Re: High End Tactical: Part III
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ILya</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: steve123</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ILya</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dr Scholl</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thanks Ilya
My statement was a bit simplistic
I do understand that it is a more involved process than simply revising the ocular housing. I think that maybe the 8x magnification ratio they used, whilst a great achievement in such a small package, wasn't really necessary. I'd happily put up with something a bit larger/longer to get more forgiving eye relief.
Until then, hear exactly what you're saying about using reduced magnification for less stable positions and agree totally. Perhaps the miser in me thinks that for a pretty expensive scope I should be able to use whatever mag I want in whatever position without eye relief detriment but that's not realistic.
Another question for you. I have the production FML-1 reticle in my 3-24x and I notice that at max magnification, I can see a little edge bleed in the reticle and stadia/hash lines. Looks like the ink bleed you see when you look at a drawn line under high magnification. Have you noticed this in your testing?
Justin
</div></div>
Yes, there is a little bit of that (bleed).
I could be wrong, but I suspect this is the smallest reticle features made in scopes so far and it is really magnified.
As far as making the scope a touch bigger/longer/etc goes... well, if they did that why would you choose March over a more established tactical scope like Hensoldt, Premier, S&B, etc?
<span style="color: #FF0000">Every scope is a collection of compromises. </span> Typical tactical scopes sacrifice weight in order to maximize something else. A new player to break into this market, in my opinion, has to do something different. March's first FFP scope is definitely not for everyone. However, it is essentially unique in the way it is packaged and configured, so it offers something others do not.
If March' scope was bigger and heavier, chances are my Grendel would be sporting something else on it.
ILya </div></div>
Hi ILya,
Question for you.
Me personally I would rather has seen March come out with something like a 4-28x50 because the only time I use the lowest mag is when I'm adjusting the chrono/rifle position so I don't accidentally shoot the chron
n the other hand when I'm working up loads or need to see something with high mag {like 28X} having it would be a much more desirable feature to me vs having 3x on the low end like they have now.
How much do you think a scope like the theoretical 4-28x50 would have affected the user friendliness of the eyebox,weight and reticle bleed since it would be a 7x ratio instead of 8x ? Do you think it could be kept reasonably sized still ?
If you had it all to do over again would you still buy the March 3-24 ?
</div></div>
If you are looking for a 4-28x or thereabouts, why not just get Premier or S&B 5-25x56? If your focus is on high magnification, you should be looking at large scopes with large objective lenses.
I got the March specifically because it is not a large scope with a large objective lens. For the rifle I have the March on (18" AR-15 by Specialized Dynamics), it is the best scope currently available, in my opinion.
For my 38Lapua boltgun, I prefer a large scope and I will probably end with either the 5-20x50 SS or an even larger scope of some sort. Like I said, it is all about the compromises you are willing to make for a particular application.
All that having been said, I would not be surprised if March's next FFP scope is something a bit bigger. If I were them, I would probably base it either on their 5-32x52 or 5-50x56, depending on whether they want to stay with a 30mm tube (5-32x52) or go with a 34mm tube (5-50x56). Personally, I think staying with a 30mm tube and doing a high quality 5-32x52 FFP scope would be a better idea.
ILya </div></div>
I had been back and forth in my head about which scope to get for a long time when I bought my IOR 6-24x56 last year a few months before you did your second review.
At the time I didn't want to spend $3000 on a scope so I steered away from the Premier and S$B but still wanted higher mag,10 mil knobs,mil reticle,ZS,and good glass.I had to choose between the Razor and the IOR back then.The 10 mil knobs won out in the end on my decision.I'm not sorry I bought the scope at all it's been a very nice scope but it's a big ole heavy bitch for sure,LOL.
So the small size and weight of the March 3-24 is what has my interest peaked.I wanted to see what folks had to say about it after owning for a while.It seems like it could use some improvement here and there ??? Then I got to thinking(fantising) to myself what I really wanted in a scope and how to keep it small but diminish some faults while gaining a little mag.I figure you'd be the one to ask concerning the compromises associated with such.Here's where I'm coming from.I wouldn't mind a scope a little heavier than the March 3-24 but not the size of the other 6-24's-5-25's available now,otherwise I'd have to be content with the what I have now.
Hey...I like your idea of a 5-32x52 much better than a 4-28!!! Tell Kelby's I want to be first in line to buy one
