Will be interested to see how it compares.
The VX6 2-12 is one of my favorite hunting scopes, if the firedot TMR reticle was an option it'd be near perfect.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes March 1.5-15x42 inquiry
- Thread starter RHutch
- Start date
The VX6 2-12 is one of my favorite hunting scopes, if the firedot TMR reticle was an option it'd be near perfect.
Had out at the range this morning. didn't get a lot of time to compare the two scopes (VX6 2-12 vs new March 1.5-15) back to back, but I can make these general comments:
> The eyebox is much more forgiving with the Leupold. My son-in-law had a tough time with the position of my cheek rest and had difficult time getting in the eyebox on the March. It was a breeze for him with the Leupold. This was at max mag (15x) on the March
> I was using the March at the 100 and 300 yd range at max mag, since I figure this would be worst-case. I was shooting about 5/8" MOA at 100 yards and 3/4 moa at 300 yds with 5 shot groups, factory ammo (Hornady ELD Match 140 gr). This gun/scope will outshoot me.
> No significant issues with parallax when dialed-in, and the picture sharpness was quite good.
> Christmas tree portion of reticle blurrier on right side than left. Both aren't going to be very helpful in most hunting situations. I consider this scope an 'up to 300 yds' hunting scope. Reticle starting to get a bit thick, much past 300 yds.
> After mounting and bore-sighting, I was just one click from being dead-nuts on at 100 yds. Never had that happen with a new scope mount before. The Seekins Precision rings are freaking awesome.
> Son-in-law, thought the March was the better 'range' scope. Thought the Leupold would be hard to beat, but he didn;t like the thick reticle on the Leupold.
I'll need to get his gun over here to do a side-by-side test at some point at the ower mags, where I suspect the March will outperform.
The Leupold VX6 was, to this point, my fave hunting scope.
> The eyebox is much more forgiving with the Leupold. My son-in-law had a tough time with the position of my cheek rest and had difficult time getting in the eyebox on the March. It was a breeze for him with the Leupold. This was at max mag (15x) on the March
> I was using the March at the 100 and 300 yd range at max mag, since I figure this would be worst-case. I was shooting about 5/8" MOA at 100 yards and 3/4 moa at 300 yds with 5 shot groups, factory ammo (Hornady ELD Match 140 gr). This gun/scope will outshoot me.
> No significant issues with parallax when dialed-in, and the picture sharpness was quite good.
> Christmas tree portion of reticle blurrier on right side than left. Both aren't going to be very helpful in most hunting situations. I consider this scope an 'up to 300 yds' hunting scope. Reticle starting to get a bit thick, much past 300 yds.
> After mounting and bore-sighting, I was just one click from being dead-nuts on at 100 yds. Never had that happen with a new scope mount before. The Seekins Precision rings are freaking awesome.
> Son-in-law, thought the March was the better 'range' scope. Thought the Leupold would be hard to beat, but he didn;t like the thick reticle on the Leupold.
I'll need to get his gun over here to do a side-by-side test at some point at the ower mags, where I suspect the March will outperform.
The Leupold VX6 was, to this point, my fave hunting scope.
I have the March 1.5-15X42 SFP; I do not have, nor have I ever tested the new DFP model. I tested the FFP one time, and sent it to another tester. My understanding is that the optical system (the lenses) is the same between the SFP and the DFP/FFP versions. I mounted my 1.5-15X42 on an AR-10 and shot some NRA competitions with that setup; all at 600 yards. My riflescope has the MTR-5 reticle, the same as in my March-X 10-60X56 HM. For me, it was quite a difference shooting the same target at 15X vs 50X. The image in the 1.5-15X42 was always very nice and crisp. Yes, it gets a little finicky at 15X, but when you're at that magnification, you should be shouldering the rifle properly. But if you think that's tight, let me tell you about 50X or even better, 80X in the new March.
I should think that if someone is having problems focusing with the 1.5-15X42 FFP or DFP, they would immediately contact March. Easiest way is through their website marchscopes.com; look for "Contact us." We know they are very responsive.
I should think that if someone is having problems focusing with the 1.5-15X42 FFP or DFP, they would immediately contact March. Easiest way is through their website marchscopes.com; look for "Contact us." We know they are very responsive.
Last edited:
I also have the invisible dot issue, unfortunately. This is what's looking like on my end, which is exactly the same as UNRL Ghandi's.
It was a huge letdown since this scope ticked a lot--I mean A LOT--of boxes for me for an SPR scope. But the lack of a useful windage dot kind of invalidates the entire point of both the dual focus and christmas tree reticle; I'm going to have to dial for any kind of accuracy for windage.
I emailed March over the weekend and Ms. Morita was nice enough to respond to me today. They are working on a new reticle with a larger windage dot to address the problem; I recommend y'all reach out to her if you aren't completely happy with the reticle.
I suggested a 0.25 mil dot with two alternative styling for the 5 mil line. I feel 0.25 mil is the perfect size for a dot grid with 1 mil spacing, as it lets you quarter targets for ranging purposes, and noticeable in most lighting conditions against even darker targets for practical shooting, which this reticle seems to be designed for. This is what I included in my email to her.
It was a huge letdown since this scope ticked a lot--I mean A LOT--of boxes for me for an SPR scope. But the lack of a useful windage dot kind of invalidates the entire point of both the dual focus and christmas tree reticle; I'm going to have to dial for any kind of accuracy for windage.
I emailed March over the weekend and Ms. Morita was nice enough to respond to me today. They are working on a new reticle with a larger windage dot to address the problem; I recommend y'all reach out to her if you aren't completely happy with the reticle.
I suggested a 0.25 mil dot with two alternative styling for the 5 mil line. I feel 0.25 mil is the perfect size for a dot grid with 1 mil spacing, as it lets you quarter targets for ranging purposes, and noticeable in most lighting conditions against even darker targets for practical shooting, which this reticle seems to be designed for. This is what I included in my email to her.
Last edited:
That is indeed very strange. I believe March states that its engineering tolerances are within 0.00mm and +0.05mm. So for a 34mm tube, you would see between 34.00mm and 34.05. I measured my March-X 10-60X56HM with a 34mm tube and it was between 34.01mm and 34.03 up and down the tube. I did the same on my 4.5-28X52 and I got similar numbers. I did the same on my older 1.5-15X42 SFP with a 30mm tube and got similar numbers; 30.00 to 30.4mm. I will say that measuring the 4.5-28X52 and the 1.5-15X42 when they are mounted on rifles was a bit tricky. What with the mounts and the level, not much room to stick my Mitutoyo.There's something very odd with my new March scopes, both of them.
When installing them in M-Brace mounts Thursday night, they kind of got wedged in the lower part of the rings. I didn't like that feeling at all. Went through with installing them anyway, thinking they were just on the large size of specs. I measured the tubes after, not sure why I didn't do it before, I was probably tired
Turns out they are 34.10 - 34.11 mm. It's very odd. I wonder if someone else had the same issue.
Everything looks ok though...
You should know that March starts with an ingot of aluminum and machines it down to the proper shape; this is all CNC stuff, and there is no extrusion, or assembly or whatnot. If you really think that your two scopes are out of spec, you should contact March through their website; we know they are very responsive.
When it comes to buying micrometers, you don't half step do U!!
There isn't a woman alive who doesn't admire a man who can get his instrument into a tight space.
After U spend a grand on a Mitutoyo the first thing U need to measure is the thickness of UR wallet.
Last edited:
Right. But to be clear, my Mitutoyo did not cost a grand. It's been several years now, but I think it was a few hundred dollars.
What mitutoyo?
They're not that crazy expensive. I've got a 0-1 mic, 1-2 mic, 6" caliper, 12" caliper, 0-1 indicator, test indicator, and 0-6 dial depth. My most valuable I got at an estate sale. 0-1 and 1-2 series 116 Pana Mike with thread anvils for $200. Those aren't for sale either.
If you think mitutoyo is expensive be glad you don't have to buy anything mahr federal. We use a bunch at work. Also have fowler trimos v4's everywhere.
I have no idea what "crazy expensive" is but by the same token spending a grand like I said is no "half step"; they've got micrometers for a grand easy, and depending on what you're using it for, that may be a deal in terms of the accuracy/precision U need, where precision up front saves money.
The job requirement dictates the kind of precision U need
As I've just said, they've got good stuff across the board, ditto Mahr Federal.
The job requirement dictates the kind of precision U need
As I've just said, they've got good stuff across the board, ditto Mahr Federal.
Last edited:
As an update: Mari Morita from March messaged me last night about my issues with the scope and she said they are making a new reticle with larger wind hold dots for it and will replace mine free of charge. Timeline is about 3 months for the new reticle and then another 2 months to have the reticle installed.
Wish someone had noticed the issue before production but pretty cool of them to fix it.
Wish someone had noticed the issue before production but pretty cool of them to fix it.
Last edited:
This scope is exactly what I was expecting.
Usable crosshairs at 1.5x and usable MSR2 like hash marks at 15x.
Great for hunting.
Great with clipons with a wide FOV.
Usable crosshairs at 1.5x and usable MSR2 like hash marks at 15x.
Great for hunting.
Great with clipons with a wide FOV.
My Mitutoyo is the CD-S6"CT Absolute Solar Digimatic. That's what it says on the paper. I bought it from Amazon 9 years ago.
Amazon product ASIN B001C0ZPUW
It was $150 at the time, which was years before the runaway bidenflation. So it's probably worth a grtand now. Or nothing because there are other ones. Anyway, I use it a lot and I take good care of it; it looks pristine.
I do not use it for work as I am a I'm a software engineer. All the other names you mentioned are unknown to me. This Mitutoyo has been flawless and has served me well. Not much more you can ask from an instrument.
They keep demonstrating that they are very responsive and stand behind their products. They certainly do not give you a runaround and blame you for their problems.
In my book, everyone makes mistakes, and I don't blame them for that, as long as they own up to the mistakes and remedy the situation.
I am looking at the drawing of the updated reticle from March and it is looking much better. I am, too, very pleased that they are willing to make it right.
Optomechanically, the scope I have here is quite good given how short it is. To be fair, a lot of this is about expectations. Given the complexity of the design, I did not expect miracles and the scope, overall, is performing better than I thought it would.
It is an exceedingly capable general purpose hunting/DMR design, especially when clip-ons are a part of the conversation.
ILya
Optomechanically, the scope I have here is quite good given how short it is. To be fair, a lot of this is about expectations. Given the complexity of the design, I did not expect miracles and the scope, overall, is performing better than I thought it would.
It is an exceedingly capable general purpose hunting/DMR design, especially when clip-ons are a part of the conversation.
ILya
Sticking to the "tried and true" is all about constant refinement, in contrast, innovation is "messy" which I think to a certain extent is an acceptable price for diving into the unknown.
Applaud the folks who do it both ways.
Some folks will come up w/something new, U buy it, U are stuck w/all the "zits and warts" until they come up w/gen 2-3-4 etc, but U will wait, and you'll pay again 4 them to get it right so U gotta admire March and all the other outfits including some of the folks around here U contact w/an issue who respond immediately and make it right asap.
....and no charge.
Applaud the folks who do it both ways.
Some folks will come up w/something new, U buy it, U are stuck w/all the "zits and warts" until they come up w/gen 2-3-4 etc, but U will wait, and you'll pay again 4 them to get it right so U gotta admire March and all the other outfits including some of the folks around here U contact w/an issue who respond immediately and make it right asap.
....and no charge.
I will definitely contact them. I wasn't expecting this at all. Half a mm over their max specs is a lot, I don't know how it's even possible. Everything seems to work great, but I'm afraid of what will happen when I'll try to remove them from the mounts. Thanks for the measurements of yours Denys.
I didn't shoot the 1.5-15 yet, I should get the stock for the rifle it's going on tomorrow. Playing with it on a tripod I can say that the image is very good. I'm not a glass connoisseur by any stretch of the imagination, but I have good eyes and can say the resolution excellent. As for the blurriness discussed in this thread, I can say that, once the diopter is well set, I get less and less as I get used to get behind it. The eyebox is not forgiving. If I'm slightly off with my head placement, I get a sharp center and blurry edges. I need to be just in the right spot to get a fully clear image. If that's the trade off to have a scope that small, that's fine with me.
I find that looking through a riflescope on a tripod is nowhere close to the experience you get when looking through it on a rifle, especially when it's adjusted to fit you. I do a lot of testing and comparisons on a tripod, and I know it is frustrating. I use the tripod to be able to take pictures with my smartphone for comparison purposes. Even that is fraught with obstacles. I did recently acquire a new adapter for smartphone and I have been using it with my Kowa 883 and the 80-XW eyepiece. Of course, the smartphone app has been challenging to use because of all the automation and the 4 cameras on the phone. I finally found the settings that should allow me "complete" control.
Before you ask, no, I will not provide the details yet. I am going to write this up at some point when I feel comfortable with it and post it somewhere for others to use. I'm very much into digiscoping with my Kowa and my D7500; this is different. I'm also doing videos through the spotting scopes and riflescopes.
Before you ask, no, I will not provide the details yet. I am going to write this up at some point when I feel comfortable with it and post it somewhere for others to use. I'm very much into digiscoping with my Kowa and my D7500; this is different. I'm also doing videos through the spotting scopes and riflescopes.
I'm following this new scope and it's evolution with much enthusiasm. It checks a lot of boxes, and the manufacturer seems responsive to feedback.
That said, I'm curious to know if there will ever be any possible momentum behind the idea of updating their SFP models such that the reticle subtends at 15x instead of 10x?
Selfishly, that solves almost all my problems without the need for this over-engineered dual focal plane (DFP) option with it's disappearing wind holds and parallax issues. Simply put, I want my reticle to be the big, high-contrast, and in-your-face type at low power for low-light hunting, but accurate at 15x for all long-range shooting.
Is this currently still too much to ask?
That said, I'm curious to know if there will ever be any possible momentum behind the idea of updating their SFP models such that the reticle subtends at 15x instead of 10x?
Selfishly, that solves almost all my problems without the need for this over-engineered dual focal plane (DFP) option with it's disappearing wind holds and parallax issues. Simply put, I want my reticle to be the big, high-contrast, and in-your-face type at low power for low-light hunting, but accurate at 15x for all long-range shooting.
Is this currently still too much to ask?
The March 1.5-15X42 SFP has 6 reticles available: 3 MOA : MTR-3, MTR-4, MTR-5; and 3 MIL: FD-1, FD-2, MML. As you point out, they are all subtending on 10X. I would suggest you contact March through the website, and specify which reticle you would like to see based on 15X. At least tell them MOA or MIL. Be specific in your request. And also, the more people chime in, the better.
My March 1.5-15X42 SFP has the MTR-5 reticle and I'm very happy with it. (As I have mentioned in the past, it's the same reticle as I have in my high magnification match rifles.)
My March 1.5-15X42 SFP has the MTR-5 reticle and I'm very happy with it. (As I have mentioned in the past, it's the same reticle as I have in my high magnification match rifles.)
Let's say the quiet part out loud. I doubt if anyone who dropped $3000 on a March 1.5-15 x42 DFP had "expectations" to accept a compromise on an optically inferior product that is blurry from 9x to 15x, with a defective reticle and have to wait 3-months for problem resolution. Not to forget to add an additional month for the repair turnaround. Since March [DEON] is standing by their product they should give the Customer the option of a full refund or replacement.
I'm willing to bet that UNRL Ghandi did not have a $500 LOSS on his list of expectations when it became obvious to sell a 1-week old March 1.5-15 x42 DFP. Perhaps he received one of those March 1.5-15 "Samples" that were not reviewed?
SOLD - March 1.5-15x42 Dual Focal Plane
Full disclosure I'm selling this because I decided I'm not willing to give up the clearer images at 15x for the shorter/lighter scope and can't return it. Here is the link to the thread with discussions of people's impressions of it, including mine...
www.snipershide.com
Flame Suit = ON
Last edited:
Full review is coming. I've tried to stay up to date on this thread but it has been hard, personally I've been hammered with a number of medical issues with multiple family members; this has greatly hindered my ability to stay in touch as well as get out the review of the scope, I had also been waiting for a couple scopes for comparison and finally obtained one but not the other (due to time and money constraints).
Completely agree with this. I’d jump at the opportunity to swap my reticle for one that subtends at 15x
Interesting. Given the choice in this mag range, I would like it to subtend at 10x myself, but I would want it to click into a notch at that exact magnification (not sure if the March does that or not)
March released the reticle data for the updated design with larger dots:
marchscopes.com
D15V42FDIMLX (Dual) New for 2023 | MARCH Scopes | DEON Optical Design CorporationMARCH Scopes | DEON Optical Design Corporation
MARCH Scopes Official Site
marchscopes.com
Unfortunately all this ended up pivoting me right back to the Vortex LH 4.5-22. The dot fix is much better but wasn't sure I could live with the thick vertical starting at 4 mils. If anything I hope this lights a fire under other manufactures that this category does indeed have demand.
Are you saying you need more than 4mils hold under?
Seems like a lot of reticles don't offer much hold under these days. I'd have thought 4mils would be enough though, I'm not sure I've ever needed more than 4mils.
Anything over a couple mils and I’m dialing. 4 mils is like 600 yards with my creedmire. Definitely dialing that.
Doesn’t matter what they do… you can’t polish a turd.March released the reticle data for the updated design with larger dots:
D15V42FDIMLX (Dual) New for 2023 | MARCH Scopes | DEON Optical Design CorporationMARCH Scopes | DEON Optical Design Corporation
MARCH Scopes Official Site
Hold over. At 4 mils elevation it gets pretty thick at least on paper in the subtension map.
I don't think I've held under anymore than 2mils in a match, other than 22lr matches.
I guess you could argue the DPF reticle doesn't need to sacrifice having less than 10mils to make the reticle visible but for the intended use I'm not sure it'll be a big issue for many.
So, you're just a negative person; sort of the quintessential Karen. You do not have the riflescope, you have been trying to stir feces up about it and when the manufacturer provides a speedy remedy, you still go negative.Doesn’t matter what they do… you can’t polish a turd.
Yes, I am a March fan, and this situation is an example of one of the big reasons I am such a fan. They are extremely responsive and actually step up when they make a mistake; they listen, they don't blame the user, they come up with a fix and they take care of their customers.
You just like to whip up shit.
It does, but that only plays a role if you are shooting fairly far out and there is absolultely no wind. I have heard of such conditions, but I do not think I have ever witnessed one.
Personally, I seldom end up holding more than 3mrad or so with the reticle. If it is further than that, I tend to dial.
The natural question then is whether I really need the bottom portion of the tree. The truth is that for me personally, one a scope like this, I do not need a large tree. However, a lot of people seem to want 10 to 15mrad tree and I have used that much in the past, just to experiment.
Once the tree gets to 20mrad or bigger, I think that is just an unnecessary distraction and more scopes do not have the sweetspot for that anyway.
ILya
It's simply a use case thing for me, not an issue with the reticle design itself. I use 5.5 to 6 mil quite often with edge holds in comp and don't do much dialing unless the targets are small or have a couple of misses. Every now and then I need up to 11mil but yes, typically windage pulls me away from centerline there. I realize I am outside the norm there but the heart wants what the heart wants. I hope March sells a bazillion of them so we can continue to push our agenda for these crossover style optics.
The LH is not without its own set of compromises, I just decided to choose the ones I believe I could live with...at least for now.
I most definitely understand why you like the LHT. There is absolutely nothing in that weight class that competes with it.
ILya
"The heart wants what the heart wants" - that has gotten me into a lot of trouble optically
I've sold scopes I shouldn't have and bought scopes I shouldn't have, all in the pursuit of what my heart wanted at the time.Out of curiosity, I do not see much of anything in common between the March 1.5-15x42 and the Vortex LHT 4.5-22x50 and wouldn't normally put those two scopes in the same sentence, so what is the common feature between the two that drew you to the LHT after trying the 1.5-15? And with regard to the thick stadia at 4mil I assume you are talking about the thicker SFP vertical stadia line as seen below, so if this wasn't so "thick" would the reticle/scope have worked for you?
For me the common ground that had me cross shopping between the March and LHT was fairly straightforward: I wanted lightweight, (Sub 25 ounces), FFP, "Good" Glass, MIL Tree Based reticle (to my liking of course) and exposed AND locking turrets. By "good glass", I mean typical LOW quality minimum. Unfortunately, there is a surprisingly small number of these scopes in the market place that ticks every single one of these boxes for me. Would I have preferred the mag range of the March? Absolutely. In fact, Vortex would probably not even have me looking anywhere else if their 3-15 LHT was FFP with a similar reticle. I am in the minority but I also have no issue with these scopes being 30mm. I simply don't need the extra elevation at normal engagement distances and the smaller tube saves weight on my mounts as well. I should note that its going on a lightweight short bolt gun build...and not an AR, which obviously makes a difference. This gun will also not be a gun used for clip-ons. YMMV."The heart wants what the heart wants" - that has gotten me into a lot of trouble optically
Out of curiosity, I do not see much of anything in common between the March 1.5-15x42 and the Vortex LHT 4.5-22x50 and wouldn't normally put those two scopes in the same sentence, so what is the common feature between the two that drew you to the LHT after trying the 1.5-15? And with regard to the thick stadia at 4mil I assume you are talking about the thicker SFP vertical stadia line as seen below, so if this wasn't so "thick" would the reticle/scope have worked for you?
View attachment 8159597
And yes, I do not like the thick SFP vertical stadia. To be honest, that was a deal breaker for me. I can accept them on the horizontal, just not the vertical.
Good to know. Yes, I think a lot of people would be interested in a FFP LHT in the 3-15 range or better yet a 2-12x42. You should send a note to March and let them know your thoughts on the thickness of the SFP stadia line that intrudes upon the FFP tree portion above 10x, they have been very receptive to shooter input.
As an update, my scope is back at the factory having the reticle replaced with the newer version that has larger wind hold dots. So far March comms have been really good and they wired reimbursement for shipping. I was told it would take up to two months to replace the reticle and they received the scope from customs jail 7/10, so not expecting it back in hand until late September. Still not happy to have to go through this process for a new scope but thankful they're fixing it.
My scope will be going through same soon, once I finish testing at long range
Maybe you should have asked for a refund. Does not sound like the scope is living up to expectations.
I really wish I would have thought of that.
I did ask for a refund and was told I couldn't have one unless there was something physically wrong with the scope. They did recognize the reticle issue and agreed to fix that although it is coming at a time expense to me of 5 months where I have no scope in hand. Not happy about the process but I bought into a first production run knowing the risks so I'm not going to turn Karen over it. This scope checked every box for me and I had to see it first hand and because of that I let my eagerness get the better of me. But because of the specs on paper I really did think this scope would be The One to end up on all my rifles.
I was all on board for this scope myself being a lover of the NF ATACR 4-16x42 on hunting rifles. Like most new offerings, sounds like they have a few bugs to work out. Let us know how the scope treats you down the road once you get it back.I really wish I would have thought of that.
I did ask for a refund and was told I couldn't have one unless there was something physically wrong with the scope. They did recognize the reticle issue and agreed to fix that although it is coming at a time expense to me of 5 months where I have no scope in hand. Not happy about the process but I bought into a first production run knowing the risks so I'm not going to turn Karen over it. This scope checked every box for me and I had to see it first hand and because of that I let my eagerness get the better of me. But because of the specs on paper I really did think this scope would be The One to end up on all my rifles.
Here are my findings so far. I have the ffp FML-4 reticle.
First, the issue I had with the tube diameter was mostly an error on my part. @Denys was right, it's quite difficult to take a good measure while the scope is mounted. After removing it from the mount, I measured it at 34.07mm. Some error could still be involved, lets say it's on the bigger side of specs. It was wedging in in a M-Brace mount, but fits perfect in Spuhr or MDT rings. So that's a non-issue really.
Now that's out of the way, here's what I think of it optically.
Eye placement is critical to get a really sharp image. If I put my eye slightly off center in the side to side plane, the image gets blurry. It's quite sharp though when my eye is very well centered.
Diopter adjustment is a bit of a problem. If I use the trick I mentionned in an ealier post, my eye gets tired relatively quickly at lower mag. I'd say it's best to adjust it at the mag you'll mostly use, and accept it wont be perfect all the way through mag range. Personnally I use it mostly at 8-10x, and that's where I adjust the diopter now.
I went with the FML-4 instead of the dual because of a personnal preference. I'm not a big fan of trees. I don't like having the tree hanging below the amiming point at low mag. If you like trees, I think the dual would be a better option. I find the FML-4 quite good at low mag. But from 6-7x and up, the ring gets crazy big. It's not translucent like on some lpvo and it takes a lot of place in the field of view. Also, there's no marks before 2 mils. The inside of the ring is 1 mil, the outside 1½. That's not very hepful for wind holds. If I have to dial, or aim at a "random" spot upwind, I can do that with a sfp. In my view, the ring should be translucent and the .2 marks should extend all the way toward center.
If March eventually makes a new ffp reticle for it with .2 marks from center, I would send it for a replacement. .2 marks are very usable at 15x.
That said, the way I use it, mostly at 8-10x, I would have been better with the sfp 30mm version. The ffp gives me nothing more on that scope. I think I was too much attracted by the turrets and the 34mm tube.
.5 marks are still usable for wind holds, so the new dual is still a very good option I think, if you like trees.
Mechanically, the scope seems to be near perfect. The turrets are very good. The way they lock is just perfect, even if I pretty much never lock them
Something to note, on MY scope, there's a bit of image jump when changing direction in magnification adjustment. It's not uncommon and dosen't bother me at all. I know some people would not tolerate it, but really it's small and has no impact on usability.
The big pros are still the size and weight of this scope, and its apparent robustness.
If you ask me if I would buy it again, here's my answer :
No, I would buy the 30mm sfp version.
Hope it helps.
First, the issue I had with the tube diameter was mostly an error on my part. @Denys was right, it's quite difficult to take a good measure while the scope is mounted. After removing it from the mount, I measured it at 34.07mm. Some error could still be involved, lets say it's on the bigger side of specs. It was wedging in in a M-Brace mount, but fits perfect in Spuhr or MDT rings. So that's a non-issue really.
Now that's out of the way, here's what I think of it optically.
Eye placement is critical to get a really sharp image. If I put my eye slightly off center in the side to side plane, the image gets blurry. It's quite sharp though when my eye is very well centered.
Diopter adjustment is a bit of a problem. If I use the trick I mentionned in an ealier post, my eye gets tired relatively quickly at lower mag. I'd say it's best to adjust it at the mag you'll mostly use, and accept it wont be perfect all the way through mag range. Personnally I use it mostly at 8-10x, and that's where I adjust the diopter now.
I went with the FML-4 instead of the dual because of a personnal preference. I'm not a big fan of trees. I don't like having the tree hanging below the amiming point at low mag. If you like trees, I think the dual would be a better option. I find the FML-4 quite good at low mag. But from 6-7x and up, the ring gets crazy big. It's not translucent like on some lpvo and it takes a lot of place in the field of view. Also, there's no marks before 2 mils. The inside of the ring is 1 mil, the outside 1½. That's not very hepful for wind holds. If I have to dial, or aim at a "random" spot upwind, I can do that with a sfp. In my view, the ring should be translucent and the .2 marks should extend all the way toward center.
If March eventually makes a new ffp reticle for it with .2 marks from center, I would send it for a replacement. .2 marks are very usable at 15x.
That said, the way I use it, mostly at 8-10x, I would have been better with the sfp 30mm version. The ffp gives me nothing more on that scope. I think I was too much attracted by the turrets and the 34mm tube.
.5 marks are still usable for wind holds, so the new dual is still a very good option I think, if you like trees.
Mechanically, the scope seems to be near perfect. The turrets are very good. The way they lock is just perfect, even if I pretty much never lock them
Something to note, on MY scope, there's a bit of image jump when changing direction in magnification adjustment. It's not uncommon and dosen't bother me at all. I know some people would not tolerate it, but really it's small and has no impact on usability.
The big pros are still the size and weight of this scope, and its apparent robustness.
If you ask me if I would buy it again, here's my answer :
No, I would buy the 30mm sfp version.
Hope it helps.
Last edited:
