March tracking error

F

fdkay

Gunny Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
    • Nov 27, 2009
    7,902
    5,231
    62
    Ingleside, Tx
    #1
    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?
     
    #2
    • Like
    Reactions: stanley_white
    #3
    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.

    marchscopes.com

    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 marchscopes.com
    Click to expand...
    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
     
    #5
    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?
     
    #9
    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.
     
    #10
    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.
    Click to expand...
    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
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Genin and 762 ULTRAMAGA
    #11
    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?
    Click to expand...
    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 rokslide.com
     
    • Haha
    Reactions: 762 ULTRAMAGA and Secant
    #12
    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 rokslide.com
    Click to expand...
    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.
     
    #13
    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.
    Click to expand...
    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.
     
    #15
    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 rokslide.com
    Click to expand...
    That guy's a major fucking tool, I'd take anything he says or "Tests" with a huge grain of salt.
    He claims to be an expert but I'd bet my bottom dollar he'd get his ass kicked in a PRS match by any random selection of dudes on this forum!

    I bought a 4.5-28 when they first came out and I've put it through the ringer over the past 4 years.
    It tracks true, verified to 1940 yards on my 300NMI, holds zero, and has really solid glass. Optically I'd put it between my 7-35 ATACR and ZCO 527, with a massive win in FOV.

    The only disadvantage it has as a competition optic is the eye box isn't very forgiving, same with the parallax.
    Not terrible, but definitely not as good as the 7-35 ATACR.
     
    #16
    762 ULTRAMAGA said:
    That guy's a major fucking tool, I'd take anything he says or "Tests" with a huge grain of salt.
    He claims to be an expert but I'd bet my bottom dollar he'd get his ass kicked in a PRS match by any random selection of dudes on this forum!

    I bought a 4.5-28 when they first came out and I've put it through the ringer over the past 4 years.
    It tracks true, verified to 1940 yards on my 300NMI, holds zero, and has really solid glass. Optically I'd put it between my 7-35 ATACR and ZCO 527, with a massive win in FOV.

    The only disadvantage it has as a competition optic is the eye box isn't very forgiving, same with the parallax.
    Not terrible, but definitely not as good as the 7-35 ATACR.
    Click to expand...
    You really need to get behind the 5-42 Gen 2 with my reticle in it!! The 4.5-28 does have a tighter eyebox but the new 5-42x is a fantastic optic some should be coming to the wild here shortly. As for parallax I basically don’t touch it all day during a match. The glass in the 5-42 Gen 2 is also really really damn good. We’ve compared it side by side with the theta and zcos and many guys have said the march is actually better glass. I’ve had actual users of zcos and Thetas come look and actually go that’s actually better than my scope is.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: 762 ULTRAMAGA
    #17
    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.
    Click to expand...
    What’s the consensus of the 10-80 majesta compared to the previous 10-60.

    Worth the jump?

    Thanks
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Denys
    #18
    brianf said:
    What’s the consensus of the 10-80 majesta compared to the previous 10-60.

    Worth the jump?

    Thanks
    Click to expand...
    Man I am not a F-Class shooter as I do the prs side of March but Tim Vaught is a close friend of mine and I can tell you in looking through his and from what I know internally from March from the Majesta and it’s lens array it’s an absolutely incredible optic and an improvement over the previous generations of optics. If you can make weight with your rifle setup and are looking for the finest rifle scope made for F-Class it’s incredible. What March has done at the 80x with mirage cutting and the reticle for F-Class is awesome. You should message Denys about the majesta he’ll be glad to assist and absolutely can give you every detail you might need. If you decide to order one give shoot me a pm I’ll be glad to assist on that front as well.

    Thanks,
    Brandon Rudge
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Denys and brianf
    #20
    fdkay said:
    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
    Click to expand...
    I must have missed this thread the first time out.

    I saw a video of a guy who did a tracking test on a March scope, I think it was a 3-24X52 but it was a few years back and my memory is fuzzy. However, I do remember that he discovered a 2% deviation with the scope. It seems he was getting .2 MIL more than expected dialing up 10 MIL. During the video, he was explaining his method and how the target was hanging out in his backyard, 100 yards away and he was counting the MILs and the tick marks on the paper. He also said that many scopes were failing the same way, virtually all the big names, so he was not worried overly much. He did express some surprise that some of the cheapo scopes he was testing were dead on, but the big names were almost all wrong.

    I immediately figured out his problem, just like most of you here who have just read the above paragraph. I left him a note in the comments of his video. Again, this was a few years back, so don't ask for further details.

    /tldr:
    He was measuring on a target 100 yards away. It should have been 100 meters. Good times, good times.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: carbonbased
    #21
    supercorndogs said:
    I dont think a 2% error is that out of normal. It would also be very easy to induce when testing tracking.
    Click to expand...
    Yea thats pretty common across rifle scopes, Its the exception one that tracks 100% across the range. One of the reasons its super important to do a tall target test to atleast 10 mils to see what if the error is.

    And its not the end of the world. You can account for the error in a kestral/AB so its like its not even there.

    You would hear endless crying here if people actually all tested their optics.
     
    #22
    brianf said:
    What’s the consensus of the 10-80 majesta compared to the previous 10-60.

    Worth the jump?

    Thanks
    Click to expand...
    The Majesta is a March-X8-80X56 HM. The other riflescope you mentioned is the March-X 10-60X56 HM. Up until the Majesta was released, the 10-60X56 or the High Master, as a lot of people call it, was the best F-Class scope available. The Super ED lenses it uses have a delaying effect on the IQ degradation due to mirage. I had one for many years (still have it, it's my backup scope), and I was always shooting it at 50X, regardless of conditions. This scope has an AOV of 20°, which is pretty much the standard for riflescopes. When DEON designed the Majesta, they put in everything they know about building a riflescope, hardware-wise and optics-wise. They used the same Super ED lenses from the 10-60X56 and then added a pinch of pixie dust to further help retard the IQ degradation in mirage. They also fitted the scope with a wide-angle eyepiece, just like in the March-FX 5-42X56 and the AOV of the Majesta is 25°. This is a 25% increase in linear FOV, or 156% in total. (We shoot two dimensional targets.) The riflescope was released with several different offerings for reticle and one of them was the first ever reticle designed specifically for F-Class competition, the MTR-WFD reticle. Since its introduction, the Majesta has won a large number of F-Class competitions and has become the de facto premier riflescope for the discipline.

    This optical supremacy comes at a high price, and a heavy weight. It is an extra 9-10 ounces heavier than the 10-60X56 and I think it's an additional $1000 over the that scope. I know all the top shooters in F-Class, and a lot of them have the Majesta with the MTR-WFD reticle and most of them have more than one. In F-TR, we are more conscious of weight, so the penetration of the Majesta is much smaller, but it is growing as people build new rifles and incorporate the weight of the Majesta in the design.

    So, in answer to your question, is it worth the jump? A lot of top F-Open shooters seem to think so. In F-TR, you need to be more circumspect and plan accordingly.


    ETA; If you have more question, feel free to PM me, or ask here.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: brianf
    #24
    W6SPK said:
    @Denys, you seem to be the resident expert on March optics, what are the differences between the 5-42 GI and GII?
    Click to expand...
    The March-FX 5-42X56 was first introduced in 2019. Its new feature was the 26° AOV. It also has quite a bit of elevation built-it. The Gen 2 was introduced last year and there are two main differences. The turrets of the GEn 1 were replaced by the Shuriken turrets and the optical formula was improved for the times when there's a lot of elevation in the riflescope. The IQ of the gen 2 is superb at all mags and adjustments.

    DEON also decided this was a great optics for PRS, with its wide FOV, outstanding robustness and the great turrets, and they worked to make a special version even more suited to PRS by introducing the FML-WBR reticle and the simplified yet advanced writable turrets, which are really geared to the PRS shooter.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Sako man and W6SPK
    #26
    Tictacticaltimmy said:
    not trying to be a smartass, but if that were the case wouldn't the error be around 10% rather than 2%? and it would be consistent across all scopes, and in the same direction.
    Click to expand...
    You're not being a smart assistant at all. In fact I'm sure you're correct. But this was a few years back and being of a certain age, my memory is not infallible. If I could find the video again, I would post it here. The error that he was seeing was more than expected and he did say that the big names scopes erred in the same direction.
     
    #27
    Gil P. said:
    How're you liking your March?
    Click to expand...
    I haven't had a great deal of time with it. I did notice the slight optical issue at 4.5x that others have noted. It looks fantastic at higher magnification.
    I had to fiddle with the zero stop quite a bit to get it working, and I noticed a very gritty feeling in the turret as I approached the zero. That seems to have worked out.
     
    #28
    fdkay said:
    I haven't had a great deal of time with it. I did notice the slight optical issue at 4.5x that others have noted. It looks fantastic at higher magnification.
    I had to fiddle with the zero stop quite a bit to get it working, and I noticed a very gritty feeling in the turret as I approached the zero. That seems to have worked out.
    Click to expand...
    What was the optical issue at 4.5x? Which reticle did you end up getting? I was thinking of getting Ilyas reticle (non tree).
     
    #30
    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.
    Click to expand...
    I just got a 4.5-28x56, I have owned numerous top tier optics, the March is on the most premium level. I hope we see March take a larger market share, they deserve it. Premium refinement is what comes to mind.
     
    #31
    762 ULTRAMAGA said:
    That guy's a major fucking tool, I'd take anything he says or "Tests" with a huge grain of salt.
    He claims to be an expert but I'd bet my bottom dollar he'd get his ass kicked in a PRS match by any random selection of dudes on this forum!

    I bought a 4.5-28 when they first came out and I've put it through the ringer over the past 4 years.
    It tracks true, verified to 1940 yards on my 300NMI, holds zero, and has really solid glass. Optically I'd put it between my 7-35 ATACR and ZCO 527, with a massive win in FOV.

    The only disadvantage it has as a competition optic is the eye box isn't very forgiving, same with the parallax.
    Not terrible, but definitely not as good as the 7-35 ATACR.
    Click to expand...
    Ah yeah, I read his write up, I just can't relate, I am super impressed with my March FX 4.5-28.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: 762 ULTRAMAGA
    You must log in or register to reply here.

    Similar threads

    T
    Rifle Scopes LPVO Comparison: March Shorty 1-10x vs Kahles K18i-2 1-8x
    Replies
    37
    Views
    1K
    TheVolunteers
    T
    C
    Optics S&B 3-20 Ultra Short MT2 MSR2
    Replies
    17
    Views
    2K
    Chickentoast
    C
    A
    Vortex Razor HD Gen2 4.5-27x56 or Athlon Cronus BTR 4.5-29x56 APRS6 and switching to MRAD from MOA.
    Replies
    6
    Views
    387
    Holliday
    Holliday
    1
    Something wrong with my NF ATACR?
    Replies
    17
    Views
    847
    chevy_man
    C
    C
    SOLD [WTS] March FX 34mm 1-10x Shorty DR-TR1F Shuriken Lock and Badger mount
    Replies
    14
    Views
    737
    C_Does
    C
    Top Bottom
    Back
    Home
    Forums
    Merch
    Alerts