Rifle Scopes ZCO 5-27 vs March 5-42

YotaEer · Sunday at 1:22 PM

Looking at upgrading my element theos to some alpha level glass.

I’m interested in either the ZCO 5-27 or the March high master 5-42. Also debating the ZCO 8-40, but it’s gigantic and I don’t shoot ELR. March is more compact so the extra magnification is just a bonus.

I’d be looking at the MPCT1 or FML3 reticles. I don’t find any use for a tree…

No experience with anything ZCO. I did have a 4.5-28x high master at one point and the glass very nice for its size.

Anyone have experience comparing the ZCO offerings to the updated March high masters with shuriken turrets?

owtlaw · Sunday at 1:41 PM

While I can't compare to the ZCO, I do have the March. I am thoroughly impressed by it. The glass is clear. I really like the Shurikan locks and the turrets are great. The best I can compare it to is the Razor Gen3. To me, it seems as though the March has better depth of field and the color comes in sharper. The size of the March really works for me as well.

oldrifleman · Sunday at 1:44 PM

I have not tried the March, the ZCO is spectacular. The new MPCT 1x is a favorite of mine. I do love my 8-40s guess I am used to the size. To be fair though I love my 5-27s as well.

YotaEer · Sunday at 2:57 PM

owtlaw said:
While I can't compare to the ZCO, I do have the March. I am thoroughly impressed by it. The glass is clear. I really like the Shurikan locks and the turrets are great. The best I can compare it to is the Razor Gen3. To me, it seems as though the March has better depth of field and the color comes in sharper. The size of the March really works for me as well.

This makes sense because the 4.5-28x was extremely close to the razor Gen 3. So I’d expect the 5-42x to surpass it.

YotaEer · Sunday at 5:12 PM

oldrifleman said:
I have not tried the March, the ZCO is spectacular. The new MPCT 1x is a favorite of mine. I do love my 8-40s guess I am used to the size. To be fair though I love my 5-27s as well.

Yea maybe I’m just being too OCD about the length. The weight is irrelevant as it’s right around the same weight as everything else 35x or greater.

I’m sure it’s absolutely stellar if not the best there is.

V-Ref · Sunday at 6:16 PM

I'm lucky enough to have both. 4.5K to 5k PRS rounds through the 5-27 ZCO. 1k rounds through the 5-42 March. Optically, you'll need to have both scopes side by side to notice the advantages of the March. They are both great scopes, with excellent post purchase support, backed by Companies that care about their customers. Both are robust, and have checked out on a scope poi checker, and a tall target test.

At 25x the ZCO has 15.6 Mil fov
At 25x the March has 17.4 Mil fov

The March has writable turrets, that are translating, with no rev indicator. 10 Mil turrets have very positive clicks, and readable usable spacing. So simplistic and robustness advantage here.

The ZCO has a non translating elev turrent with a rev indicator. With 15mil spacing it is a touch tight IMHO. 10 Mil is better on spacing in terms of readibility on the clock. The lockable turret and rev indicator give it the boojie advantage here. Some might argue those features are but another "thing" to go wrong when traveling or adverse environments or on the clock. Your preference might vary.

The ZCO reaches peak boost at 27x. The March is just starting its initial flex on optical horsepower at 27x.

The 5-42 has what I'd term is a "pro eyebox" meaning if your fundamentals are there, gun (optic and rifle) is setup correctly and you can build a consistent shooting position, you won't notice the optical compromises necessary to get 5-42x and a big fov. If your fundys ain't tight, you don't have the gun setup right, than the ZCO does have a slightly more forgiving eye box.

I prefer the March everyday of the week. Target acquisition because of the greater FOV, image clarity and color correctness allow you to see slight sways and swings to the target, resolution allows you to actually be mentally able to drive down to the target, and draw a circle with a sharpie around where the last round ACTUALLY impacted in the plate after the paint is long gone.

The ZCO is a great scope. If the March wasn't available, the ZCO would be my pick.

If you get the March, you want to make sure it has the writable turrets and that new Rudge reticle.

PM if you want further info regarding first had experiences between the two.

elmerdeer · Monday at 4:00 PM

V-Ref said:
If you get the March, you want to make sure it has the writable turrets and that new Rudge reticle.

Can you pls explain about the writable turrets??
Thank you,
elmer

TheOtherAndrew · Monday at 4:09 PM

what are you planning to do with the extra magnification? If you aren't sure and it's just a hey the numbers higher thing - then definitely get the ZCO 527.

But if you have a known reason then its worth trying the March

But if I were paying another 4xxx or whatever they're up to now Id get the purpose built one not the show queen if that makes sense

YotaEer · Monday at 5:49 PM

TheOtherAndrew said:
what are you planning to do with the extra magnification? If you aren't sure and it's just a hey the numbers higher thing - then definitely get the ZCO 527.

But if you have a known reason then its worth trying the March

But if I were paying another 4xxx or whatever they're up to now Id get the purpose built one not the show queen if that makes sense

Extra mag (above 30x) is really nice when shooting groundhogs at 400+ yards. Especially when it gets to mid/late summer and the crops start to get higher.

Certainly don’t need that extra mag to hit plates out to 1000 yards, which is the longest range I have available to me for now

TheOE800 · Monday at 6:03 PM

If they offered the new reticle with the standard turrets I’d consider the scope again, but I didn’t love the FML-TR1 reticle nor the parallax. I didn’t find the need for magnification over 30x for my shooting, sorta same as I do with TT735P. Both stayed around 25x tops for actual static shooting (not a PRS competitor at the moment), kept the Theta. The March’s FoV is fucking huge though.

3rdfocal · Monday at 9:36 PM

TheOE800 said:
If they offered the new reticle with the standard turrets I’d consider the scope again, but I didn’t love the FML-TR1 reticle nor the parallax. I didn’t find the need for magnification over 30x for my shooting, sorta same as I do with TT735P. Both stayed around 25x tops for actual static shooting (not a PRS competitor at the moment), kept the Theta. The March’s FoV is fucking huge though.

I talked to March and they'll sell the new reticle with the standard shuriken locking turrets. Have to special order through a dealer.

TheOE800 · Monday at 9:45 PM

3rdfocal said:
Have to special order through a dealer.

I’m cheap.

V-Ref · Monday at 10:30 PM

elmerdeer said:
Can you pls explain about the writable turrets??
Thank you,
elmer

V-Ref · Monday at 10:50 PM

elmerdeer said:
Can you pls explain about the writable turrets??
Thank you,
elmer

Due to feedback and direct PRS experience by the Chief Marketing Officer of March.

A need was identified for a translating no rev indicator (most engagements inside of 11-1200 yards use less than 10 mils/within one turret revolution) bulletproof, no frills, all business, markable elevation, windage, and parallax turret from the factory. No adhoc 3rd party solution. It can come just as depicted, ready to compete for PRS/NRL or that high value hunt trip as depicted. The high vis material on the turret is proprietary, meant to be used with any assortment of pens and alcohol wiped after the stage or hunt.

Literally. Direct Competitor Feedback-> To the actual Chief Marketing Officer + their direct Competitive time stressed experience = factory markable turrets.

March wants to take competitive PRS/NRL not just serious. They want to get it right.

Onebadstang16 · 2024-12-24T00:06:23-0500

Let me start by saying I am the designer of the FML-WBR reticle so I have bias to what optic I prefer between the two. But I will say it’s with good reason, before I was involved in the Rudge reticle I competited IN PRS with just about every scope on the market and I can honestly say March has absolutely built an incredible offering in the 5-42 Gen 2 with the PRS competitor in mind.

Some things March and the team set out to achieve with the 5-42 Gen 2 were to offer the market a tier one optic that didn’t just do what the market currently demanded but achieved what the competitors actually needed.

1. We took all the markings that weren’t competition friendly and removed them.

2. We made the turrets writable from the factory to allow competitors to use the actual factory turret for stages in PRS.

3. We provided a no nonsense reticle that is clean and useful for the optic.

4. We removed additional “features” that the competitor doesn’t need like locking turrets and illumination. (This scope was designed with specific PRS competition in mind.

5. We allowed the end user to mark parallax to the users eyes with actual real world environments. (How many times has your optic not been correct for YOU at said distance)

On top of the above mentioned specific changes to the gen 2 versus the PRS model, March brought an optic with some incredible horsepower! The FOV on the march is absolutely massive compared to the market, the magnification is there at 42x if you need it, the glass is second to absolutely NONE, and the scope is built like a tank. If your seriously looking for a tier 1 optic for PRS you would be doing yourself a disjustice not to seriously look at the March.

If you have any further questions I’ll be glad to answer them, please don’t hesitate to ask! March is serious about being a go to optic in PRS and they have the history and background with the current support to do just that!

That’s a good looking rifle posted above!!!

Glassaholic · 2024-12-24T00:51:55-0500

TheOE800 said:
I’m cheap.

You bought a TT 7-35 and consider yourself cheap...

The Knuckle · 2024-12-24T10:38:47-0500

V-Ref said:
I'm lucky enough to have both. 4.5K to 5k PRS rounds through the 5-27 ZCO. 1k rounds through the 5-42 March. Optically, you'll need to have both scopes side by side to notice the advantages of the March. They are both great scopes, with excellent post purchase support, backed by Companies that care about their customers. Both are robust, and have checked out on a scope poi checker, and a tall target test.

At 25x the ZCO has 15.6 Mil fov
At 25x the March has 17.4 Mil fov

The March has writable turrets, that are translating, with no rev indicator. 10 Mil turrets have very positive clicks, and readable usable spacing. So simplistic and robustness advantage here.

The ZCO has a non translating elev turrent with a rev indicator. With 15mil spacing it is a touch tight IMHO. 10 Mil is better on spacing in terms of readibility on the clock. The lockable turret and rev indicator give it the boojie advantage here. Some might argue those features are but another "thing" to go wrong when traveling or adverse environments or on the clock. Your preference might vary.

The ZCO reaches peak boost at 27x. The March is just starting its initial flex on optical horsepower at 27x.

The 5-42 has what I'd term is a "pro eyebox" meaning if your fundamentals are there, gun (optic and rifle) is setup correctly and you can build a consistent shooting position, you won't notice the optical compromises necessary to get 5-42x and a big fov. If your fundys ain't tight, you don't have the gun setup right, than the ZCO does have a slightly more forgiving eye box.

I prefer the March everyday of the week. Target acquisition because of the greater FOV, image clarity and color correctness allow you to see slight sways and swings to the target, resolution allows you to actually be mentally able to drive down to the target, and draw a circle with a sharpie around where the last round ACTUALLY impacted in the plate after the paint is long gone.

The ZCO is a great scope. If the March wasn't available, the ZCO would be my pick.

If you get the March, you want to make sure it has the writable turrets and that new Rudge reticle.

PM if you want further info regarding first had experiences between the two.

I’d love to see fov plotted on a graph compared to others. A 4mil wider fov at 25 seems smaller than I would have expected considering it’s a 26 degree optic vs a 22. There must be a bigger fov at different magnifications. Would be nice to plot it out and see where the sweet spot is.
The fov is why I’m grabbing the 5-42 march. Seems to have checked all the boxes. Almost went with the new kahles but 5-42 is most useful

TheOE800 · 2024-12-24T11:07:56-0500

Glassaholic said:
You bought a TT 7-35 and consider yourself cheap...

It’s about how you come into things; I paid an acceptable price for them. I’m not special ordering a full price optic.

Glassaholic · 2024-12-24T11:16:32-0500

The Knuckle said:
I’d love to see fov plotted on a graph compared to others. A 4mil wider fov at 25 seems smaller than I would have expected considering it’s a 26 degree optic vs a 22. There must be a bigger fov at different magnifications. Would be nice to plot it out and see where the sweet spot is.
The fov is why I’m grabbing the 5-42 march. Seems to have checked all the boxes. Almost went with the new kahles but 5-42 is most useful

I might be able to do that for you based on the mil values.

steve123 · 2024-12-24T11:20:39-0500

I bought my G1 5-42x56 with the intent of using high magnification often. This scope at 42x was pretty bad being dim and even blurry. I'll blame it on the 8.4 mag ratio combined with compact size, or something was wrong with the scope, or my older eyes, and probably all in conjunction. Younger eyes didn't seem to struggle as much at high mag like I did but my other old friends saw what I saw.

But at 15x-20x it was fine, well really nice in fact. Nevertheless I sold it.

Loved most everything else about the scope, especially the huge FOV. A big part of my interest in the scope to begin with was it focused 10 yards away for FT comps.

I hope March made tweaks to the G2 scope so it pulls off high mag better and wish they would put a lab here in the USA for repairs, and delete the high mag ratios.

oldrifleman · 2024-12-24T11:45:25-0500

Yeah the repair time was always their big issue. The writable turrets isn’t that big a deal there are multiple places to buy replaceable stick-on turret wraps. The 8X erector is what scares me about the scope.

Onebadstang16 · 2024-12-24T11:55:15-0500

The Knuckle said:
I’d love to see fov plotted on a graph compared to others. A 4mil wider fov at 25 seems smaller than I would have expected considering it’s a 26 degree optic vs a 22. There must be a bigger fov at different magnifications. Would be nice to plot it out and see where the sweet spot is.
The fov is why I’m grabbing the 5-42 march. Seems to have checked all the boxes. Almost went with the new kahles but 5-42 is most useful

I can do a cad rending based on the information we have, we took the distance visible from edge to edge at 25x on various scope models. I have the raw data if you’d like it shoot me a pm, the reason that specific thing hasn’t been published is March and the team don’t want to directly publish information that may be looked at as speaking poorly of other brands. Shoot me a pm and we can talk about the findings if you’d like.

Onebadstang16 · 2024-12-24T11:59:29-0500

steve123 said:
I bought my G1 5-42x56 with the intent of using high magnification often. This scope at 42x was pretty bad being dim and even blurry. I'll blame it on the 8.4 mag ratio combined with compact size, or something was wrong with the scope, or my older eyes, and probably all in conjunction. Younger eyes didn't seem to struggle as much at high mag like I did but my other old friends saw what I saw.

But at 15x-20x it was fine, well really nice in fact. Nevertheless I sold it.

Loved most everything else about the scope, especially the huge FOV. A big part of my interest in the scope to begin with was it focused 10 yards away for FT comps.

I hope March made tweaks to the G2 scope so it pulls off high mag better and wish they would put a lab here in the USA for repairs, and delete the high mag ratios.

The G2 addresses the exact issue your referring to here and I’ve seen no issues running 42x when I decided to, as for the high ratio for magnification we haven’t seen any issue with the 5-42 and unless I’m mistaken there has been absolutely no tracking issues with the assembly that’s used in the G2 optic.

Onebadstang16 · 2024-12-24T12:00:47-0500

oldrifleman said:
Yeah the repair time was always their big issue. The writable turrets isn’t that big a deal there are multiple places to buy replaceable stick-on turret wraps. The 8X erector is what scares me about the scope.

The idea was just to make it available straight from the factory, because why should you have to tape on a turret wrap when it could be done straight from the manufacturer. It’s just one evolution of what should be the norm in scope design moving forward.

There is some discussion internally happening on how March could provide quick turn around on optics that may need service. The end goal is to have some optics stateside ready to address any optic that might need repair but the end logistics of this hasn’t been finalized. It’s something I brought up with March directly. This is an issue I’m looking to address in the future.

oldrifleman · 2024-12-24T12:04:38-0500

Onebadstang16 said:
The idea was just to make it available straight from the factory, because why should you have to tape on a turret wrap when it could be done straight from the manufacturer. It’s just one evolution of what should be the norm in scope design moving forward.

Would never ever trust that. I would rather have the ability to change the surface. As with white boards eventually you have to refresh the surface. With a replacement tape I can also use permanent marker.

Onebadstang16 · 2024-12-24T12:07:57-0500

oldrifleman said:
Would never ever trust that. I would rather have the ability to change the surface. As with white boards eventually you have to refresh the surface. With a replacement tape I can also use permanent marker.

To each there own, I can’t get into the exact materials used but I’d bet you don’t have that problem as this isn’t whiteboard material. You could always tape on a surface just as you do today with every other optic on the market… we’re arguing problems that don’t exist.

oldrifleman · 2024-12-24T12:15:05-0500

Onebadstang16 said:
To each there own, I can’t get into the exact materials used but I’d bet you don’t hand that problem as this isn’t whiteboard material. You could always tape on a surface just as you do today with every other optic on the market… we’re arguing problems that don’t exist.

Possibly, my issue is that in my career I have seen almost every issue deemed impossible found to be possible. That said the tape was the least of my concerns with the March scope. But to each their own, I made my choice, others will make a different one, both will be likely be good ones.

Onebadstang16 · 2024-12-24T12:22:35-0500

oldrifleman said:
Possibly, my issue is that in my career I have seen almost every issue deemed impossible found to be possible. That said the tape was the least of my concerns with the March scope. But to each their own, I made my choice, others will make a different one, both will be likely be good ones.

I’d love to how your feedback and I’m sure March would as well if you could pm me the concerns. March very much takes pride in the designs and execution of their products and all feedback is welcomed. Sometimes there’s reasons things are done and I’ve very much learned almost all optic designs are a compromise balancing act.

3rdfocal · 2024-12-24T12:35:36-0500

I have a hard time trusting the longevity of the permanent writeable turrets. Idk what kind of material it is but expecting it to hold up to years of use without delaminating from the turret or yellowing or staining seems like a big ask.

DeathBeforeDismount · 2024-12-24T21:02:21-0500

Wait until next year and you will see ZCO and TT with FOV that rivals or surpasses the march. I wouldn't buy any new scope until the new FOV scopes get released. Legacy optics are gonna take a bit resale hit.

CK1.0 · 2024-12-24T21:45:08-0500

I'm currently running a ZCO 5-27 NLE with the MPCT1X reticle (and it's awesome)... but, from the limited info I can find, the March 5-42 with FML-WBR reticle and greater FOV seems like the only thing out there presently that possibly can top it, so I'm interested.

The FML-WBR reticle having breaks at .5mil fixes the only quibble I have with the MPCT1X, but I'd argue that having 3mils of hold-under is arguably better with the MPCT1X (because I've used it to hold-under -1.5-2+mils in a couple of matches already).

Support is the only thing that lingers for me... from what I've heard/read, if I have an issue or problem with my ZCO, they will take care of it pronto (within a week or so, I haven't had a reason to find out myself yet), and IMHO when dropping $4K+ on a scope, it needs to come with that.

Having trouble using the site?

Rifle Scopes ZCO 5-27 vs March 5-42

Montani Semper Liberi

Private

Sergeant

Montani Semper Liberi

Montani Semper Liberi

Sergeant

Sergeant

Gunny Sergeant

Montani Semper Liberi

Argumentative

Sergeant of the Hide

Argumentative

Sergeant

Sergeant

Supporter

Optical theorist and conjecturer

Supporter

Argumentative

Optical theorist and conjecturer

Lt. Colonel

Sergeant

Supporter

Supporter

Supporter

Sergeant

Supporter

Sergeant

Supporter

Sergeant of the Hide

Hey, give your balls a tug.

\m/ SLAYER \m/

Similar threads