Which March scope and reticle for Field Target - AND - maybe Benchrest?

[Geezerhood]

Per my post over in the Field Target forum, I was stoked to see 28 March scopes on the line at the WFTF World Championship.

I might give Field Target a try this winter if we spend some time in Arizona to get away from the snow. If I do buy a field target gun, it will definitely have a March on top of it as it is my go to optic when I have the scratch available. Are the 28 March scope models and reticles used in the WFTA match listed anywhere? In the 2021 AAFTA Nationals there were only 5 March scopes listed. A fixed 42x, one 10-60x, two 8-80x and a 5-40x.

In the WFTA match I would assume they were all 40x or higher magnification. If anyone knows which models were used of the 28 March scopes in the WFTA as well as the reticles used for both events, please post what you know. I also noticed that in the AAFTA only one was a first focal plane. I prefer second focal plane scopes, but I can see that there might ben an advantage to the FFP scope if you like to use the reticle for holdovers. I have missed some shots using the reticle holdovers on a 2nd focal when I forgot to check the zoom setting.

My first two choices for field target would be the 8-80x or the 10-60x56 High Master. I have used an 8-80x on long range 50 BMG and 338 Lapuas, but the 10-60x56 High Master has better glass in it. Would 60x be plenty for field target for using the parallax focus for ranging? What if I wanted to shoot benchrest, would 60x be plenty there too? Having never shot Field Target, would there be any benefit to the March FT over a dot or one of the MTR reticles? I have only used the MTR-1 in the 2nd focal plane scopes, but I do like tje small floating dot in the MTR-2 and MTR-4 reticles. How useful are the predetermined holdover points on the FT reticle? Surely they won't match up perfectly with very many gun / ammo combinations.

 

[steve123]

I'd personally go for the 10-60HM over the 8-80. The HM glass in my Genesis 4-40 is awesome! 60x would range plenty good enough as well and is fine for benchrest use too.
Hunter division shooters often win matches ranging on 16x and a friend used 32x to win the nationals. Most of the world uses 10-50 scopes for FT and they range on 50x.

Thin reticles are fine for benchrest but I definitely prefer a medium line thickness for FT and even better if you have illumination for the KZ's in shaded areas. Lately I've been using a reticle with a good sized center dot for FT, I like it a lot!

I also like good holdover reticles in FFP scopes for FT but most don't. If I miss its not the FFP scope I use, or the gun, its 100% me.

I wouldn't trust predetermined holdover points in a reticle. I bet all it'd do is foul you up.

 

[Geezerhood]

I'd personally go for the 10-60HM over the 8-80. The HM glass in my Genesis 4-40 is awesome! 60x would range plenty good enough as well and is fine for benchrest use too.
Hunter division shooters often win matches ranging on 16x and a friend used 32x to win the nationals. Most of the world uses 10-50 scopes for FT and they range on 50x.

Thin reticles are fine for benchrest but I definitely prefer a medium line thickness for FT and even better if you have illumination for the KZ's in shaded areas. Lately I've been using a reticle with a good sized center dot for FT, I like it a lot!

I also like good holdover reticles in FFP scopes for FT but most don't. If I miss its not the FFP scope I use, or the gun, its 100% me.

I wouldn't trust predetermined holdover points in a reticle. I bet all it'd do is foul you up.

Steve123 - Thanks for the response to my post. Some good food for thought. Everything you said meshes with what I have been thinking the last few days, including the FT reticle, which I was guessing I would not like. I would rather have finer spaced lines at the same spacing. I have looked through the two Genesis models. They are some impressive examples of optical and mechanical design.

I am more of a knob turner than a holdover shooter. Is there more than enough time in a FT match to dial in the elevation?

I have read what I thought were the current rules for FT Hunter class but they were a bit confusing. Something about not using more than X magnification but you can set your zoom ring to the max allowed and still compete. Does that include ranging or just when you pull the trigger?

 

[XSUltimate]

For Hunter FT, you cannot click the turret, you have to use holdover on your reticle with a pre-determined dope sheet. Also, you cannot use the higher magnification during the match. You set your scope at 16X or next lower magnification number on your scope barrel and leave it there for the entire match. Not allowed to adjust magnification during the match or click for elevation for hunter class. If your match director allows unlimited class you can do pretty much what you want for scope settings and even use a range finder.
However you can adjust your scope lower than 16 if you like for forced position shots.
Thx
Dan

 

[Geezerhood]

Thanks Dan for the summation on the rules in question. I obviously didn't do that well in my skimming of the rules. I do really enjoy firing from a bench rest, but the FT venue appeals to me the most.

 

[steve123]

Steve123 - Thanks for the response to my post. Some good food for thought. Everything you said meshes with what I have been thinking the last few days, including the FT reticle, which I was guessing I would not like. I would rather have finer spaced lines at the same spacing. I have looked through the two Genesis models. They are some impressive examples of optical and mechanical design.

I am more of a knob turner than a holdover shooter. Is there more than enough time in a FT match to dial in the elevation?

I have read what I thought were the current rules for FT Hunter class but they were a bit confusing. Something about not using more than X magnification but you can set your zoom ring to the max allowed and still compete. Does that include ranging or just when you pull the trigger?

Yep what Dan mentioned is true.

In Hunter a reticle thick enough to see in poor lighting, hopefully illuminated as well, and with a reticle designed well for holdover and holdoff.

I like the FML-TR1 the most as far as March reticles go and part of that is I primarily use MIL rather than MOA.

 

[Geezerhood]

Yep what Dan mentioned is true.

In Hunter a reticle thick enough to see in poor lighting, hopefully illuminated as well, and with a reticle designed well for holdover and holdoff.

I like the FML-TR1 the most as far as March reticles go and part of that is I primarily use MIL rather than MOA.

steve123 - Thanks for the additional well received comments. I have lost the reticle more than once in the field on 2nd focal plane fine lined models like the MTR-1.

 

[CaptainH]

Powerful good scope. Too bad they have been using unobtanium to make them.

 

[Geezerhood]

Powerful good scope. Too bad they have been using unobtanium to make them.

March is a different animal than the mass produced optics out there. Every scope is built to the customer's specs. The factory does not build a scope unless it is ordered by a dealer. They are all custom built to order with significantly more options than most it not all other brands, but 1 1/2 months vs 4 to 8 months on some Nightforce scopes is significantly better I would say.

 

[Geezerhood]

I am leaning towards an FFP March for Field Target. I already have a 10-60x56 HM for Benchrest if I decide to go there.

For the magnification range, is there any benefit to going higher than 3-24x42 for Field Target? I know you can't use it at 24x in Hunter class, but I don't really want to own a scope with lower than 24x on the high end. For an all around optic I would probably go with a 5-40x but the cost is quite a bit higher than the 3-24x42 and if there is no gain for Field Target then I could settle for 24x.

Which of these three reticles would be best for Field Target? FMA-1, FML-T1 or FML-TR1H? I am leaning towards the FMA-1 (I prefer 1/4 MOA clicks to 1/10 Mil, or the FML-T1 but have never shot Field Target!

 

[steve123]

Years ago I had the March 3-24×42. It had optical oddities about it. The glass was good but not great. The eyebox was tight on 24x. I never could overcome my distaste for it. Maybe mine was the odd one, I don't know, and I haven't been behind another one to see??

So I'd personally go for the 3-24×52mm version which from what I've read addressed the tight eyebox and is likely engineered to be less sensitive to optical compromise.

Maybe try to find a used one. That way if it doesn't range good enough for you it can be sold for about the same you paid for it.

Though the better bet is the 5-40.

 

[jps2486]

Personally, I would pefer a SFP scope for FT or BR shooting. For BR, a fine cross hair with target dot and for FT,a not to busy graduated reticle. Sorry, but I'm not familiar with March reticles. Rather than spend the big bucks for March, consider the Sightron S3 10-50 scopes. I really like therm and think they would satisfy your needs.

 

[Geezerhood]

Personally, I would pefer a SFP scope for FT or BR shooting. For BR, a fine cross hair with target dot and for FT,a not to busy graduated reticle. Sorry, but I'm not familiar with March reticles. Rather than spend the big bucks for March, consider the Sightron S3 10-50 scopes. I really like therm and think they would satisfy your needs.

I do have several 10-50x60mm S3s but want something with better glass and the March does that, particularly in the 10-60x56 High Master. What is the benefit of a max 50x of 60x scope to use in FT matches vs a 24x max power?

Years ago I had the March 3-24×42. It had optical oddities about it. The glass was good but not great. The eyebox was tight on 24x. I never could overcome my distaste for it. Maybe mine was the odd one, I don't know, and I haven't been behind another one to see??

So I'd personally go for the 3-24×52mm version which from what I've read addressed the tight eyebox and is likely engineered to be less sensitive to optical compromise.

Maybe try to find a used one. That way if it doesn't range good enough for you it can be sold for about the same you paid for it.

Though the better bet is the 5-40.

I have looked through both and yes, the 52mm is better. I would prefer the 5-40x as well. I suppose it could serve duty as an FT scope and a hunting scope on one of my PB guns. Just seems like a lot of money to be using it at nowhere near the max power in FT if I am understanding the rules correctly.

 

[steve123]

I do have several 10-50x60mm S3s but want something with better glass and the March does that, particularly in the 10-60x56 High Master. What is the benefit of a max 50x of 60x scope to use in FT matches vs a 24x max power?



I have looked through both and yes, the 52mm is better. I would prefer the 5-40x as well. I suppose it could serve duty as an FT scope and a hunting scope on one of my PB guns. Just seems like a lot of money to be using it at nowhere near the max power in FT if I am understanding the rules correctly.

Yep its a more money for the 5-40 but less optical compromise than the 6-24. You might be fine at 16x though with the 52mm version?? If you ever decide to shoot Open or Unlimited the 40x would help out more with them.

The 10-60 HM is going to out pace the others in glass but its SFP. SFP is OK except you'll need to map out the actual trajectory at 16x. Some ballistic apps will do that for you and be pretty close to actual. I like FFP so I don't need to do this.

When you range it's a good idea to leave the diopter alone once set, or put it back where you had it every time if you've moved it, otherwise it affects the distances on the side wheel. Some guys have figured out how to use the diopter to their advantage once the distance is determined to help range more exactly but I haven't ever tried that.

 

[Geezerhood]

Yep its a more money for the 5-40 but less optical compromise than the 6-24. You might be fine at 16x though with the 52mm version?? If you ever decide to shoot Open or Unlimited the 40x would help out more with them.

The 10-60 HM is going to out pace the others in glass but its SFP. SFP is OK except you'll need to map out the actual trajectory at 16x. Some ballistic apps will do that for you and be pretty close to actual. I like FFP so I don't need to do this.

When you range it's a good idea to leave the diopter alone once set, or put it back where you had it every time if you've moved it, otherwise it affects the distances on the side wheel. Some guys have figured out how to use the diopter to their advantage once the distance is determined to help range more exactly but I haven't ever tried that.

Thanks for the input steve123. I may pop for the 5-40x Gen 1 or maybe the G2 version.

 

[Sanctify7]

March is a different animal than the mass produced optics out there. Every scope is built to the customer's specs. The factory does not build a scope unless it is ordered by a dealer. They are all custom built to order with significantly more options than most it not all other brands, but 1 1/2 months vs 4 to 8 months on some Nightforce scopes is significantly better I would say.

Greetings, Captain H and Geezerhood. First, C H, What on earth is "unobtanium"? Second, I understand your response, Geezerhood, but what did it have to do with what Captain H said? If "unobtanium" is a word signifying that March scopes take time to get, I understand. Thanks. S7

 

[Sanctify7]

Years ago I had the March 3-24×42. It had optical oddities about it. The glass was good but not great. The eyebox was tight on 24x. I never could overcome my distaste for it. Maybe mine was the odd one, I don't know, and I haven't been behind another one to see??

So I'd personally go for the 3-24×52mm version which from what I've read addressed the tight eyebox and is likely engineered to be less sensitive to optical compromise.

Maybe try to find a used one. That way if it doesn't range good enough for you it can be sold for about the same you paid for it.

Though the better bet is the 5-40.

Steve, You are the second person that has made a negative comment about the 3-24x42. mmahoney said his had tunneling, I believe, and it was the only bad thing he said about the half-dozen or so March scopes that he did YouTube videos on. And Geezerhood agrees with you, too.
Now I really am not considering it. I have my eye on the 2.5-25x42 or 52 anyway. Thanks. S7

 

[Geezerhood]

Steve, You are the second person that has made a negative comment about the 3-24x42. mmahoney said his had tunneling, I believe, and it was the only bad thing he said about the half-dozen or so March scopes that he did YouTube videos on. And Geezerhood agrees with you, too.
Now I really am not considering it. I have my eye on the 2.5-25x42 or 52 anyway. Thanks. S7

After having used a 2.5-25x42 for a couple of years as well as a 3-24x42 just recently, I found nothing I didn't like about either one. I was not able to compare them side by side with the 52mm versions. I am pretty sure they both use the same type of ED elements. What I did like over the 52mm was the smaller size, lower profile and lighter weight. They were both very bright and clear. It might be that the 52mm objective version is a bit easier to use for range estimation than the 42, but I am not good enough at that to be able to say. The 52s are brighter in low light and do have more elevation travel than the 42s - 120 vs 100 MOA if that matters. Lastly the 52s have about a 1.2" wider field of view at 100 yards.

 

[Sanctify7]

Thanks, Geezerhood.
I am not presently interested in ranging or elevation, low light is a modest concern, and weight is a concern. I lean slightly towards the 42mm version, I guess, but a strong deal would make the call for me and I would take either one.
What did you mean when you posted to Steve that the 52mm objective was "better"? Are you merely referring to low-light ability? If I misrepresented your thoughts on the 3-24, I apologize.
Also, did you prefer either the 2.5 -25x42 or the 3-24x42 for any reason? The magnification range is so very close. Yes, one is a 10x mag and one is an 8x mag, but how does that make a difference in optics or whatever, besides FoV?
Thanks. S7

 

[Geezerhood]

I much preferred the SFP 2.5-25x to the 3-24x. I should amend my comment above "I found nothing I didn't like about either one." to include "...except that I don't like FFP scopes." Not a fan of FFPs as discussed above in this thread, because the reticle subtension can only be ideal at a single zoom setting, becoming too fat or too thin as you zoom in or out. The only exceptions to that FFP reticle problem for me is the March 1-10x Shorty or the new 1.5-15x dual focal that have a second focal plan duplex style reticle with a daylight LED dot that don't change size in the eyepiece as you zoom, and a first focal plane ranging style reticle that keeps the same subtension at all zoom settings. There were / are some other dual focal plane scopes made - Schmidt & Bender if they ever released their 1-8x and one I have never heard of before - from Quigley-Ford, but I have never touched either of those two.

But the argument for using an FFP with FT matches has made me rethink that somewhat. I wish there was an FT match near me, but the closest is hundreds of miles away so all I can do is try to simulate one. My sort of FT setup has a Sightron 4-20x50 S-Tac FFP on it right now. Just starting to figure it all out. Sightron made the illumination of the center of the reticle so bright that I can actually see the aiming point when zoomed out to 4x, when the illumination is on and set to max. Otherwise at 4x to almost 5x I can't see anything at all in the middle of the reticle in daylight conditions.

I was not able to compare the 3-24x42 and the 52mm IQ side by side, but I recall that the 52mm was brighter at low light. That is all I can give on the comparison. I had no trouble getting lined up with any of them.