-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes March 1-10 Shorty Dual Focal - Reviews?
- Thread starter ClangClang
- Start date
Strange that both mfr's for these specialized mounts are in UK. Be nice if Badger made a C1 mount for this 
The manufacturer for the March mounts is in the Most Serene Republic of San Marino, not in the UK.Strange that both mfr's for these specialized mounts are in UK. Be nice if Badger made a C1 mount for this
Thank you Denys, forgot about Audere being down south though I thought it was Italy. I revise my comments to say both are from Europe, still would like to see an American mfr come out with something that had attachment capability
Deon told me this week they plan to announce the 1-10x with a tree either late this year or early next year. They did specifically say 1-10x24FFP, so it isn’t clear if it will be a dual FP or not.
If someone has a 1-10x dual in stock I might just pick it up. I would also be interested in a railed top cap to mount a Raptar.
If someone has a 1-10x dual in stock I might just pick it up. I would also be interested in a railed top cap to mount a Raptar.
I received the mount yesterday. Tier One’s shipping though DHL is fantastic. The workmanship on the mount is outstanding but unfortunately it’s heavy. 9.0 ounces.
Attachments
Deon confirmed it is dual focal plane. They also just announced on their site that they plan to start taking orders in Oct and hope to deliver in December.
https://marchscopes.com/news/9646/
https://marchscopes.com/news/9646/
Correct. The tree reticle will be in the FFP and the SFP will remain the same with its segments and the illuminated dot in the center.
The new reticle will be dual focal plane with the same SFP fiber dot. The FFP reticle is what is different. I have looked at the reticle pattern they came up with and I think it will work well.
ILya
Those are the only ones I know of. If someone has a nice CNC I can create a mount using CAD
After looking at the March/Audere mount:
It isn't going to work for me, and I suspect others will have the same issue. For my particular combination of LOP and eyebox, it doesn't have enough cantilever to sit totally on the receiver of a flattop AR15. This is my current setup:
You can see that the Scalarworks mount is moved absolutely as far forward on the receiver as it will go, and the scope is only about 1/8" from as far forward as it will go in the clamps. And I could probably stand that additional 1/8" of eyebox. Note that almost half of the turret is in front of the forward-most point of the upper. The March/Audere mount would have the front clamp interfering significantly with the turrets to be in this position. And anyone else running a short LOP (2nd or 3rd click) like I do is going to have the same issues.
I am curious why March decided to make this clamp with so little cantilever. Considering that this scope is going to be mounted on ARs nearly exclusively, why would they not follow the industry standard for cantilever? It is the industry standard for a reason.
The Tier One has plenty of cantilever, hopefully they will sell a non-QD version.
If not, maybe Scalarworks will be interested in making a mount. That would be my first choice anyway.
It isn't going to work for me, and I suspect others will have the same issue. For my particular combination of LOP and eyebox, it doesn't have enough cantilever to sit totally on the receiver of a flattop AR15. This is my current setup:
You can see that the Scalarworks mount is moved absolutely as far forward on the receiver as it will go, and the scope is only about 1/8" from as far forward as it will go in the clamps. And I could probably stand that additional 1/8" of eyebox. Note that almost half of the turret is in front of the forward-most point of the upper. The March/Audere mount would have the front clamp interfering significantly with the turrets to be in this position. And anyone else running a short LOP (2nd or 3rd click) like I do is going to have the same issues.
I am curious why March decided to make this clamp with so little cantilever. Considering that this scope is going to be mounted on ARs nearly exclusively, why would they not follow the industry standard for cantilever? It is the industry standard for a reason.
The Tier One has plenty of cantilever, hopefully they will sell a non-QD version.
If not, maybe Scalarworks will be interested in making a mount. That would be my first choice anyway.
Last edited:
I have a CNC and do some contract prototype and low-volume motorsports parts. But making something like a one-piece scope mount is not nearly as easy as you think. There are at least 4 distinct parts, maybe more depending on how you do the rail clamp.Those are the only ones I know of. If someone has a nice CNC I can create a mount using CAD
If you had a multi-axis machine (4 or 5-axis) you might could get away with making these parts in 8 operations (4 parts, 2 ops per part). Maybe. That still means that 8 setups with at least 4 custom fixtures must be created. And that is after the CAD work is done.
For me, with a 3-axis machine, I don't see how I could do it for less than 12 operations. That is 12 programs, 12 setups, and 6-8 custom fixtures. Including the initial design and CAD work, I would estimate it to take 40-50 hours minimum to go from nothing to a finished prototype. MINIMUM. The reality is probably more like 60+.
Now if I knew I could sell 12-15 of them at $300, then it would be getting close to worth it. 20 and it is nearly making ROI sense.
You can see that the Scalarworks mount is moved absolutely as far forward on the receiver as it will go, and the scope is only about 1/8" from as far forward as it will go in the clamps. And I could probably stand that additional 1/8" of eyebox. Note that almost half of the turret is in front of the forward-most point of the upper. The March/Audere mount would have the front clamp interfering significantly with the turrets to be in this position. And anyone else running a short LOP (2nd or 3rd click) like I do is going to have the same issues.
I am curious why March decided to make this clamp with so little cantilever. Considering that this scope is going to be mounted on ARs nearly exclusively, why would they not follow the industry standard for cantilever? It is the industry standard for a reason.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Wow, thats farther forward than any I've seen before. Usually the eyepiece is about even with the charging handle, so I wouldnt be calling it anything like "industry standard". That being said, I didnt realize there was an industry standard for the length of cantilever. Seems many manufacturers are different and some even offer a choice of how far forward you want.
I also wonder why folks are running away with the concept of not using the rail portion on the handguard if needed. I get the theoretical postulate that it may add some flex between it and the reciever, but I'm seriously doubting the significance of that given that the handguard is bolted to the reciever much more firmly than the original design and how many folks are slinging up in the ancient high-power type, leather sling and jacket fashion. In mil shooting beyond 200m you definately had to be careful about sling/handguard tension, and could see the differences, that was with the old A1/A2 type guns, not modern free-floated handguards. I dont think you're going to see similar shift in POI with free-floated handguards moving the optic.
I would welcome a reasonably considered evaluation instead of shibolith.
I am curious why March decided to make this clamp with so little cantilever. Considering that this scope is going to be mounted on ARs nearly exclusively, why would they not follow the industry standard for cantilever? It is the industry standard for a reason.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Wow, thats farther forward than any I've seen before. Usually the eyepiece is about even with the charging handle, so I wouldnt be calling it anything like "industry standard". That being said, I didnt realize there was an industry standard for the length of cantilever. Seems many manufacturers are different and some even offer a choice of how far forward you want.
I also wonder why folks are running away with the concept of not using the rail portion on the handguard if needed. I get the theoretical postulate that it may add some flex between it and the reciever, but I'm seriously doubting the significance of that given that the handguard is bolted to the reciever much more firmly than the original design and how many folks are slinging up in the ancient high-power type, leather sling and jacket fashion. In mil shooting beyond 200m you definately had to be careful about sling/handguard tension, and could see the differences, that was with the old A1/A2 type guns, not modern free-floated handguards. I dont think you're going to see similar shift in POI with free-floated handguards moving the optic.
I would welcome a reasonably considered evaluation instead of shibolith.
I reached out to Scalarworks, and they responded back that they had "no plans to produce a 33mm at this time". They clearly have no idea that this scope exists, so I gave them a better explanation of the design. Not that my email will have any effect on their future plans.
But it still would not hurt if others reached out to them to ask if they plan to make one. The more they hear about it, the more likely they are to investigate the possibility of making them.
But it still would not hurt if others reached out to them to ask if they plan to make one. The more they hear about it, the more likely they are to investigate the possibility of making them.
I image searched "scope mount ar 15" and two of the very first pictures to pop up:
The rear of the scopes in both of these are at least as far forward as mine, the first one is even farther. Where the scope needs to sit is heavily determined by the shooters LOP needs. Also note the amount of cantilever in the mounts they are using to achieve that position. The March mount will never be able to do this.
There is no standard set number for cantilever but companies designing AR scope mounts put much more cantilever than the March mount. That same above-mentioned Google search also reveals pages of AR-intended mounts, and almost every single one of them has at least double, some approaching triple the cantilever offset of the March. My above pictures demonstrate why.
I did some experimentation with the OD gun in my pictures in the previous post. Using the front BUIS at the end of the tube, if you applied some pressure to the rifle you could get enough flex to move POI a small but measurable amount. I don't remember exactly how much, but it was there. This is worst-case scenario being at the end of the guard, but it demonstrates the effect does exist.
Now I will agree that the theoretical optic being mounted on the handguard would be much closer to the receiver, and likely not changed by a measurable amount from just pressure on the rifle. However, we had a rifle that we cared less about and were willing to smack the end of the handguard pretty hard to see the effects. With a sufficiently-hard hit, the handguard did move on the barrel nut, and that would change the zero on the scope. This is my bigger concern with an optic bridged onto the handguard. Such an occurrence is not likely to happen on a range gun that never sees abuse, but for a service gun or a Run n Gun competition rifle like I have, hard hits are part of the reality of their use.
I am sure plenty of people have bridged optic mounts across the handguard and never had any issues, but it is still less than optimum practice. Just because a particular instance of bad practice did not produce bad results does not change the fact that it is bad practice.
Now I am going to have to buy one.The tree reticle for the shorty is finally available and you can find it on March’s official website. I think both FFP and SFP were changed compared to the DR1
It isn't exactly how I would do it, but it will work.
A couple of comments, since I have spent a significant amount of time with both March and RG3.
March is substantially shorter, has shorter eyepiece and also has a little less eyerelief. I had no problem whatsoever using it on an AR and it was not in the most rearward position possible. Looking at the picture of your RG3 setup, March should work fine for you with their cantilever mount.
If not, you can always use an extended riser with two Burris XTR Signature rings. If you use +20MOA top and bottom of the 34mm ring, it works out to be essentially exactly 33mm.
ILya
The tree reticle for the shorty is finally available and you can find it on March’s official website. I think both FFP and SFP were changed compared to the DR1
Perhaps it's just me, but that appears to be a very busy reticle within the main stadia at 10x, largely due to the size of the subtensions... I like the concept though!
Same for me. Busier than it really needs to be for an AR carbine application. In particular, I don't see why the 0.1mil scales are needed at 5 & 10mil. That really adds a bunch of black to the view, with no real benefit.
But overall I can live with it.
Those are 0.2mrad hashes.
I did not design this reticle, but I suspect it will be a lot less obtrusive than you think. It also tells you where 5mrad and 10mrad are at a glance.
ILya
I think that the Shorty 1-10 isn't a combat oriented design despite it has tactical style turrets, it's no S&B Dual CC Shortdot. Given its ability to side focus, the shooter is expected to take time to adjust/dial in order to place the shot accurately. This is a reason I think a more traditional DR-1 reticle may be better fit for it.
I like the 5mrad and 10mrad delineations - I also notice that the "thick stadia" (what appears to be SFP) at 10x appear to line up to 4mrad and 6mrad - another useful point of reference. The thick vertical subtenstion lines also appear to be 15mrad delineations on the vertical and horizontal stadia (at least on the tree at 10x... it appears there are more as well in FFP even further down).
While this design isn't combat oriented, side-adjustable parallax has serious benefits. This reticle isn't what I'd want exactly in a more pragmatic optic, but it does have some great features that make it more useful than a DR1 at longer range. Those super-long subtensions make the reticle look very busy to my eye though...
Putting a reticle on a white background like that makes every tree style reticle appear obtrusive. Once you look through them in actual use, against a normal background, it’s completely different. While not what I think is ideal, it’s very useable and personally I like it enough that I’m probably going to buy one.
I would not go so far as to define it as "crippling" in this case, but I agree with the sentiment. This is a significant improvement over what they had, good enough I will get one, but they are still missing the mark a bit. It seems that the people at March don't exactly understand the market for something like this.
I agree with this. Not ideal, but likely very usable. And it is indeed very difficult to judge how a reticle will function in the wild by looking at a reticle drawing on a white background.
What kind of a reticle would you want in a scope like this?
There is a healthy disagreement over what the market for this scope is among a fairly significant number of people I have talked to. That makes the reticle preference sorta fall into two distinct camps, so I am very curious where you will land on this.
ILya
I don't see that the side focus takes away anything from its function. Set it to 100m, and you have the same thing as a ShortDot, good enough for most fast action out to medium distances. If you have longer shot and have time to crank on the focus, then you can dial in far better than the ShortDot could ever do. It should extend the effective range significantly.
I suspect that the side focus is needed to make this a viable optic out to longer distances. Building an optic with a short body MUST have some drawbacks, it is physics. I expect the side focus is a design requirement allowing for more ability to work around the shortcomings of the design.
That's correct. With a scope that short, side focus really helps. That having been said, I also have their 1-8x24 Shorty without side focus and it is really good about about 600-700 or so. Beyond that, sidefocus is a really helpful thing.
When I was testing the 1-10x24, side focus was really useful for a couple of things: longer distances and very short distances. The very short distances were mostly a factor for dry practice, but I suspect airgunners will like that aspect of it as well. There is a whole generation of new very high quality airguns where this scope will be a good fit.
ILya
It seems to me that the primary market is for AR type rifles running 2-gun, 3-gun, Run-n-Gun, etc. competitions. If it is durable, it should have some market for operators as well. This is why I expressed a lack of understanding as to why the mount is not made with more cantilever to better suit ARs. What other significant market is looking at this?
Reticle:
At 1x, the tree is irrelevant, too small to matter. It would be cool to have something like a semi-circle around the dot to help with CQB stuff, but only if it turns off just above 1x. Some other scope does something like this, don't remember which one.
But when you zoom in, that is when this reticle seems to be a bit too far in the direction of precision shooting. Just looking at it on paper, the tree is too much for me. And it is in general just too busy, lacking enough tools to quickly identify subtensions for quick shots. If it had some better ways of helping the eye quickly pick out where you are, it would be better for me. I know that the 0.2 subtents on 5 &10 help elevation, but a jump of 5 is too much for fast recognition, and there is nothing on windage The human eye/brain can more quickly recognize and identify where you are inside patterns of 3 than it can 5. If it had an identifier at 3 & 9, and a more distinct identifier at 6 &12, that would allow for faster identification.
I would need to look around for some examples of reticles with what I am talking about, if any such thing exists. Maybe if I have spare time one day, I will draw one out.
But as I said above, until I get to actually use one, I realize that my thoughts have limited value. I may have a totally different opinion once I get to look through one.
I am getting one of these for my air rifle - should be here in a few weeks. The idea is it will fit on an AR but I am going to use it on my Leshiy 2 because of how small it is, and the fact it can focus close. I also like the dual reticle design...
Thanks for the explanation. That is one camp of looking at this scope. The other camp is people who look at is more of a DMR scope.
A couple of other comments: the disappearing circle is possible with IMT's phase grating. This scope uses a dual reticle design where you can not do that. Given bright fiber dot and very visible SFP #4, I think the circle would not really do much.
As far as ARs go, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, with a scope this short, their mount works very well on ARs. That is what I tested it on.
I do agree on human brain being better at looking at periodicity of 3, but given the design, I kinda like keeping the busy stuff a little further away from the primary aiming point.
With all that, I have not seen it in a scope, so we'll see how it goes when it gets here.
ILya
I had already done this before making my original post about cantilever, I am just now getting a chance to throw it up here.
I looked at the length dimensions of my Gen II-E, and the posted dimensions of the Shorty. I created a CAD model for comparison, and got this:
The gray is the Shorty, Blue is Vortex. By this drawing, there is virtually no difference (within a millimeter) between the two scopes as far as distance from the rear-most area of clamping section and the objective.
How far forward a scope can be moved in a clamp is limited by the point where the 30mm neckdown ends. Since this point is virtually exactly the same distance from the objective on both scopes, that means the Shorty objective can't be moved any farther forward than the Vortex, assuming the rear clamp is in the same location.
So I am still sticking with my assessment that this:
Can't be positioned as far forward as this:
It just simply can't be done. At least not without hanging past the front of the upper receiver.
If you doubt it, look how far past the front of the receiver the front of my turret housing is located. It is almost centered over the receiver front.
Now look at the March. With the March mount moved all the way forward on the receiver, the farthest forward the front of the turret housing could be located is roughly flush with the front of the receiver. All this results that, even with the scope moved absolutely as far as possible in the clamp, and the clamp moved all the way to the front of the receiver, the front of the Shorty turret housing is going to be barely flush with the front of the upper. That places the objective of the March around 20mm farther rearward than my current Vortex/Scalarworks setup.
I still stand by my statement. The Audere/March mount is never going to work on an AR with people that run a shorter LOP.
March has shorter eyerelief than Razor Gen2. Your eye ends up roughly in the same spot. At least for me it does. I have to mount the March a little further back than the Razor Gen3 I have and Gen2 has longer eye relief than Gen3 if memory serves me right.
I am not going to re-measure your drawings. All I can tell you is how it worked for me having spent several months with the scopes. I probably do not run as short of a length of pull as you do, so it is entirely possible it won't work for you. On my AR, the back of the Razor Gen3 is about half inch further back than the Gen2 in your picture and March is a touch further back yet.
Generally, you could have simply asked someone with a scope to take a picture rather than spend all that time modeling it.
Here is the Shorty 1-8x24 in the Audere mount, moved as far forward as possible without clamping onto the handguard. Both clamps are on the receiver. That's a little further forward than I like. The 1-8x24 March Shorty is almost identical to the 1-10x24 in terms of size.
The tail end of the eyepiece looks to be in more or less the same place as your Gen2 Razor in the Scalarworks mount.
Now, what's interesting is that the mount I have looks to have a slightly different clamp than the one in Bill's picture. I am not sure which is the newer version and why there are two different ones. I am supposed to have another mount heading my way, so we'll see what that one looks like.
With all that, if you want to move it further forward, you can using an extended riser and two Burris XTR Signature rings. Kinda like they describer here, but with lower rings:
ILya
Was this somehow directed at me? If so, I have no idea what point you were trying to get across.Perhaps you should start hanging around with a better class of gun?
A shorter eye relief would certainly help, but I don't see where that much difference can be made up in just eye relief. But until I get one in hand, I can't know. This is all speculation at some level until then.
And I respect your insights. I have watched many of your videos, you seem to be very thorough and unbiased. A rarity these days. But I also suspect that my LOP is shorter than yours. I am 5'8" 160lbs, you seem to be a good big taller than me in your videos. My preferred LOP is about 9.5", that is about 2 to 3 clicks form all the way forward on most AR carbines. That will certainly put us in different ranges as far as needed eyebox.
Virtually no one has this scope and mount combo, so there aren't many to ask. Besides, I do CAD work as part of my job. This drawing took me probably less than 10 minutes one day when I was bored. No big deal.
This certainly appears to be closer to what I would need, but as mentioned this is a different scope and clamp from what is pictured above in my comparisons.Here is the Shorty 1-8x24 in the Audere mount, moved as far forward as possible without clamping onto the handguard. Both clamps are on the receiver. That's a little further forward than I like. The 1-8x24 March Shorty is almost identical to the 1-10x24 in terms of size.
And this is probably the most important thing in the entire post. The particular clamp you have pictured here has a good bit more cantilever than the ones others have posted, as well as the pictures on the March website last time I looked. THIS clamp would work for me. Especially considering you still have a good bit farther the tube could be moved in the rings. The newer ones pictured elsewhere here are not capable of anywhere near this much forward placement of the scope.
This would all be an option, but not really one that interests me. All of that hardware would be heavy, and weight is a huge reason why I am looking at this scope in the first place. If I did not care about weight I would simply opt for the Tier 1 mount, which has plenty of cantilever.
A far more likely scenario, and what I plan to start with, is just two 30mm clamps behind the turrets. If I have issues with it losing zero during field testing, then I will look at other options.
If you only use the two rings behind the turret, there is a really good chance of shifting zero after rough handling. Under normal use it did not shift, but side impact on the front of the scope (i.e. dropping the gun) has a high likely hood of making it shift.
Generally, side or top impact on the objective bell is the biggest reason stuff shifts during drop tests (assuming a good quality non-QD mount). With the Audere mount, the Shorty is essentially immune to these impacts since the front ring clamps right around the objective.
ILya
Yeah, I have that zero shift impact concern. If nothing else, at least the 2 rings option allows me to play around with position for cheap. Once I figure out where it really needs to be, then I can make a more informed decision on a full mount.
