March tracking error

fdkay · Saturday at 8:42 PM

I was looking at reviews on March optics and found a couple of them that reflected tracking errors in March scopes. I believe they were both 3-24 models.
I have been lusting after the 4.5-28, but, damn, a 400 dollar Arken can track but not a 3000+ optic?

smarcus · Saturday at 9:24 PM

Years ago March used different “mils”which led to tracking differences. That’s not an issue anymore with new scopes. Here is some info on it.

Regarding the past article on our value / March Scopes adopts true mathematical mil 1/6283 | MARCH Scopes | DEON Optical Design CorporationMARCH Scopes | DEON Optical Design Corporation

MARCH Scopes Official Site

marchscopes.com

fdkay · Saturday at 9:43 PM

smarcus said:
Years ago March used different “mils”which led to tracking differences. That’s not an issue anymore with new scopes. Here is some info on it.

Regarding the past article on our value / March Scopes adopts true mathematical mil 1/6283 | MARCH Scopes | DEON Optical Design CorporationMARCH Scopes | DEON Optical Design Corporation

MARCH Scopes Official Site

marchscopes.com

Thanks. I'm aware of the mil value change. I'm talking about induced error when doing a box test, one example was 2/10's of a mil off at 10 mils dialed, reticle moved 10.2 mils

ggmanning · Sunday at 2:21 PM

I am a small sample of 4 but they all box test perfect and are all shot 1000 up to a mile with no issue. 3 older 3-24s and new 1.5-15

W54/XM-388 · Sunday at 3:15 PM

Perhaps you should link to the actual review you are basing this on and then we can see if they were in fact using modern production March scopes or some older or pre-production scopes?

fdkay · Sunday at 4:44 PM

W54/XM-388 said:
Perhaps you should link to the actual review you are basing this on and then we can see if they were in fact using modern production March scopes or some older or pre-production scopes?

Good idea, I started thinking about it and that might be the actual error. One of the was done by c_does.

fdkay · Sunday at 4:46 PM

ggmanning said:
I am a small sample of 4 but they all box test perfect and are all shot 1000 up to a mile with no issue. 3 older 3-24s and new 1.5-15

Nice.
Here is a link to one of them.

Rodney65 · Sunday at 4:51 PM

fdkay said:
Nice.
Here is a link to one of them.

Cool reticle. Tree's not too wide, the donut is useful.

Onebadstang16 · 2025-01-29T00:22:54-0500

I have been working with March to bring my reticle the FML-WBR to life and help assist them in getting a PRS specific design to market which is now available. I can say we have absolutely beaten the snot out of two of them over the course of months and had absolutely ZERO tracking issues. In fact one was dropped from shoulder height to crushed rock bell first and were able to complete the gap grind 2 day pro/am match with it. Upon looking later we found it fell so hard it actually bent the scope mount retaining mechanism and the scope was fine. The newer March stuff is super robust and has the thickest tubes on the market in most cases (example this one is 4mm thick) most offerings are 1.5mm body thickness.

March also has been behind so many optics designs with LOW that a large portion of the market has been influenced by March designs. All scope manufactures have issues but I doubt seriously this was a modern gen march optic.

I’d be glad to hear more and pass info along to the March team directly.

fdkay · 2025-01-29T06:22:06-0500

Onebadstang16 said:
I have been working with March to bring my reticle the FML-WBR to life and help assist them in getting a PRS specific design to market which is now available. I can say we have absolutely beaten the snot out of two of them over the course of months and had absolutely ZERO tracking issues. In fact one was dropped from shoulder height to crushed rock bell first and were able to complete the gap grind 2 day pro/am match with it. Upon looking later we found it fell so hard it actually bent the scope mount retaining mechanism and the scope was fine. The newer March stuff is super robust and has the thickest tubes on the market in most cases (example this one is 4mm thick) most offerings are 1.5mm body thickness.

March also has been behind so many optics designs with LOW that a large portion of the market has been influenced by March designs. All scope manufactures have issues but I doubt seriously this was a modern gen march optic.

I’d be glad to hear more and pass info along to the March team directly.

I actually decided to pull the trigger and ordered a 4.5-28 high master, the one without the locking turrets, it was on sale at eurooptic

fdkay · 2025-01-29T10:01:33-0500

W54/XM-388 said:
Perhaps you should link to the actual review you are basing this on and then we can see if they were in fact using modern production March scopes or some older or pre-production scopes?

This guy looked at one, according to him, it wouldn't hold zero and the glass was shit.

March FX 4.5-28x52mm FFP Field Evaluation

This is a field evaluation of the March FX 4.5-28x52mm FFP scope. This scope was sent to Ryan Avery for an evaluation. It was personally purchased. The ammunition used was my personal purchased 175gr SMK. The baseline 20 round group with the lot of ammunition was 1.3” at 100 yards. The scope...

rokslide.com

Onebadstang16 · 2025-01-29T12:16:03-0500

fdkay said:
This guy looked at one, according to him, it wouldn't hold zero and the glass was shit.

March FX 4.5-28x52mm FFP Field Evaluation

This is a field evaluation of the March FX 4.5-28x52mm FFP scope. This scope was sent to Ryan Avery for an evaluation. It was personally purchased. The ammunition used was my personal purchased 175gr SMK. The baseline 20 round group with the lot of ammunition was 1.3” at 100 yards. The scope...

rokslide.com

I’d encourage you to do some more research outside of a single guy, I don’t know his test or installation methods, shit that could also be a difference in load for a rifle on different days there’s so many variables that you really can’t account for. I will say this, March is known for having incredible glass and they have absolutely dominated the F-Class market with the 8-80 Majesta which is almost exclusively used at 80x which directly contradicts the statement “glass is good up close but at mag the glass is bad” and I know far less about the older tracking system on that scope versus the newer system but I can say that the tracking in the fclass scopes I’ve seen and my PRS scope have been fantastic, that’s coming from a PRS shooter where dialing and zero are absolutely critical to any success. You simply put can’t believe everything on the internet, maybe he did get a bad one, maybe he did install and load the rifle to shoot consistently, maybe he did hate the glass personally… but then again maybe he didn’t actually do as well at any of those things as he thinks he did.

I often build rifles for shooters and they go oh the gun has a flyer it won’t shoot and it looks just like that on paper and another pro shooter or I get behind the rifle and amazingly enough… one hole groups. Also no one says the thousands of times they have a good experience they only log into something to flame when they have an issue.

fdkay · 2025-01-29T12:23:53-0500

Onebadstang16 said:
I’d encourage you to do some more research outside of a single guy, I don’t know his test or installation methods, shit that could also be a difference in load for a rifle on different days there’s so many variables that you really can’t account for. I will say this, March is known for having incredible glass and they have absolutely dominated the F-Class market with the 8-80 Majesta which is almost exclusively used at 80x which directly contradicts the statement “glass is good up close but at mag the glass is bad” and I know far less about the older tracking system on that scope versus the newer system but I can say that the tracking in the fclass scopes I’ve seen and my PRS scope have been fantastic, that’s coming from a PRS shooter where dialing and zero are absolutely critical to any success. You simply put can’t believe everything on the internet, maybe he did get a bad one, maybe he did install and load the rifle to shoot consistently, maybe he did hate the glass personally… but then again maybe he didn’t actually do as well at any of those things as he thinks he did.

I often build rifles for shooters and they go oh the gun has a flyer it won’t shoot and it looks just like that on paper and another pro shooter or I get behind the rifle and amazingly enough… one hole groups. Also no one says the thousands of times they have a good experience they only log into something to flame when they have an issue.

Understood and agree, I give much more creedance to the reviews by BigJimFish and Glassaholic here on the hide. That is why, as stated above, I ordered one. Anxiously awaiting arrival.

Search

Search

Download Gravity Ballistics

Having trouble using the site?

March tracking error

fdkay

Gunny Sergeant

smarcus

Supporter

Regarding the past article on our value / March Scopes adopts true mathematical mil 1/6283 | MARCH Scopes | DEON Optical Design CorporationMARCH Scopes | DEON Optical Design Corporation

fdkay

Gunny Sergeant

Regarding the past article on our value / March Scopes adopts true mathematical mil 1/6283 | MARCH Scopes | DEON Optical Design CorporationMARCH Scopes | DEON Optical Design Corporation

ggmanning

Boykin man

W54/XM-388

Online Training Member

fdkay

Gunny Sergeant

fdkay

Gunny Sergeant

Rodney65

Private

Onebadstang16

Supporter

fdkay

Gunny Sergeant

fdkay

Gunny Sergeant

March FX 4.5-28x52mm FFP Field Evaluation

Onebadstang16

Supporter

March FX 4.5-28x52mm FFP Field Evaluation

fdkay

Gunny Sergeant

Similar threads