Rifle Scopes Light weight low light tactical scope options

[generalzip]

Good analysis drifter. I've found that to be my experience as well. In low light you need to dial back magnification anyway. Anything past 10x on most scopes it starts to become useless when the sun goes down. I own neither a march nor premier lt but looked strongly at both. I went with a mark 6 due to the military discount an think its a great value. Glass is awesome in it. Only negative I can see is the elevation turret isn't the best out there. But the TMR reticle is awesome for holdovers and the wind age turret is great. The elevation turret is certainly usable but I could see myself bein of .1 mil in lower light with the slightly mushy turrets. The mark 6 is a light tiny awesome package. Ony downside aside from elevation knob is no illumination. Everything else I find nothing to complain about really.

At 18x it's a happy medium between the premier and march and is a 44mm tube so in between what you are looking at. My concern with the LT was small amount of elevation, higher price, and they are simply unobtainable right now. My concern with the march was simply one thing, eyebox. I can't stand a scope with a small eyebox especially when shooting from positions other than prone. I'd love the opportunity to try one out. The march offers some fantastic value and is a great scope from what I can tell on paper. From the low light shooting I've done I've still never really seen a use for illumination. The mark 6 has glass good enough that's it's not really needed.

You have a tough decision. If it were me I'd look more at the march and luepold as they are currently available. You certainly will be happy with whatever you choose.

 

[steve123]

I have a March 3-24 showing up Monday...but... right now I think the NF-F1 is one of the best all around scopes out there. Not too heavy or big, has illume- although the adjustment design is long in the tooth, the HS 10 mil knobs are excellent, has a zero stop, has a nice eyebox, great glass and last but not least is it's Nightforce "tough".

Okay so I've been behind the March 3-24 quite a bit in the last week or so.

Others report having trouble getting behind the March because of the eyebox. This hasn't been a problem for me at all even at 24x. I've found with various other scopes that the eye has to be lined up in a certain position to get a perfectly focused reticle even though the field of view in the scope is full. My particular March is nice in that the reticle is focused "as soon as" the FOV is full, which is a aspect of the scope I really like.

The action of all controls on my March are excellent. Zero stop is well thought out and simple.

The glass in mine is nice, above average, not the best I've looked through though.

The humongous mil line marking numbers 1 mil off the right side of the vertical crosshair sucks, especially if one uses holdovers and holdoffs for wind, I'll be dialing this scope more than I normally would because of that.

Sure wish these came with a H-59.

10Y parallax is great for using with air rifles and rimfires, also nice for close in stages at tactical matches and dryfire practice in the house. 10Y parallax is half the reason why I bought the March and sold the NF.

 

[Glassaholic]

Thank you for your info Drifter001. I'm not going to pretend to be an optical engineer; however, I do have experience with optics from own hobbies and career. I'd like to explain my understanding of optical limitations and allow others who know more than I to respond. With any type of optical viewing system (scope, lens, binocular, etc.) you have to have at least two pieces of glass, for more complex lens designs (such as zoom lenses) you need multiple pieces of glass. Each element of glass poses a problem for the light source and that is the simple fact that light has to travel through it. Let's assume that two different scopes have the same exact glass and coatings (which we know to not be true, but works best for the illustration), one scope is a 3-24x42mm and the other is a 3-12x42mm. You have pointed out that light transmission is misunderstood and I'm willing to accept I need to be educated here, but I want to make sure I understand this correctly. By design, the 8x zoom capabilities requires more glass elements to be used internally, with more glass elements you cut down on light transmission (any time light has to pass through or reflected off a source, like a piece of optical glass, the light loses some of it's brightness which is why there are no lenses which can transmit 100% of the light), with recent technologies in manufacturing processes the glass companies have gotten a lot better at making close to perfectly shaped glass elements, and using proprietary multi-coating techniques have increased the effective light transmission properties through that piece of glass, but there is another catch, not all the elements inside a lens has multi-coating on them. So all things being equal we have two scopes that are identical in the quality of glass used, but one scope has a higher magnification rating (and thus more lens elements internally) than the other; by the laws of physics the scope with more glass elements is not going to transmit as much light as the scope with fewer glass elements, this is why when you pick up a 3-12x42 scope that has the exact same glass as the manufacturer's 3-18x42, when both are set to 12x, the image from the 3-12x42 scope appears "brighter" (again, all things being equal). The simple fact that you can set both scopes to 12x and both have a 42mm objective doesn't mean they are equal, because the 3-18x scope is going to have more glass that the light will have to travel through.

I'll stop for a moment and ask if I am right in the above scenario?

Okay, the next issue is the front objective or the glass at the very front of the lens. How large in diameter this front objective is has a lot to do with the light gathering ability of the lens, this is why we can poke a pin through a piece of paper and look at the sun, because the diameter of the pin drastically reduces the amount of light getting to our eye; however, cut a 1/4" diameter hole in that paper and then look at the sun with your eye close up and you're going to hurt yourself, but stand back a distance from the paper and the amount of light is once again reduced, this is what we would call the exit pupil which determines the amount of light that is actually reaching our eyes.

I have understood that for a young healthy eye, the maximum amount of light our eye can take in occurs at around a 5mm exit pupil, as you get older this can fade and you starting needing a larger diameter exit pupil to help you see in lower light. To wrap this all up, just because exit pupils are the same (which is really a calculation of the front objective divided by the focal length or magnification as we would call it in a scope; however, even these properties can change as the magnification changes in a zoom scope) doesn't mean that the light reaching your eye is the same and this is because of the transmission properties I explained above. So the March 3-24x42 when set to 8.4x magnification may have an exit pupil around 5mm, and the 3-12x42mm when set to 8.4x magnification is also 5mm you will notice that the 3-12x scope actually looks brighter, and in fact, actually is brighter because of light transmission properties in the scope that has less glass elements sitting inside.

In conclusion, if I am correct in my understanding above, the March is never going to have the same low light gathering capabilities as the Premier 3-15x50mm, and not just because the Premier has a 50mm objective. The same would also be true if we compared the Premier 3-15x50mm to the Zeiss Victory HT 3-12x56mm which is why many have claimed this scope and many like it to be the "brightest" scopes on the market. While the March may have many fantastic qualities and applications, I just do not see how it could be a top performer in low light situations.

 

[Eric B.]

Yeah... I hear you on the weight thing, and my Bushnell ERS 3.5 - 21 X 50mm, weighing in at 37.5 oz. W/ scope caps will never make your list. Love the scope but "hate the weight".

And that's why I got the NF aluminum Unimount rings instead of the Badger Ordinance STEEL unimount.

 

[Crosshair]

Thank you for your info Drifter001. I'm not going to pretend to be an optical engineer; however, I do have experience with optics from own hobbies and career. I'd like to explain my understanding of optical limitations and allow others who know more than I to respond. With any type of optical viewing system (scope, lens, binocular, etc.) you have to have at least two pieces of glass, for more complex lens designs (such as zoom lenses) you need multiple pieces of glass. Each element of glass poses a problem for the light source and that is the simple fact that light has to travel through it. Let's assume that two different scopes have the same exact glass and coatings (which we know to not be true, but works best for the illustration), one scope is a 3-24x42mm and the other is a 3-12x42mm. You have pointed out that light transmission is misunderstood and I'm willing to accept I need to be educated here, but I want to make sure I understand this correctly. By design, the 8x zoom capabilities requires more glass elements to be used internally, with more glass elements you cut down on light transmission (any time light has to pass through or reflected off a source, like a piece of optical glass, the light loses some of it's brightness which is why there are no lenses which can transmit 100% of the light), with recent technologies in manufacturing processes the glass companies have gotten a lot better at making close to perfectly shaped glass elements, and using proprietary multi-coating techniques have increased the effective light transmission properties through that piece of glass, but there is another catch, not all the elements inside a lens has multi-coating on them. So all things being equal we have two scopes that are identical in the quality of glass used, but one scope has a higher magnification rating (and thus more lens elements internally) than the other; by the laws of physics the scope with more glass elements is not going to transmit as much light as the scope with fewer glass elements, this is why when you pick up a 3-12x42 scope that has the exact same glass as the manufacturer's 3-18x42, when both are set to 12x, the image from the 3-12x42 scope appears "brighter" (again, all things being equal). The simple fact that you can set both scopes to 12x and both have a 42mm objective doesn't mean they are equal, because the 3-18x scope is going to have more glass that the light will have to travel through.

I'll stop for a moment and ask if I am right in the above scenario?

Okay, the next issue is the front objective or the glass at the very front of the lens. How large in diameter this front objective is has a lot to do with the light gathering ability of the lens, this is why we can poke a pin through a piece of paper and look at the sun, because the diameter of the pin drastically reduces the amount of light getting to our eye; however, cut a 1/4" diameter hole in that paper and then look at the sun with your eye close up and you're going to hurt yourself, but stand back a distance from the paper and the amount of light is once again reduced, this is what we would call the exit pupil which determines the amount of light that is actually reaching our eyes.

I have understood that for a young healthy eye, the maximum amount of light our eye can take in occurs at around a 5mm exit pupil, as you get older this can fade and you starting needing a larger diameter exit pupil to help you see in lower light. To wrap this all up, just because exit pupils are the same (which is really a calculation of the front objective divided by the focal length or magnification as we would call it in a scope; however, even these properties can change as the magnification changes in a zoom scope) doesn't mean that the light reaching your eye is the same and this is because of the transmission properties I explained above. So the March 3-24x42 when set to 8.4x magnification may have an exit pupil around 5mm, and the 3-12x42mm when set to 8.4x magnification is also 5mm you will notice that the 3-12x scope actually looks brighter, and in fact, actually is brighter because of light transmission properties in the scope that has less glass elements sitting inside.

In conclusion, if I am correct in my understanding above, the March is never going to have the same low light gathering capabilities as the Premier 3-15x50mm, and not just because the Premier has a 50mm objective. The same would also be true if we compared the Premier 3-15x50mm to the Zeiss Victory HT 3-12x56mm which is why many have claimed this scope and many like it to be the "brightest" scopes on the market. While the March may have many fantastic qualities and applications, I just do not see how it could be a top performer in low light situations.

Good post and I agree with a most of it. I'm also not an optical engineer, but I work with optics for a living and have read some about the properties of light wave propagation and reflection. Image brightness of any scope comes down to how well the scope transmits the ambient light entering the objective to the pupil. Any time light changes mediums it is traveling through, it throws a reflection, know as a fresnel reflection. This is due to light traveling slower through glass, and faster through a vaccum ( or argon or nitrogen inside a scope). The coatings are "index-matched" to make the index of refraction on the surface of the glass closer match the index of the gas medium ( usually argon or nitrogen). There is a certain dB of light loss that takes place at every surface and transition between lenses. Image brightness is probably best measured in Lux, a direct measurement of the amount of photons emitted from a light source. I will say that glass thickness is a very small part of light loss, and is mainly going to be found in coatings, lens arrangement, number of lenses, and overall optimization. Theoretically, two identical scopes, optimized the same and coated the same will have nearly identical image brightness regardless of objective size as long as exit pupils are proportionaly the same. Such as a 56mm scope at 10x, and a 32mm scope at 5.7x. The differance should be less that the human eye can differentiate. The ideal exit pupil area for most eyes is about 20 sq mm. So, ideally all the light entering the objective is focused into a 20 sq mm cone projected onto the eye's pupil. A larger exit pupil is less concentrated but more forgiving, a smaller one, though actually more concentrated, has smaller surface area and thus stimulates less rod and cone cells in the eye. Smaller objectives have the advantage of bending light less and needing less optimization per a given magnification range. In the real world though, there are no such two identical scopes made, there are other factors makers worry about such as overall length, weight, magnification range (zoom), depth of field, and robustness. Many compromises are made, and all to a price point.

 

[Glassaholic]

Okay so I've been behind the March 3-24 quite a bit in the last week or so.

The humongous mil line marking numbers 1 mil off the right side of the vertical crosshair sucks, especially if one uses holdovers and holdoffs for wind, I'll be dialing this scope more than I normally would because of that.

Interesting about the size of the mil hash's, that was my experience with the Valdada 3.5-18x50, I loved the scope and the glass but the mil hash's from around 14 - 18x were just too big for long range IMO. Sounds like March suffers from the same phenomenon, but give the 8x magnification and the FFP reticle I suppose this doesn't surprise me. What if you back the scope off to 12-16x, do you still feel the lines are too big? Often times mirage is "too much" over 20x but we might use 20x to check for mirage/wind and then back off to minimize mirage at a lower magnification so I'm not too concerned that at 24x it might be a problem, but if the reticle is still too thick between 12-16x I think that would tend to be an issue. Thank you for sharing Steve123.

Bill

 

[steve123]

Interesting about the size of the mil hash's, that was my experience with the Valdada 3.5-18x50, I loved the scope and the glass but the mil hash's from around 14 - 18x were just too big for long range IMO. Sounds like March suffers from the same phenomenon, but give the 8x magnification and the FFP reticle I suppose this doesn't surprise me. What if you back the scope off to 12-16x, do you still feel the lines are too big? Often times mirage is "too much" over 20x but we might use 20x to check for mirage/wind and then back off to minimize mirage at a lower magnification so I'm not too concerned that at 24x it might be a problem, but if the reticle is still too thick between 12-16x I think that would tend to be an issue. Thank you for sharing Steve123.

Bill

On the March 3-24 it's not so much the line thickness (.07) of the hash's but the mil "numbers, 2-4-6 and so on". Those numbers are about .25 mil wide and .5 mil tall, so say you have a 2 mil holdover with a left to right wind the number 2 is going to start to get in the way at .75 mil. If they had placed them 2-3 mils out, or even better done the reticle christmas tree style the reticle would have been much improved.

I've owned IOR too and would rather have had the .1 mil lines thinner as well. The .07 reticle thickness on the March doesn't bother me at all and can be seen on lower mag.

 

[Glassaholic]

Thank you for clarifying Steve, it is the numbers that are too big/thick and not the mil lines themselves. It sounds like you're saying that the .1 thickness of the Valdada is too thick, but .07 on the March seems about just right, is that correct? My one concern is that the Premier LT has .04 thickness mil lines which many have commented are "too small" at lower magnifications. If I get this scope am I going to be yet another one of the owners who end up selling it because it's not usable? For anyone who owns the Premier LT with the Gen 2 XR reticle, what if you turn on illumination, does that help any at lower power?

Crosshair, thank you for the writeup on the optic and glass properties, I found that quite informative.

 

[Drifter™]

So the March 3-24x42 when set to 8.4x magnification may have an exit pupil around 5mm, and the 3-12x42mm when set to 8.4x magnification is also 5mm you will notice that the 3-12x scope actually looks brighter, and in fact, actually is brighter because of light transmission properties in the scope that has less glass elements sitting inside.

I think your conclusions and assumptions are reasonably accurate. So ask yourself how much magnification you'll actually need in low light. Again, keep in mind that they all have to be dialed down.

If one or two scopes excel overall with the single exception of light transmission, and thus have to be dialed down to 7.2x instead of 8.4x to get the same image brightness as another optic, is that 1.2x difference gonna cost you the shot?

I'm sure that it goes without saying that you don't owe me an answer to that question. I'm simply trying to reiterate a previous point that may have been unclear.

You're looking at quality glass, and I doubt that you'll be disappointed with whichever you choose.

 

[steve123]

Thank you for clarifying Steve, it is the numbers that are too big/thick and not the mil lines themselves. It sounds like you're saying that the .1 thickness of the Valdada is too thick, but .07 on the March seems about just right, is that correct? My one concern is that the Premier LT has .04 thickness mil lines which many have commented are "too small" at lower magnifications. If I get this scope am I going to be yet another one of the owners who end up selling it because it's not usable? For anyone who owns the Premier LT with the Gen 2 XR reticle, what if you turn on illumination, does that help any at lower power?

Crosshair, thank you for the writeup on the optic and glass properties, I found that quite informative.

Correct.

I'd like to point out that March has the FML reticle with no numbers with hash's down to 5 mil.

Oh, and one thing that's worth mentioning is the wide-ish low profile 10 mil knobs on the March. They are about perfect and I happen to love 10 mil knobs!.. Because I shoot past 5 mils often and don't shoot past 10 mils all that much, I don't have to worry about remembering which rev I'm on.

Granted, the only time I have any of my FFP scopes on their lowest mag is when I'm lining up a rifle with the chrono. I use the highest mag often, handy for checking zero and group shooting or spotting and identification. If I'm at a fast stage at a long range match event where I need a wider FOV I'm between 12x-15x.

If... I were hunting in country where most shots were close to medium range I'd plan on using my NF 2.5-10 to take advantage of a full size reticle on low mag.

I guess the key for you would be to pick a scope with the features and attributes you anticipate using most often.

 

[Glassaholic]

Honestly you make a good point Drifter and that's part of the question I need to answer. At 42mm the March is really limited to around 8.4x for that magic 5mm exit pupil but we also need to consider the lesser light transmission due to all the extra glass elements inside the scope, so while we might get 5mm we won't get as much light passing through that 5mm. If you compare this to the Premier 3-15x50mm then we are looking at around 10x so you're right that about only a 1.6x difference; however, in theory since the Premier has fewer elements (less glass to air surface interference) you are theoretically getting more light passing through. But if we throw in the Hensoldt 4-16x56 now we're looking at 11.2x which is almost 3x more than the March but with potentially quite a bit more light transmission because of the 4x vs 8x magnification design. Again, I am not an optical engineer, but if I understand the relationship between light transmission an exit pupils it could be summed up that not all exit pupils are equal. Because the Hensoldt has a more efficient optical design due to its lower magnification it will have greater light transmission at a 5mm exit pupil than the March. In order to compensate you may have to lower the March's magnification (and thus increasing the exit pupil) even more in order for our eyes to perceive the same brightness between the two scopes. But we also have to take into account that not all eyes are created equal. Just like 20/20 vs 20/30 or 20/15 vision and so forth some of us may be more sensitive to light levels. Typically the older you get the more difficulty you have perceiving certain light levels. So your results may vary using different people to look through a scope at various magnifications and light levels. To do this accurately you would have to have a controlled lighting environment and sensitive light meters to determine the amount of light actually passing through each scope.

If low light was not a factor for me I have little doubt the March would be a fantastic option; however, inherent to its design as an 8x zoom scope it has got to suffer from poorer light transmission than a scope with a lower magnification range (with all things being equal). Please realize that I am not saying the March is an inferior scope, in fact, you can have the best optics in the world but the design of the scope is going to make a difference in regard to light transmission qualities. You definitely have me intrigued with the March though and while I do not think it would be suitable for my current application maybe it would be a great option for my LMT LM8

 

[scudzuki]

Read Ilya Koshkin's comparos here;
Reviews: Riflescopes » OpticsThoughts

I find his reviews to be quite good.

I had no reservations about buying a March 3-24x42 with mil reticle after reading the first 3 articles.
Yes, the reticle is thick at 24x; it has to be that thick in order to be visible at 3x.

Up to 12x, the optics are as good as the Steiner 5-25 I now own or the S&B 5-25 I used to own.
It does get darker faster (the German scopes do get darker, too, they're not immune) than the 56mm objective scopes above with almost twice the surface area of a 42mm objective, but at nearly half the weight I feel it's a reasonable tradeoff for my goal, a light weight, powerful, flexible scope.

Joe

 

[Glassaholic]

Read Ilya Koshkin's comparos here;
Reviews: Riflescopes » OpticsThoughts

I find his reviews to be quite good.

I had no reservations about buying a March 3-24x42 with mil reticle after reading the first 3 articles.

Thank you Joe, I have read Ilya's reviews which I too have found to be very informative.

Up to 12x, the optics are as good as the Steiner 5-25 I now own or the S&B 5-25 I used to own.

So you're saying the March 3-24x42 is just as good as both the Steiner and S&B 5-25x56 up to 12x? If this is the case then that truly is impressive from March indeed.

It does get darker faster (the German scopes do get darker, too, they're not immune) than the 56mm objective scopes above with almost twice the surface area of a 42mm objective, but at nearly half the weight I feel it's a reasonable tradeoff for my goal, a light weight, powerful, flexible scope.

Joe

I see your point here, and yes, I understand the German glass gets darker too, there is no scope that I know of that does not as all scopes suffer from light transmission issues especially as the ambient light in the given environment is at lower than optimal brighness (e.g. Sunrise/Sunset). If my post were titled "Light weight, high magnification tactical scope options" then I think there would be little doubt that the March would be at or near the top of this list. But we are not debating (at least I am not) light weight alone, as I want both light weight AND low light and it is the low light ability of the March that has me concerned. If the March were a 3-24x56 scope and came in under 30 oz then I might seriously consider it, but whenever anybody is looking for a low light scope a 42mm objective would not be the first to come to mind unless it is a 3-9x or 2.5-10x and the like.

When you think low light you think big objective lens, this also translates into photography, if I am going to be shooting in environments with little ambient light then I will be looking to my f/2.8 zooms and not the consumer grade f/3.5~5.6; as that F stop directly translates into how much light that lens can bring to the sensor, if it's really dark I need to look beyond f/2.8 and now look at some f/2 or bigger (the lower the f stop number the bigger the aperture which translates to the size of the font objective divided by the focal length which is why a 300mm f/4 lens has roughly a 75mm front objective as 75mm x 4 = 300. Now the big f/2.8 zooms diverge from this because it is based on the highest magnification setting and the lens design actually alters the size of the effective front objective in order to keep the constant f stop throughout the entire zoom range, and this is also why you'll see rifle scope manufacturer's listing different exit pupils at the low and high end of the magnification range than what the formula for the exit pupil actually is (main objective diameter divided by the magnification) and that is because every manufacturer optimizes their lens design with zoom lenses. With a zoom lens you actually have glass elements moving around inside the scope creating different optical effects (and in our case mostly the difference in the magnification range) but this effect also has side affects which can alter, in this case, the effective diameter of the main objective. For example, the Premier LT 3-15x50mm should have an exit pupil from 16.67mm at 3x to 3.33mm at 15x; however, Premier lists their exit pupil size as 11.5mm at 3x to 3.5mm at 15x, what does this tell us, it tells us that Premier had to compromise with their optical design in order to achieve their goal of 3-15x magnification which resulted in a less than optimum exit pupil at 3x (and by less than optimum I mean for the capability of the optical system, not for what is effective for the human eye) but a decent exit pupil of 3.5mm at 15x which appears to be 1.6mm larger than the calculated exit pupil (that being said, sometimes manufacturer's like to do rounding and other funny measurements to make their products look more impressive).

I digress and apologize for I keep getting pulled into discussing optical properties when I am not an expert; however, I am trying to apply what I do know with the situation at hand and that is why I keep coming back to this.

Is the March 3-24x42mm a fantastic tactical scope? I have little doubt that it is, but once you tack on the criteria of "low light" then I don't think it is fair to say that the March is a "fantastic low light tactical scope" unless you plan on using the scope at only around 6-8x max when the light begins to fade. As the poster TorF mentioned at the beginning of this thread in his review of the Zeiss Victory HT 3-12x56, he gets an extra 30-60 minutes of usable light with this scope over his S&B, NF and Leupolds. Now it would be interesting to know which Schmidt and Nightforce optics he has to compare this to, but that is impressive indeed to consider 30-60 extra minutes in the morning and the evening over some of the best scopes out there.

My main goal here is to find a scope that can perform dual duty as both a hunting scope and a tactical scope. My desire when starting this thread was to get some ideas from other hide members of what optics are out there that meet both a light weight (under 30 oz) requirement, will perform better in low light situations and have a minimum magnification of 15x. I have since been convinced that 12x will probably get the job done for me as well which is why I've opened my search up to include various 3-12x scopes as well.

 

[ccoker]

I have tested a lot of high end scopes in the field actually hunting in low light.

Even with say a Zeiss FL 4-16x50 or the Premier 3-15x50 I have to back the magnification down to about 12 when it gets dark.

And if is dark enough that I am losing the reticle it better get REALLY dim or it will overpower the target.

 

[generalzip]

If low light was the highest priority I look at the light tactical. One just went for 1940 in the for sale section. Illuminated with gen 2 xr reticle. It has the largest objective and more than enough mag for low light and daylight shooting out to 1000. If you can get a mil discount the mark 6 is the no brainer in my opinion if you can live without illumination. The march I've heard has a picky eyebox which is not ideal for offhand shooting. I've never used a march so I can't say too much other than what I've read about them. All have great glass but for low light past 10x or so it's getting pretty useless anyway. I guess you need to answer what's most important to you; magnification, illumination, or cost. March wins with mag. Premier wins on illumination and cost. And mark 6 wins on cost and mag. Also leupold has a great warranty which is something to think about

 

[scudzuki]

Thank you Joe, I have read Ilya's reviews which I too have found to be very informative.


So you're saying the March 3-24x42 is just as good as both the Steiner and S&B 5-25x56 up to 12x? If this is the case then that truly is impressive from March indeed.


I see your point here, and yes, I understand the German glass gets darker too, there is no scope that I know of that does not as all scopes suffer from light transmission issues especially as the ambient light in the given environment is at lower than optimal brighness (e.g. Sunrise/Sunset). If my post were titled "Light weight, high magnification tactical scope options" then I think there would be little doubt that the March would be at or near the top of this list. But we are not debating (at least I am not) light weight alone, as I want both light weight AND low light and it is the low light ability of the March that has me concerned. If the March were a 3-24x56 scope and came in under 30 oz then I might seriously consider it, but whenever anybody is looking for a low light scope a 42mm objective would not be the first to come to mind unless it is a 3-9x or 2.5-10x and the like.

When you think low light you think big objective lens, this also translates into photography, if I am going to be shooting in environments with little ambient light then I will be looking to my f/2.8 zooms and not the consumer grade f/3.5~5.6; as that F stop directly translates into how much light that lens can bring to the sensor, if it's really dark I need to look beyond f/2.8 and now look at some f/2 or bigger (the lower the f stop number the bigger the aperture which translates to the size of the font objective divided by the focal length which is why a 300mm f/4 lens has roughly a 75mm front objective as 75mm x 4 = 300. Now the big f/2.8 zooms diverge from this because it is based on the highest magnification setting and the lens design actually alters the size of the effective front objective in order to keep the constant f stop throughout the entire zoom range, and this is also why you'll see rifle scope manufacturer's listing different exit pupils at the low and high end of the magnification range than what the formula for the exit pupil actually is (main objective diameter divided by the magnification) and that is because every manufacturer optimizes their lens design with zoom lenses. With a zoom lens you actually have glass elements moving around inside the scope creating different optical effects (and in our case mostly the difference in the magnification range) but this effect also has side affects which can alter, in this case, the effective diameter of the main objective. For example, the Premier LT 3-15x50mm should have an exit pupil from 16.67mm at 3x to 3.33mm at 15x; however, Premier lists their exit pupil size as 11.5mm at 3x to 3.5mm at 15x, what does this tell us, it tells us that Premier had to compromise with their optical design in order to achieve their goal of 3-15x magnification which resulted in a less than optimum exit pupil at 3x (and by less than optimum I mean for the capability of the optical system, not for what is effective for the human eye) but a decent exit pupil of 3.5mm at 15x which appears to be 1.6mm larger than the calculated exit pupil (that being said, sometimes manufacturer's like to do rounding and other funny measurements to make their products look more impressive).

I digress and apologize for I keep getting pulled into discussing optical properties when I am not an expert; however, I am trying to apply what I do know with the situation at hand and that is why I keep coming back to this.

Is the March 3-24x42mm a fantastic tactical scope? I have little doubt that it is, but once you tack on the criteria of "low light" then I don't think it is fair to say that the March is a "fantastic low light tactical scope" unless you plan on using the scope at only around 6-8x max when the light begins to fade. As the poster TorF mentioned at the beginning of this thread in his review of the Zeiss Victory HT 3-12x56, he gets an extra 30-60 minutes of usable light with this scope over his S&B, NF and Leupolds. Now it would be interesting to know which Schmidt and Nightforce optics he has to compare this to, but that is impressive indeed to consider 30-60 extra minutes in the morning and the evening over some of the best scopes out there.

My main goal here is to find a scope that can perform dual duty as both a hunting scope and a tactical scope. My desire when starting this thread was to get some ideas from other hide members of what optics are out there that meet both a light weight (under 30 oz) requirement, will perform better in low light situations and have a minimum magnification of 15x. I have since been convinced that 12x will probably get the job done for me as well which is why I've opened my search up to include various 3-12x scopes as well.

You should read the 2 articles from the link I posted, part II and III. The March goes head to head with Hensoldt 4-16x56, Steiner 4-16x50, S&B 4-16x50, USO 3.2-17x44, Premier Light Tactical 3-15x50, NF F1 3-15x50, and some others.
Some highlights from the articles;

"In terms of overall mechanical quality, to me, March still has the most polished feel of any scope I have tried to date, but the others are not far behind."

"Suffice to say that this is the third March scope I have been able to thoroughly test and all three have been consistently superb. Low and wide knobs offer 10 mrad per turn operation and a very simple-to-set zero stop. Side focus is silky smooth with illumination built into it as a rubberized push button. "

"March had the least flexible eye relief, which is not surprising considering its smaller objective lens and overall compactness. I suppose that is a part of the compromise. Either way, none of these scopes gave me any particular trouble with eye relief on any rifle I tried them on."

"Optically, March is as good as or better than any scope I have seen to date that has the same size objective lens. Even in this group, it performed very well up until the point where it was limited by the smallish exit pupil. Up until then, it had slightly better resolution and slightly lower contrast than the other scopes here."

"High Magnification Resolution: March = Premier LT = S&B > Steiner"

"Low Magnification Resolution: March = Premier LT = Steiner >= S&B"

"With exit pupil not a factor (i.e. at lower magnifications, below 7x or so), March showed the most detail, edging out Hensoldt, S&B and Premier by a very small margin and surpising the hell out of me in the process."

"Once a few point light sources were introduced, the pecking order did not change a whole lot, but I did make a few worthwhile observations. At first I tested all of the scopes without sunshades, and then experimented with sunshades a bit (I did not technically have sunshades for all of these scopes, but I made same makeshift ones out of opaque black optical paper). First of all, with bright light sources in the picture, US Optics SN-3 promptly fell out of contention with the other four scopes here. It had noticeable flare and various stray light artefacts induced by light sources both inside and outside the Field of View. March and S&B were the least effected. Honestly, to my considerable surprise, I could not simulate any sort of a challenging lighting setup that would have an appreciable effect on the March. In this case, smaller objective lens actually helps, but still the March performed better than I expected and, honestly, better than any scope I have seen to date. "

"If you are willing to open up your wallet, in my mind it comes down to March 3-124x42FFP, Hensoldt 4-16×56 and Premier 3-15×50. Between these three the choice comes down to the application and your personal preferences.
For example, I am putting together an accurate AR-15 chambered for 264LBC. It will likely take me out to 1000 yards in reasonable comfort. However, the rifle itself will be fairly trim and not too heavy, so I would like a moderately trim scope for it. For this application, the March is the one to beat, and I am trying to figure out how I can afford it."

Now, I cherry picked here, but any areas where the March suffers compared to other larger heavier alpha with bigger objectives and overall packages scopes have already been widely discussed.

Just back from shooting with the Steiner and the March again.
I love both of them, but they are so different in character.

If your friend says his S&B is inferior optically to his Zeiss, I'd say he got a bad one. S&B's issues have never been with their optical quality, and the only Zeiss beating out an S&B in the brightness dept. is a Hensoldt.

Joe

 

[Glassaholic]

You should read the 2 articles from the link I posted, part II and III. The March goes head to head with Hensoldt 4-16x56, Steiner 4-16x50, S&B 4-16x50, USO 3.2-17x44, Premier Light Tactical 3-15x50, NF F1 3-15x50, and some others.

Hi Joe, in my previous post I did say that I read all three of Ilya's articles. I'm not quite sure what you're point is here, I have already conceded to the fact that it sounds like the March scope is a spectacular scope that can hold it's own against some of the best for what it was designed for. And that is the main issue that I personally have with the March, it simply was NOT designed for low light applications.

Are you trying to convince me that the March is indeed a better scope optically in low light situations at the same magnification levels above 7x than the Premier or Hensoldt? I do not believe this is what Ilya is saying in his articles, in fact, let's look at what he does say as you quoted:

"Optically, March is as good as or better than any scope I have seen to date that has the same size objective lens. Even in this group, it performed very well up until the point where it was limited by the smallish exit pupil. Up until then, it had slightly better resolution and slightly lower contrast than the other scopes here."

Key point here "that has the same size objective lens", March is only 42mm and the scopes I am looking at are 50 and 56mm.

"With exit pupil not a factor (i.e. at lower magnifications, below 7x or so), March showed the most detail, edging out Hensoldt, S&B and Premier by a very small margin and surprising the hell out of me in the process."

Again, even Ilya is basically saying that at mags above 7x and when exit pupil is an issue (as in low light situations) then the March is going to struggle against these other scopes he tested. Is he saying that March stinks above 7x, not at all, but neither am I, I am just saying that I do not believe the March will be as good regarding light transmission as the 50 or 56mm objective scopes in this category.

If your friend says his S&B is inferior optically to his Zeiss, I'd say he got a bad one. S&B's issues have never been with their optical quality, and the only Zeiss beating out an S&B in the brightness dept. is a Hensoldt.

I assume you are referring to TorF who posted earlier in this thread, I do not know him personally, but I quoted his post since he has experience with those optics and that was his opinion based on his experience, and that is the difficulty with a lot of the posts on the Hide and elsewhere (including mine) a lot of the information that gets flung around is based on opinion (and sometimes not based on anything at all).

Personally, I have only had experience with Bausch & Lomb, Tasco, Zeiss, Bushnell Elite Tactical DMR, Valdada, US Optics and Vortex. Last year I did full tests (much like Ilya's, but without the opportunity of others opinions) and my decision was that the US Optics had the best glass, the Valdada was very close but I did not like the reticle at higher mag and ultimately chose the DMR due to price vs. performance as optically it was only marginally inferior (however, since then I have observed that it suffers from quite a bit of CA (Chromatic Aberration) at various mag ranges with contrast objects like a white target on a dark background). That was when I didn't care about weight, but now I do and since doing these "tests" of high end optics is not an easy endeavor I began this thread hoping to gain some insight from others who have had the opportunity to use or look through some of these scopes. And I have gained a lot of insight and appreciate everyone's input for sure.

One last request Joe, it appears you own both the March 3-24 and a Steiner (not sure if it is their 3-12, 3-15 or 5-25) but I'm guessing it has a 50 or 56mm objective, yes? If you wouldn't mind, take them both out tonight after the sun goes down and set them both to 12x and aimed at the same object in the distance and let me know which one appears "brighter and clearer" as it continues to get darker and darker. I'm not trying to be a smart ass here, but since you own both scopes I'd be curious what your opinion is when both are taxed for light. You may convince me yet that the March is the scope for me. Thank you.

 

[scudzuki]

That surprises me a great deal that your USO had the best glass... IOR has that good Euro glass and coating, but USO is known for good (but not the best) glass, being tough as nails, and being fully customizable. I have a brand new SR8s and that is my assessment of its optical quality as well... but it is a great CQB to 400 yard scope, perfect for a 16" AR IMHO.

Still, your experience is your own, can't take that away from anyone.

I'll try to do the test at sundown for you.

Steiner 5-25x56, BTW.

Joe

 

[Glassaholic]

USO also uses German Schott glass as I recall and the two were very close (USO vs. Valdada) but to my eyes, the USO had the best clarity of the bunch, in low light I could discern more detail with the USO vs. the Valdada. But like you said, my experience is my own, this is what I observed. Had someone else been there with me, they may have come to different conclusions. In the end we have to make the decision for ourselves, what I'm trying to avoid is buying another scope only to sell it in a few months because I'm not happy with it. If I could take all of these scopes that fit my criteria and test them for an evening (much like Ilya did but unfortunately he didn't really do extensive low light testing) then that would be grand, but that is just not realistic for me to do so I'm left to researching like crazy and trying to make the best decision I can without actually ever seeing the scope that I end up purchasing.

Thanks for taking the time to test your two scopes out if you get a chance to do that, I will be very curious what your thoughts are.

Bill

 

[scudzuki]

USO also uses German Schott glass as I recall and the two were very close (USO vs. Valdada) but to my eyes, the USO had the best clarity of the bunch, in low light I could discern more detail with the USO vs. the Valdada. But like you said, my experience is my own, this is what I observed. Had someone else been there with me, they may have come to different conclusions. In the end we have to make the decision for ourselves, what I'm trying to avoid is buying another scope only to sell it in a few months because I'm not happy with it. If I could take all of these scopes that fit my criteria and test them for an evening (much like Ilya did but unfortunately he didn't really do extensive low light testing) then that would be grand, but that is just not realistic for me to do so I'm left to researching like crazy and trying to make the best decision I can without actually ever seeing the scope that I end up purchasing.

Thanks for taking the time to test your two scopes out if you get a chance to do that, I will be very curious what your thoughts are.

Bill

Sorry I didn't read your entire post; I was reading it on my Android so I glossed over some of it.
Didn't mean to insinuate that you missed anything, just trying to be helpful.

At 7:31 PM EDT I had my rifles setup on my kitchen island focused on a tree branch about 50 yards out (and unfortunately through a window screen).
I can't setup outside, you know, neighbors and all.

The Steiner was brighter than the March at 12x but the overall quality of the image was similar.

The difference between the Steiner and the March reminds me of a similar test I did when my Optolyth Compact 80 spotter arrived, comparing the image every few minutes at dusk. The Bushnell Legend Ultra HD 20-60x80 spotter I was comparing it to seemed a tad brighter than the Optolyth, but I could still discern detail better with the Optolyth. The Bushnell image appeared "washed out", if that's possible in such low light conditions. I still believe the Bushnell Legend Ultra HD spotter to be a great option at $450-ish street price, but the CA free Optolyth is easier to use for extended periods, colors appear more natural, resolution is a little better in normal lighting conditions... but I digress.

I wish I had jumped to 18x in the fading light to see how much advantage the Steiner had. My guess is it would have been more pronounced.

At 12x in those conditions, would I have taken the shot? In those conditions, I don't think either scope was the limiting factor.

I did my best to get pictures but I'm afraid they're misleading; with a point 'n shoot camera, I think it compensated for the low light more with the March (longer exposure or larger aperture) so the March picture looks brighter, but it is certainly not. An SLR with manual controls would have been better suited but I don't own one.

After I took the pictures and looked at them on my PC, I noticed how canted the reticles are. The cant is in the bipods, as I haven't leveled them since getting back from the range and the crappy warped plywood benches.

Joe

 

[steve123]

Joe,

What's the reticle thickness on the Steiner?

I'm guessing the pics didn't do the Steiner's reticle justice in actuality???

 

[scudzuki]

Joe,

What's the reticle thickness on the Steiner?

I'm guessing the pics didn't do the Steiner's reticle justice in actuality???

Not at all. The view through the Steiner was noticeably brighter than the March. The darker March image looked more natural, though, one of the things I really like about it is its neutrality.
The camera has a mind of its own and if I posted the entire picture you'd see how much darker the entire photo was compared to the photo through the March.
Another thing I failed to mention is that both photos are cropped a lot. The pictures were shot in a 12 megapixel camera but after I cut out 90% or more of the photo to post just the view through the scope, they are fairly low resolution. I tried using the zoom to narrow the FOV through the camera but then it wouldn't focus at all. I took a lot of pictures just to come up with 2 that were any good at all.

These are 2 very different scopes but they both get it done. The Steiner is just too big and heavy for the .308 I have it the March mounted on, an 11 pound rifle (with scope and loaded) that will be used on some whitetail this season.

The stadia at the center of the Steiner's MSR reticle is .05 mil if their drawing is to be believed.
Steiner is revamping their MSR to give it a thinner stadia in the center, not sure if units currently being sold have the old or the new.
For target shooting it's a bit thick but for tactical work it is good.
It was fantastic at 640 yards Saturday on steel silhouettes.
So was the March, although I only got to 500 yards before barrel heat ended the fun with my .308.

Joe

 

[Glassaholic]

Joe, thank you very much for going through that effort last evening, I really appreciate it. The March glass has me really intrigued. I know I'll get better "brightness" in low light with a 50 or 56mm but what I've got to consider is at what cost. And speaking of cost, dropping close to $3000 on a scope is tough. I think at that point I would want the Hensoldt 4-16x56 with NH1 reticle and give up the extra few ounces for it... But like everyone who owns one raves, you just can't beat the March for size and efficiency... you may have me sold yet. Why is March only sold through Kelbly's in the US?

 

[TorF]

If you order the March 3-24x42 with illumination order it with custom extra low intensity. The illumination they provide today is either high range or low range. Even the low range/low intensity is too bright for low light hunting. With the illumination off you can see game but no reticle. If you turn the low range illumination on at the lowest setting it washes out the image of the game. There are orders in from Norway to get March to make an even lower range illumination. If they don't respond to this you might as well skip illumination if you intend to use the scope for hunting.

As I've said earlier, the optimal scope for low light hunting is a Zeiss 3-12x56 HT with no 60 reticle (one very small red dot) usually set at 10x and fast focus set at -2 compared to daylight setting. (Night vision is app -2 "nearsighted" compared to daylight vision). Never use a lighted christmas tree or fully lighted tactical reticle. It degrades low light performance compared to a small lighted dot.

Civilian Zeiss scopes usually have better low light performance than their military scopes due to different coatings. Espesially if the military scopes have laser protection.

 

[Glassaholic]

First of all, I would like to thank everyone who gave positive input into this thread. Secondly, it is a love/hate relationship because you guys have caused me to spend more money than I wanted to

Because of everyone's raving I bit the bullet and bought a March 3-24x44 scope and my initial impressions are wow, Wow, WOW!!! I never would have believed it until I looked through it with my own eyes, but that scope rocks! The optical clarity blew my Bushnell 3.5-21x50 out of the water. As I assumed, yes, it did struggle in lower light situations, but it wasn't horrible, in fact, the optical clarity (not the low light ability) rivaled that of my Zeiss Diavari FL 4-16x50 which has some of the best glass available. And speaking of the Zeiss 4-16x50, that is the other scope I bought (I really struggled between that and the 3-12x56 but I went with the 4-16x50 feeling I would benefit more from 16x than I would the extra 6mm in glass). And finally, EuroOptics is giving a $1000 off on their Premier Light Tactical 3-15x50 Mil/Moa setups so I couldn't pass that up and put in my order a couple days ago.

The Bushnell is already gone, I still believe it is one of the best deals for the price (the older version that is) but was too heavy and after looking at it in comparison to the March and Zeiss it paled in comparison.

I will try and write a more detailed review once I get the Premier and can compare all 3 but I am super happy right now with the choices I made because of the help you all gave, thank you.

Bill