Can someone explain the 4 degree taper of the hash marks on the vertical cross hair? are they supposed to line up with windage to be used as a hold? Does anyone know the actual widths? I have seen a bunch of diagrams but nothing that gives the width. I'm thinking of this optic for a 16 inch Proof barreled 556.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes March 1-10 Shorty Dual Focal - Reviews?
- Thread starter ClangClang
- Start date
Can someone explain the 4 degree taper of the hash marks on the vertical cross hair? are they supposed to line up with windage to be used as a hold? Does anyone know the actual widths? I have seen a bunch of diagrams but nothing that gives the width. I'm thinking of this optic for a 16 inch Proof barreled 556.
Has anyone tried a Scalarworks Mount for their 1-10 Shorty?
scalarworks.com
Scalarworks Leap Mount for Aimpoint PRO sights
The Scalarworks Leap Mount is the lightest, strongest, and easiest to use quick-detach Aimpoint PRO mount on the market.
scalarworks.com
Or the Larue LT150 1.7inch Comp M2 mount?Has anyone tried a Scalarworks Mount for their 1-10 Shorty?
Scalarworks Leap Mount for Aimpoint PRO sights
The Scalarworks Leap Mount is the lightest, strongest, and easiest to use quick-detach Aimpoint PRO mount on the market.
@freedom71Has anyone tried a Scalarworks Mount for their 1-10 Shorty?
Scalarworks Leap Mount for Aimpoint PRO sights
The Scalarworks Leap Mount is the lightest, strongest, and easiest to use quick-detach Aimpoint PRO mount on the market.
Rifle Scopes - March 1-10 Shorty Dual Focal - Reviews?
I was today years old when I heard about the new offering from March. Anyone gotten some hands-on time yet? Their 1-10 Shorty appears to have all the ingredients of a winning LPVO to sit on top of an all purpose battle rifle (SR-25 ACC). Intended usage is Heavy Metal division in various...
www.snipershide.com
That is good to know with normal use, would be curious if his rig gets banged around a lot or if it got whacked against something would it lose zero then, I suppose time will tell.@freedom71
I asked him via PM regarding his experience, he said no POI shifts.Rifle Scopes - March 1-10 Shorty Dual Focal - Reviews?
I was today years old when I heard about the new offering from March. Anyone gotten some hands-on time yet? Their 1-10 Shorty appears to have all the ingredients of a winning LPVO to sit on top of an all purpose battle rifle (SR-25 ACC). Intended usage is Heavy Metal division in various...
The good thing about that mount is you can take it off quickly when not in use, for bench rest I think this is OK, but I would not try it for anything requires a lot of movement.
I have been eyeballing this scope for a Run n Gun rifle. It has some very interesting features I desire that make it unique to the LPVO category:
Adjustable Parallax-Why no one else does this is beyond me. This is 2021. And while I get that lower-end optics users don't understand parallax, these are $2000+ scopes in some cases. The high-end optic users likely to purchase these Alpha-class LPVOs have advanced significantly on their understanding and capabilities, so why all the manufacturer continue to roll with fixed parallax on even high-end scopes just makes no sense.
Weight- At 17ish oz, this is significantly lighter than my current Razor 1-6. The only scopes in this category that compete in weight are the Kahles, and they seem to have some durability issues, among other shortcomings. Not sure how this March will hold up, but I can tell you that RnG will expose any fragility. Just ask the Strike Eagle owners that seem to have 1-2 failures per event.
Size-The short OAL length contributes significantly to its weight advantage. Now how March is managing to both shorten the OAL AND putting a 10x erector AND still keeping parallax, CA, etc under control.........Well if they are truly managing it, I need to see it for myself.
FFP & SFP- What a great solution. At least in theory. I understand why SFP is used on my current scope, but I don't care for it. I much prefer FFP. Now this March setup takes advantage of both options.
0.1mil Adjustment-The 0.2mil adjustment steps on my Razor is one of my biggest gripes about it.
1-10x-If March is pulling this off well, and the reviews from reasonably trusted people indicate that they are, this is a big advantage over my Razor. Even the 1-10 Razor, while technically HAVING 10x, suffers from a deterioration in performance much over 7-8x. If March can produce a legitimate, quality 10x optical picture, then they are doing something none of the others are currently accomplishing. If they are managing this with a short-bodied scope, then they are REALLY doing something. And my aging eyes will appreciate it.
What I Don't Get:
30 & 33mm scope ring mounts. Why? I understand that the design of the scope forced them to make one end of the scope larger to accommodate the 24mm lens. And I understand that had they made the scope the same diameter across its length it would add unnecessary weight. But why, WHY did they not make the 33mm end 34mm instead? The weight added would be negligible, and then we would at least have the option of using single rings commonly available on the market. I just don't get the logic on this one. This engineering/marketing decision by March WILL cost them lots of sales. It has kept me from pulling the purchase trigger to this point.
Proprietary Mount-Good for March, if they can sell lots of scopes. But they are going to lose a lot of sales because of this. And $500? Come on, that is about $200 over what this mount should cost. Plus, at over 7oz, it is a bit of a tank. That is more than 1.5oz (and $100 more) compared to my current Scalarworks. I spent a lot of money on my rifle to take 1.5oz off of it. Spending $2700 to buy this scope in order to save 4oz, then having to turn around and give 1.5oz of it back on an overpriced, overweight scope mount does not motivate me to buy this scope. I am already looking at how I can take this $500 bulky, overpriced scope mount and chuck it in my CNC mill to take off some of the weight that should have been taken off in the first place.
A Proprietary Scope That No One Can Buy-This is the most ridiculous part of it all. You make a scope, so oddball in the market that only the OEM makes a scope mount. Then the OEM can't/don't/won't guarantee that they can supply the market with their bespoke mount. So you have scopes to sell, but can't really sell them because no one can actually mount it properly to their rifle and use it. Absolutely ludicrous.
Adjustable Parallax-Why no one else does this is beyond me. This is 2021. And while I get that lower-end optics users don't understand parallax, these are $2000+ scopes in some cases. The high-end optic users likely to purchase these Alpha-class LPVOs have advanced significantly on their understanding and capabilities, so why all the manufacturer continue to roll with fixed parallax on even high-end scopes just makes no sense.
Weight- At 17ish oz, this is significantly lighter than my current Razor 1-6. The only scopes in this category that compete in weight are the Kahles, and they seem to have some durability issues, among other shortcomings. Not sure how this March will hold up, but I can tell you that RnG will expose any fragility. Just ask the Strike Eagle owners that seem to have 1-2 failures per event.
Size-The short OAL length contributes significantly to its weight advantage. Now how March is managing to both shorten the OAL AND putting a 10x erector AND still keeping parallax, CA, etc under control.........Well if they are truly managing it, I need to see it for myself.
FFP & SFP- What a great solution. At least in theory. I understand why SFP is used on my current scope, but I don't care for it. I much prefer FFP. Now this March setup takes advantage of both options.
0.1mil Adjustment-The 0.2mil adjustment steps on my Razor is one of my biggest gripes about it.
1-10x-If March is pulling this off well, and the reviews from reasonably trusted people indicate that they are, this is a big advantage over my Razor. Even the 1-10 Razor, while technically HAVING 10x, suffers from a deterioration in performance much over 7-8x. If March can produce a legitimate, quality 10x optical picture, then they are doing something none of the others are currently accomplishing. If they are managing this with a short-bodied scope, then they are REALLY doing something. And my aging eyes will appreciate it.
What I Don't Get:
30 & 33mm scope ring mounts. Why? I understand that the design of the scope forced them to make one end of the scope larger to accommodate the 24mm lens. And I understand that had they made the scope the same diameter across its length it would add unnecessary weight. But why, WHY did they not make the 33mm end 34mm instead? The weight added would be negligible, and then we would at least have the option of using single rings commonly available on the market. I just don't get the logic on this one. This engineering/marketing decision by March WILL cost them lots of sales. It has kept me from pulling the purchase trigger to this point.
Proprietary Mount-Good for March, if they can sell lots of scopes. But they are going to lose a lot of sales because of this. And $500? Come on, that is about $200 over what this mount should cost. Plus, at over 7oz, it is a bit of a tank. That is more than 1.5oz (and $100 more) compared to my current Scalarworks. I spent a lot of money on my rifle to take 1.5oz off of it. Spending $2700 to buy this scope in order to save 4oz, then having to turn around and give 1.5oz of it back on an overpriced, overweight scope mount does not motivate me to buy this scope. I am already looking at how I can take this $500 bulky, overpriced scope mount and chuck it in my CNC mill to take off some of the weight that should have been taken off in the first place.
A Proprietary Scope That No One Can Buy-This is the most ridiculous part of it all. You make a scope, so oddball in the market that only the OEM makes a scope mount. Then the OEM can't/don't/won't guarantee that they can supply the market with their bespoke mount. So you have scopes to sell, but can't really sell them because no one can actually mount it properly to their rifle and use it. Absolutely ludicrous.
I think the engineers at March specifically designed the objective lense to be 33mm instead of 34mm to discourage people from using two differently sized scope rings. Much like the FFP+SFP design of the scope, the center alignment is critical for this scope. If someone used a pair of cheapo rings with slight offset of center height it would probably harm the scope and force the two retiles off alignment. I'm not saying you can't find a pair of quality rings with little offset but I don't think March want to be responsible for warranty claims if the scopes were harmed due to mounting error.
You can get the unimount from March UK, it costs around 350 USD shipped. Not that much more expensive than comparable mounts IMO.
Speaking of the scope rings, if you use 34mm ring with something like a 0.5mm thick sheet of aluminum as spacer, won't that make the ring 33mm? Maybe the hardest part is to somehow bend the aluminum to the desired shape.
You can get the unimount from March UK, it costs around 350 USD shipped. Not that much more expensive than comparable mounts IMO.
Speaking of the scope rings, if you use 34mm ring with something like a 0.5mm thick sheet of aluminum as spacer, won't that make the ring 33mm? Maybe the hardest part is to somehow bend the aluminum to the desired shape.
I have just been in touch with Lou Murdica @ calshootingsupplies.com. He is now selling March rings including this fancy unimount for the 1-10X28 Shorty. He is expecting them in stock any day now and he sells to for $498 plus shipping.
www.calshootingsupplies.com
He answers his emails very quickly [email protected]
Tell him I sent you.
Home | CAL SHOOTING SUPPLIES
www.calshootingsupplies.com
He answers his emails very quickly [email protected]
Tell him I sent you.
Maybe that was their thinking, I don't know. But if it was, it was flawed thinking. A good mixed set of high-quality rings would have solved the problem. Would/could there have been users trying to do the job with sub-par solutions? Sure thing. But guess what? People trying sub-par stuff is going to happen either way. What the 33mm dimension has done is to eliminate all the readily-available good solutions, and leave only sub-par options.
Good to know. Now why a country like the UK, with a mere fraction of the potential customers, has them not only in stock but at prices 30% cheaper than here is a mystery.
I already thought about this one. 0.020" shims would solve the problem. But 0.010" is generally about the upper limit of elastic shim stock material. At 0.020", sheet is thick enough that it won't just curve and follow the shape needed. So to do this, it would need to be either 0.020" sheet rolled or formed to the curve, or multi-layers (like two 0.010" sheets, this is what I would try first). Both of these methods would introduce issues that need to be overcome. Neither is straight-forward and as easy as it seems on its surface.
A ring could be machined, but making something with an unsupported 0.020" wall thickness in no easy task. It can be done, but not at a hobbyist level.
You could do this, but it is not going to be very stable. If this scope is on any rifle that gets beat and banged around, it is not going to stay in position.
How does this application work? Is it just taking the thicker of the offset 34mm inserts and using that to close up the gap? There are so many issues with that approach I have to be missing something.
This is because the March unimount is actually made by Audere somewhere in Italy, when you factor in multiple 3rd parties to get the hardware shipped to you the markup will make more sense (so far I have concluded ordering from March UK directly will be the cheapest option). Audere do have USA dealers including MKM but I don't see this mount listed on their website, if I had to guess why, it is probably because March isn't a well established brand in the US like they are in Europe and Australia. Bulk importing a unique mount designed to only accept a couple scopes from a niche brand may not pay off to the dealer.
March just posted an update about a tree reticle for this riflescope at their website.
I guess they heard you; they're designing one.
marchscopes.com
Now I'm sure the next question is "when?"
I guess they heard you; they're designing one.
March decided to develop a new tree reticle for 1-10x24FFP scope | Products | MARCH Scopes | DEON Optical Design CorporationMARCH Scopes | DEON Optical Design Corporation
MARCH Scopes Official Site
marchscopes.com
Now I'm sure the next question is "when?"
And 'how much to upgrade'?March just posted an update about a tree reticle for this riflescope at their website.
I guess they heard you; they're designing one.
March decided to develop a new tree reticle for 1-10x24FFP scope | Products | MARCH Scopes | DEON Optical Design CorporationMARCH Scopes | DEON Optical Design Corporation
MARCH Scopes Official Site
Now I'm sure the next question is "when?"
That’s fantastic news!March just posted an update about a tree reticle for this riflescope at their website.
I guess they heard you; they're designing one.
March decided to develop a new tree reticle for 1-10x24FFP scope | Products | MARCH Scopes | DEON Optical Design CorporationMARCH Scopes | DEON Optical Design Corporation
MARCH Scopes Official Site
Now I'm sure the next question is "when?"
That is good for them to do this. A tree, if done well and not overly complex, would be better than the current reticle. Though TBH I don't know that a tree is a big upgrade for me on this type of scope. Realistically it is for a carbine-type rifle, and the distances being shot don't really need that much holdover anyway. I hope they don't go all crazy with the tree and end up blocking too much of the FOV with it.March just posted an update about a tree reticle for this riflescope at their website.
I guess they heard you; they're designing one.
March decided to develop a new tree reticle for 1-10x24FFP scope | Products | MARCH Scopes | DEON Optical Design CorporationMARCH Scopes | DEON Optical Design Corporation
MARCH Scopes Official Site
Now I'm sure the next question is "when?"
If I were going to request a reticle change, I would find a semi-circle for CQB on the SFP reticle to be more useful. Figuring out the correct size so that it doesn't interfere on max magnification would be the trick. Such a change would be far more useful to me than a tree.
And thinking a bit more about my above comment, maybe it would make more sense to put the semi-circle on the FFP, and size it where it would totally disappear at max (or near max) power. Maybe even have it turn off the illumination to the circle once it gets past a certain magnification setting as to not wash out the view.
Not really sure what would be the best setup as I have never used any of the current dual plane scopes, so I only have theoretical thoughts about what would work. But I suspect this one would be better.
Not really sure what would be the best setup as I have never used any of the current dual plane scopes, so I only have theoretical thoughts about what would work. But I suspect this one would be better.
@koshkin has experience with both the March dual focal plane and the Schmidt dual focal plane design, I'd be curious to hear his thoughts. I agree NC_L, doing a tree reticle right and making something more usable for CQB might be just what the doctor ordered.
I just saw this one at EuroOptics. They have the Shorty Unimount for $468, including shipping.
www.eurooptic.com
March Shorty Scope Mount w/Double Diameter 33/30mm Rings MS0001
FREE SHIPPING on March Shorty Scope Mount w/Double Diameter 33/30mm Rings MS0001
March just posted an update about a tree reticle for this riflescope at their website.
I guess they heard you; they're designing one.
March decided to develop a new tree reticle for 1-10x24FFP scope | Products | MARCH Scopes | DEON Optical Design CorporationMARCH Scopes | DEON Optical Design Corporation
MARCH Scopes Official Site
Now I'm sure the next question is "when?"
I hope they get the reticle right because I’m ready to pay now. I would really like super low profile capped turrets with minimal snag hazard too. No need to dial if it has a great reticle. For an optic this size, there is zero reason for target turrets with the tree reticle.
If anyone wants to dial, they have the existing Mil hash already with exposed turrets.
This will be sick on little compact blasters that are chambered in something that can actually reach out.
My 12” Grendel is ready.
I agree with this. I hope March understands that the market for this type of optic is different from the typical scope user. These scopes are primarily going to be fitted to carbines, and will operate from CQB to maybe 600yds in most cases. Dailing is not needed, especially with a tree, and thus should be capped.
They also need to be willing to make certain design concessions to operate well at 1x. Though if they do it well, I believe the dual focal gives them the opportunity to do what no other manufacturer has been able to do, and that is to cover both the CQB and the longer range with almost no concessions. If they make the right design choices here, they may have something very successful. But at the price, it had better be right. My Gen II Vortex at $1300 does a decent job, but far from perfect. If I am going to pay double, it needs to check every box. The current model comes close, but isn't quite there for me.
The current model seems to have broken into the combined space of a CQM red dot bright LPVO, mixed with a TGT turret dial-based LR rifle optic. That’s a huge accomplishment in and of itself, but the trend for practical LR has been really strong in the tree-based reticles.
A little Grendel or 6mm AR-15, suppressed, with this on-top takes a Mk.18-sized package with all the CQM capability, and adds on better performance downrange than an SPR, with comparable performance to M118LR but with half the recoil/better TGT tracking through the shot so you can see your own hits even with a light little blaster.
I’ve had surprising results even with 1-4x24 with wide FOV at 800yds with the 12” Grendel.
I got the 1-10x Razor G3, which I’m still not sure which Grendel it will settle on, but I really like the feature set and compactness on the March 1-10x. They need to do something with their US distribution scheme too, as I’m having a hard time finding any normal order/support interface. They would sell these well among the upper tier buyers if there was a better online retail end. I was looking at one site that required some weird money order or bank wire payment, which seemed really odd.
A little Grendel or 6mm AR-15, suppressed, with this on-top takes a Mk.18-sized package with all the CQM capability, and adds on better performance downrange than an SPR, with comparable performance to M118LR but with half the recoil/better TGT tracking through the shot so you can see your own hits even with a light little blaster.
I’ve had surprising results even with 1-4x24 with wide FOV at 800yds with the 12” Grendel.
I got the 1-10x Razor G3, which I’m still not sure which Grendel it will settle on, but I really like the feature set and compactness on the March 1-10x. They need to do something with their US distribution scheme too, as I’m having a hard time finding any normal order/support interface. They would sell these well among the upper tier buyers if there was a better online retail end. I was looking at one site that required some weird money order or bank wire payment, which seemed really odd.
You can buy them “normally” from eurooptic. March is a boutique manufacturer and hand builds every scope so unless a dealer buys a bunch you’re going to wait 40-60 days depending on model.
Anyone know the weight of the Audere/March Unimount for the 1-10X28 Shorty? Just ordered the optic and deciding on mounting options. Either this or 2 NF LW 4 bolt 1.5 inch high rings. Don quoted me 8-12 weeks on the scope so I have time.....
FYI: I just heard back from Euro Optics and they quoted 158 grams which is 5.57oz.
Oh I didn’t know that was an actual measurement. I believe you. Eurooptics must be incorrect. FYI The Audere website says 200g
Me too. This is one of my concerns, as expressed above, with this oddball mounting method March has chosen to use. This is just way too heavy for the application.
On a side note, I considered buying one and seeing how much I can lighten it in my CNC mill. I manufacture parts for motorsports, so I have gotten weight-savings down to a bit of a science. Though I am somewhat limited by not be able to design the entire mount from scratch, there is not as much to be saved when I have to work with an existing design. I still bet I can shave 25-30% off of it.
No. The base, both ring tops and all the screws.
Weight is about the same as a Geissele mount. And lighter than a Spuhr mount.
I was hoping you would say the pic adapter was included in that weight, it would be more reasonable then.
My Scalarworks weighs under 5.5oz for comparison.
CORRECTION: I believe it might actually be about 5.6oz. I need to go weight it again, but it has a scope on it now.
I measured 203 grams or 7.1 oz with all the hardware included, Audere official data is about correct
Just want to mention that the craftsmanship of this mount is excellent, a worthy mount for the March Shorty.
That will work fine, try to stay away from the curves and turrets on the tube as much as possible.
I got this picture in my in box today from Tier1. My 1-10 is on the way and I emailed to see if the mount is real or vaporware. Added better pics.
Attachments
Last edited:
I’m sure it’s real but Tier One seems kinda slow to bring out new items for distribution. Great things come to those who wait though…
They said:
The price of the QD 30/33mm Cantilever is $455.00. They are available now through the website here: https://tier-one-usa.com/products/qd-cantilever-monomount
And I ordered one. Should be here Monday
The price of the QD 30/33mm Cantilever is $455.00. They are available now through the website here: https://tier-one-usa.com/products/qd-cantilever-monomount
And I ordered one. Should be here Monday
