Right now I am still getting used to my PST but in the near future was considering upgrading with my next rifle purchase. For my use I really like the size of the march. It's going to be a target and hopefully longrange hunting setup. I don't mind idea of a small exit pupil. I can't help but wonder how much better the glass is on a march over the razor.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes Is the March a large upgrade over the Razor.
- Thread starter Baranx4
- Start date
I really like my March 3-24. It is nearly half the weight of the razor. Either scope is a win though. The glass is great, but I have never done any side by side comparisons with the razor
I owned a Razor for about 2 weeks, never mounted it. The first thing I noticed about it was it's MAMMOTH SIZE!! I read the dimensions before purchase but, once it was in my hands I thought it was too big for a 5-20X scope. At that time, I decided that I liked the size and mag range of my 3-24 March better and I sold the Razor. There was nothing on the Razor I liked better than the March. I prefer the turrets of the March as well. To be fair I never did a side by side shooting comparison of the two so, take it for what it's worth.
It really comes down to what is high on your priority list. Turrets, size, weight and clarity are all positives in the case of the March. The Razor does have a strong following as well.
It really comes down to what is high on your priority list. Turrets, size, weight and clarity are all positives in the case of the March. The Razor does have a strong following as well.
Most March optics will have better glass than the PST. The Razor has nice glass but the thing is giant where the equal March is way lighter and more compact. I think you get an equal or better than optic in a much smaller package. As well the hi end March glass is better as well. The PST does not even come close, but it's half the price.
Go March...
Love my March 3-24. For the price can't be beat for size, quality, feel and ruggedness. If you don't agree, they are always easy to sell.
I just got my Razor mounted and started shooting it yesterday. I had a PST and loved it but really like the Razor so far but...I can't imagine my hunting rifle wearing this two pound scope. Like others have said, it's huge. I use my rifle for banging steel 1000+ yards and I drive to the shot where I going to shoot so weight doesn't matter but if I had to lug a rifle very far it wouldn't wear this glass.
Well it is a good thing this things differ then,
one scope has a solid reputation within the BR world for being absolute with tracking and staying zeroed, the other does not, the one has top notch glas, the other does not. The only place these scope do compare is in the QC and costumer relation departement, they will both go beyond and back to help when something brakes.
The small March is a bit weak in lowlight but a great all day scope. /CHris
I'm not trying to knock March scopes, but this isn't Benchrest. Go look at the PRS gear list. 0 March scopes. On the Razor I owned and the March I had, there wasn't enough difference in glass to matter. Razor's track very well also. In the tactical world the Razor is highly regarded as one of the better scopes out there, and the best for the money. I have ever yet to see a March at a a tactical match. Their exit pupil is simply too small for anything other than just laying down or shooting from a bench.
But March is only for 5 years and Vortex is for the life of the scope even if you buy it used.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I doubt too many people on here have owned both of the scopes in question. I have. Along with Schmidts, Hensoldts, USO's, Premiers, IOR's, Nightforce, etc. I can say without a shadow of doubt that while the March is outstanding in weight and overall quality, its extreme 8x mag ratio coupled with a small objective make it the most difficult to use in positional shooting of any scope I have used. Maybe we can get Lowlight in here. I believe he has demo'd both the March and the Razor.
I guess it is all about were one shoots and competes then,
were I shoot there is but one Razor and a handfull March of different configurations, a few 8-80 ( not very tactical) and some 5-40 and 3-24 scopes, having used and shot with them all, I find it odd that one equates them since they are nothing of the same.
March Rifle Scopes Tactical 5-40 x 56 FFP is the one my best mate is currently running on his comp rifle while I trudge along after with a PMII 5-25, the only "flaw" with that scope is that it is .05 mil rather than the standard .1 mil adjustment, still it makes for a more exact adjustment at extended ranges. /Chris
Edit- you are most correct about the eye-box on the 8-80 but the never smaller scopes are much better if yet not as good as a Hensoldt 4-16.
were I shoot there is but one Razor and a handfull March of different configurations, a few 8-80 ( not very tactical) and some 5-40 and 3-24 scopes, having used and shot with them all, I find it odd that one equates them since they are nothing of the same.
March Rifle Scopes Tactical 5-40 x 56 FFP is the one my best mate is currently running on his comp rifle while I trudge along after with a PMII 5-25, the only "flaw" with that scope is that it is .05 mil rather than the standard .1 mil adjustment, still it makes for a more exact adjustment at extended ranges. /Chris
Edit- you are most correct about the eye-box on the 8-80 but the never smaller scopes are much better if yet not as good as a Hensoldt 4-16.
Depends on what you're looking for. Razor is probably much more suited as a tactical scope; it's certainly more rugged. March is more appropriate if you do not intend to ever submit your rifle to any type of hard use and abuse.
There is a great article from a real scope expert, Ilya Koshkin, that compares these scopes here: High End Tactical Scopes: East vs West » OpticsThoughts If I was you, I would read and decide for yourself if the March is worth the money. If it was me looking to upgrade, I would go with either S&B PM II or a Steiner.
There is a great article from a real scope expert, Ilya Koshkin, that compares these scopes here: High End Tactical Scopes: East vs West » OpticsThoughts If I was you, I would read and decide for yourself if the March is worth the money. If it was me looking to upgrade, I would go with either S&B PM II or a Steiner.
I strongly disagree with this statement. The 3-24 is the model I am talking about. It is known to have a small eyebox. The Hensoldt excels in this area over every other scope in the market. It's eye box is huge and forgiving. The March lies at the other end of the spectrum.
I have a March F, and my partner used to run a Razor...so I'm quite familiar with both.
While I don't have a "negative" opinion of the Razor, I certainly don't have a particularly positive one either. While it's a decent scope, I just don't like the size of it, considering it is only 5-20. It's size would be better warranted if it were 5-25. Because the top end is only 20x, it would be better if it were 3-20. I also hated the massively tall elevation turret. Glass was so-so as far as I'm concerned. Bottom line (in my opinion) is I like other scopes better than the Razor at this pricepoint. There are other scopes for a bit less I think are better value, and other scopes that are well worth the few hundred more dollars. None of this is to say the Razor can't be, or isn't a very capable optic for our purposes.
I can't say the same about the March, it's a fabulous little scope. I really only have 2 gripes with it. One is the parallax knob is too sensitive; because most of it's rotation is used to take you from 5 yards to 50 yards, leaving little rotation for 50-1000 yards...meaning it is touchy. The other gripe applies to mounting it on an AI, M2008, M2013 or any other rifle with an overly long pic rail. The scope is so short you've got to use very tall rings to get power ring up off the rail, and also to get the objective bell up off the rail. This really doesn't apply to most Savages or Remingtons.
I haven't thrashed my March, but I doubt it is less "rugged" than the Razor. Hard to say for sure though.
As far as the eyebox goes, it is true the March is very sensitive when you've got the power cranked up. However, it is no problem whatsoever with the magnification settings commonly used for positional shooting. Who runs 20+ power when shooting positional?
In terms of glass, there is absolutely no comparison between the Razor and March. The March is way, way better. The resolution is incredible. I usually have no issue seeing 7mm bullet holes in the black at 300 yards with mine...and that is something my 5-25 Premier has a hard time doing. The Razor is like a March with cataracts.
Edit to add: It is worth mentioning the warranty difference between the Razor and the March. Vortex obviously has a no questions asked "VIP" warranty. March is 5 years.
The retailers of March can stroke our cocks and tell us the 5 year warranty thing is only because of Japanese laws, and they "promise" (verbally) they'll warranty it longer...but bottom line is the March *does not* carry the same warranty as Vortex.
Also, if you do have an issue, the North American distributor of March is not capable of "working" on them much. So, you'll be looking at a $75 bill (or more) to ship it internationally to Japan.
Just some things to consider.
While I don't have a "negative" opinion of the Razor, I certainly don't have a particularly positive one either. While it's a decent scope, I just don't like the size of it, considering it is only 5-20. It's size would be better warranted if it were 5-25. Because the top end is only 20x, it would be better if it were 3-20. I also hated the massively tall elevation turret. Glass was so-so as far as I'm concerned. Bottom line (in my opinion) is I like other scopes better than the Razor at this pricepoint. There are other scopes for a bit less I think are better value, and other scopes that are well worth the few hundred more dollars. None of this is to say the Razor can't be, or isn't a very capable optic for our purposes.
I can't say the same about the March, it's a fabulous little scope. I really only have 2 gripes with it. One is the parallax knob is too sensitive; because most of it's rotation is used to take you from 5 yards to 50 yards, leaving little rotation for 50-1000 yards...meaning it is touchy. The other gripe applies to mounting it on an AI, M2008, M2013 or any other rifle with an overly long pic rail. The scope is so short you've got to use very tall rings to get power ring up off the rail, and also to get the objective bell up off the rail. This really doesn't apply to most Savages or Remingtons.
I haven't thrashed my March, but I doubt it is less "rugged" than the Razor. Hard to say for sure though.
As far as the eyebox goes, it is true the March is very sensitive when you've got the power cranked up. However, it is no problem whatsoever with the magnification settings commonly used for positional shooting. Who runs 20+ power when shooting positional?
In terms of glass, there is absolutely no comparison between the Razor and March. The March is way, way better. The resolution is incredible. I usually have no issue seeing 7mm bullet holes in the black at 300 yards with mine...and that is something my 5-25 Premier has a hard time doing. The Razor is like a March with cataracts.
Edit to add: It is worth mentioning the warranty difference between the Razor and the March. Vortex obviously has a no questions asked "VIP" warranty. March is 5 years.
The retailers of March can stroke our cocks and tell us the 5 year warranty thing is only because of Japanese laws, and they "promise" (verbally) they'll warranty it longer...but bottom line is the March *does not* carry the same warranty as Vortex.
Also, if you do have an issue, the North American distributor of March is not capable of "working" on them much. So, you'll be looking at a $75 bill (or more) to ship it internationally to Japan.
Just some things to consider.
Last edited:
I respect your opinion. It's very possible the scope I had was sub-par when compared to other March Scopes.
Agreed. This is one of the points that Ilya Koshkin makes in his review of the March.
