ‘Marching’ on for a while now, I have finally tracked the initial poster or ‘culprit’ who put the March site up. I had heard of March in very respectful tones previously but knew nothing about them. Well, I have spent, and am spending, lots and lots of time studying the March lines. They certainly have some lines and models that suit my concerns almost to the last detail. The trick for me may be to find an outstanding sale or a used one in top shape. Do you have any March scopes, delooper?

Thanks a lot. I think. S7

Yes, I've got the 1-10 "shorty".

There was a time where I made an income in Japan. I used all my remaining Japanese money to buy the shorty.

I'm hopeful in the next 3 years or so I'll make some more money in Japan, and be able to purchase a more long-range model.

 

[Sanctify7]

Yes, I've got the 1-10 "shorty".

There was a time where I made an income in Japan. I used all my remaining Japanese money to buy the shorty.

I'm hopeful in the next 3 years or so I'll make some more money in Japan, and be able to purchase a more long-range model.

Roger that. Are you the one who posted that your March parallaxed way down to under ten feet or so? And if you don't mind, do you have a particular line/model you are leaning towards? I ask because now, thanks to you, I am fairly familiar with March. Thanks. S7

 

[Sanctify7]

I used both my Helos G2 6-24 and my Midas TAC 5-25 earlier this week. More features on the HG2 and slightly more refinement in the MT with superior glass. The MT doesn't have illume if that is important to you.

Haven't kept up on prices so I couldn't advise on that.

I didn't design anything.
I only helped a little with my ideas of what things I like in scopes but more so on "some" of the reticles. The higher ups take or leave whatever they want. The team at Athlon did their job and the engineers at the factories did theirs as well.

Okay. So you did have input. That's cool.
Your comments on the Helos vs. the M TAC are right to the point and helpful. I appreciate the help. I am not going to scrutinize the particulars of these two scopes. For the record, illumination is nice to have, but I didn't really know about it even a short while ago. I have never shot a scope with it, though my "hanging around" Sidewinder has it, and I checked it out unmounted. Thanks. S7

 

[delooper]

Roger that. Are you the one who posted that your March parallaxed way down to under ten feet or so? And if you don't mind, do you have a particular line/model you are leaning towards? I ask because now, thanks to you, I am fairly familiar with March. Thanks. S7

If someone put $10k in my pocket and a gun to my head, saying I had to buy a March scope right this second or die, I'd get the smaller of the two Genesis scopes. That said, it'll probably be another 2 or 3 years before I buy another March scope so my tastes may drift in that time.

 

[Sanctify7]

If someone put $10k in my pocket and a gun to my head, saying I had to buy a March scope right this second or die, I'd get the smaller of the two Genesis scopes. That said, it'll probably be another 2 or 3 years before I buy another March scope so my tastes may drift in that time.

Funny.
With the smaller Genesis, you would also get the two Super ED lens elements. Now with the big brother, you would get the option of .05 MRAD or 1/8 MOA turret adjustments, something I have only very recently become very interested in, thanks to Michael Mahoney bringing it to my attention. S7

 

[Scouty]

Roger that. Are you the one who posted that your March parallaxed way down to under ten feet or so? And if you don't mind, do you have a particular line/model you are leaning towards? I ask because now, thanks to you, I am fairly familiar with March. Thanks. S7

I have a SFP 1-10x24 Compact. Both mmahoney & I have both noted that this scope focuses to really close distances at 10x. It's the only March scope I have looked through so I can't compare it to any other March.

 

[Sanctify7]

I have a SFP 1-10x24 Compact. Both mmahoney & I have both noted that this scope focuses to really close distances at 10x. It's the only March scope I have looked through so I can't compare it to any other March.

Got it. I know that all of the four or five (?) March scopes that mmhoney featured on his videos went down to at least ten yards, save for one: eleven yards. S7

 

[steve123]

If someone put $10k in my pocket and a gun to my head, saying I had to buy a March scope right this second or die, I'd get the smaller of the two Genesis scopes. That said, it'll probably be another 2 or 3 years before I buy another March scope so my tastes may drift in that time.

That's the March I got recently, the Genesis 4-40. I like it a lot and the glass is great! IT IS HEAVY though, partly because of the mount it uses. On the bench or prone off the bipod it works well and the extra weight helps keep the rifle movement down. Fantastic optic for what its meant for. Glad I spent the $$$$.

The thing I also discovered, is using it for BR on paper, with FML reticles being on the busy side and thicker as well, is the FML somewhat blocks the visibility of the holes in the paper. Often I had to move to the top half of the FOV to get a clear view. If I ever want a dedicated BR set up I'll buy a scope with a thin and simple reticle.