This is great news that you'll be carrying these. I can personally vouch for Jake, he is a fantastic Hide dealer.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes March 1.5-15x42 inquiry
- Thread starter RHutch
- Start date
I hear that; the March scopes are not cheap, and you get to wait for the one you order, but when it shows up...
This is the toughest thing about getting a top tier scope. I'm a retired/"gotta pick my spots" buyer.
Different when I was full time, and as to photography, there wasn't a camera I was interested in that I couldn't get my hands on locally to familiarize myself with.
My first top tier scope was the March HM 4.5-28X52, and of course go back close to 3 years, I didn't know what I didn't know, and what I know now.
It's tough to get a "hands on" preview" of any of these top tier scopes.
What doesn't help when you first show up in the scope world, is not knowing who knows what they talking about vs the troll who blurts out "it's crap", about a scope he doesn't own w/o a "scintilla" of data to support his claim.
Fast forward to me driving home w/the March and every stoplight I look down at the unopened box, a "little devil" sitting on my left shoulder is whispering in my ear, "what have you done".
A "little angel" sitting on my right shoulder is whispering in the other ear, "wait 'til you get home dude, you'll open that box, and it'll be wonderful!!.
It was.
Appreciating the "little jewel" I've already got, I've got a feeling the 1.5-15X42 is gonna be the same kind of wonderful.
Different when I was full time, and as to photography, there wasn't a camera I was interested in that I couldn't get my hands on locally to familiarize myself with.
My first top tier scope was the March HM 4.5-28X52, and of course go back close to 3 years, I didn't know what I didn't know, and what I know now.
It's tough to get a "hands on" preview" of any of these top tier scopes.
What doesn't help when you first show up in the scope world, is not knowing who knows what they talking about vs the troll who blurts out "it's crap", about a scope he doesn't own w/o a "scintilla" of data to support his claim.
Fast forward to me driving home w/the March and every stoplight I look down at the unopened box, a "little devil" sitting on my left shoulder is whispering in my ear, "what have you done".
A "little angel" sitting on my right shoulder is whispering in the other ear, "wait 'til you get home dude, you'll open that box, and it'll be wonderful!!.
It was.
Appreciating the "little jewel" I've already got, I've got a feeling the 1.5-15X42 is gonna be the same kind of wonderful.
Last edited:
It is for the poors or for all of those that would want to buy multiple.
Any pretty decent to good scope in this game is $2K plus.
I really love the 1-10 DR shorty and the 4-28HM. This looks like the middle child of those two and it’s gonna cost me. I need something for an SR25 so…..
There is a FFP version and a Dual Focal Plane version. Each has 1 reticle. One has a Xmas tree and one does not.
Just for clarification the dual focal plane reticle has the center dot and main crosshairs in SFP while the hash marks and tree are in FFP. For illumination only the center dot lights up and on the 1-10 it was daylight bright, not nearly as bright as the Vortex G3 1-10 nuclear bright but sufficient for most I would imagine. I would assume the 1.5-15 would use the same illumination module.
Like with the tree reticle on the shorty, it is really great they are listening to customers and I will definitely be getting at least one. I too have been looking for a better match for my SR25 as I found the S&B US 3-20 not all that short, but I really wanted to retain the low end. This new scope seems like the perfect match and I can confirm the dual reticle shorty is plenty bright in bright sunlight and a light background.
To me, this seems as the absolute Holy Grail of optics, for my use at least.
Maybe it’s time to retire my Premier 3-15.
Maybe it’s time to retire my Premier 3-15.
How do you improve? On paper, there won't be much room it looks like, especially considering its highly likely ZCO comes in heavier regardless. I think a 2-16 from ZCO ultimately should be able to have better glass with only an 8x erector. Even a 6x erector at 2.5-15 doesn't change my feeling about the feature set if the glass is outstanding. Multiple reticle options would always be a good thing. I still think you can get away with 30mm tube also, but YMMV. I hope this March scope sells out everywhere and fast, maybe then other optic companies will get on board with what we have all been screaming for years. There is no reason your LOW companies can't push out this feature set (with FFP) at 2/3rds the cost. The problem is, everyone misses SOMETHING, almost purposefully its seems sometimes. This is what happens when you listen to consumers and check all the boxes.
My point was the ZCO thread has been post after post about the need for a 2-16x scope. If you look at this 1.5-15x March, it checks every box that people having been asking to see in a scope. It’s as if someone from March has been following that thread and produced the absolute bee’s knees scope for hunters and the “AR10” crowd. I have tried several scopes on my 375 WSM and end up switching scopes depending on the hunt. Moose hunting gets my 5-20 S&B and dangerous game hunting gets a 2.5-10 S&B (SFP). I’m a big fan of European glass (have a few dozen S&B scopes, old school Premier, ZCO, and TT), and this will be my first Japanese glass. Bought a Nightforce a few years ago, but sold it to a friend before I ever used it. The 375 WSM will definitely wear one of these scopes for my fall trip to Africa! Lion, leopard, rhino and hippo!! Will likely put one on my ultralight 7 SAUM and a few of my ARs for thermal scopes. I don’t know if ZCO or anyone else will be able to top the scope, but sure hopes someone tries. It’ll be good for the industry.
It’s a beast. 20” barrel. Built by Jon Beanland. My cape buffalo made it about 30 feet and fell over. Moose, eland and most everything else dropped where they were. Even went completely through a water buffalo at 250 yards.
No, I understood your point exactly. I think there is some confusion in how my post read. When I said "How do you improve?" I wasn't asking you. That should be read in a self-pondering tone. I was basically having a discussion inside my head, which happens often.
Looks like the kids are going to Cincinnati for spring break this year…..
I am genuinely excited about this. Now march... please please please change your 1-10 to a 34mm body so I can use different mounting options... I'm so deep onto the badger eco system my wallet would never forgive me if I changed to something else
Why don't you go to the March website and tell them exactly that? They seem to listen to real people. You are a real people, are you not?
I'm confused. Badger makes 30mm mounts.
I also have have yet to need the added adjustment 34mm provides on a LPVO. Id rather save the weight.
And the March is 33 up front and 30 on the rest of the body, so the badger still won't work.
And a 30mm tube doesn't guarantee weight savings. The leupold mk6 1-6 was around 17oz and released over 10 years ago. I think a 10x erector would benefit from the 34mm tube, which is ironically what the 1.5-15 in ffp and dfp are offered in.
Doh! Thats right on their weird 1-10.
30mm will always be lighter with all other things equal though.
Obviously I haven't seen the scope so this post is purely thoretical and should likely just be ignored.
The downsides of this March scope vs a 6x/7x/8x errector will be in the optical forumular and whether or not there are some abnormalities in the March design. Even if they do managed to pull it off (which they very well may have) they have had to sacrifice the FOV (by going with the non WA eye piece) and the price is obviously very high on this scope.
The dual reticle in theory is the best way to make a scope that is visible on 1.5x yet not stupid thick on 15x but looking at the reticle subtensions the line thickness at 15x is showing .05mil and the centre dot is .075mil thick. I'm guessing that these are as thin as they can go in order to fit the fibre optic dot.
In theory a 2.5-15 scope should be easier and cheaper to produce, likely with much less chance of optical abnormalities and be able to go for a wide angle eye piece giving a wider FOV. It should be possible to go with a 30mm tube and make it a fair bit lighter allowing for the use of an offset red dot for the close range shots and still being a lighter lighter weight.
A straight FFP reticle should be possible to be useful in a 2.5-15 that ends up with a small centre aiming dot at higher magnification.
But (and this is a big problem) no one is making a 6x/7x/8x errector scope that even comes close to this March, and it seems most OEMs don't even offer base models that would fit this role.
In therory I think a 2.5-15 with offsert red dot could be lighter, cheaper and arguably better, but as nothing like this exists so it really is a moot point.
The only real downside to the Match is the price, this being to only real barrier to entry for most consumers.
The dual reticle could probably be improved and the 25 degre eye peice would be amazing but really this March will probably be the only option in this part of the market for a very long time.
It seems unlikely anyone else will be making a scope that is this short and have such a wider FOV at the low end that it seems likely the NV/thermal guys (who already have money to spare) will love this March and it'll find a lot of love across the board.
The tr1-h reticle in this ffp scope would’ve been a nice option also.
Yup, I think you nailed it. Only thing I'll say is who needs FOV with such mag range?
For me its not so much the actual FOV that you physically see, it's more about the perceived FOV, the low magnification of this scope is obviously more than adequate.Yup, I think you nailed it. Only thing I'll say is who needs FOV with such mag range?
I really dislike scopes that give the feeling of looking through a cardboard tube vs the heads up display feeling of other scopes.
I'm not implying the March non-WA eye piece is like a cardboard tube but my dream MVPO would have a 24°+ eye piece.
Here is the depost/pre-order. Please read the terms. I will be ordering this when available in January. They will have a $250 dollar deposit fully refundable UNTIL Jan 1, 2023. Any cancelation after Jan 1, 2023 will forfeit the deposit. Remaining balance due two weeks before delivery from March Optics. Invoice will be sent at that time and it will give guys a week to pay via CC or send a check/Money Order.
PUT YOUR SNIPERSHIDE NAME IN THE NOTES for a 5% discount. If sending a check it saves the CC fees and I'll pass on the additional 3% savings.
Thanks guys.
Jake
PUT YOUR SNIPERSHIDE NAME IN THE NOTES for a 5% discount. If sending a check it saves the CC fees and I'll pass on the additional 3% savings.
Thanks guys.
Jake
Last edited:
I’m right there with you OE. I’m skeptical of very short plus 10x erector, we’ve seen this in LPVO’s for a while now but this is a first for FFP in MPVO. I think we should temper our expectations that this scope is going to send TT and Schmidt’s to the classifieds, but the fact there’s never been anything like this before, it has the potential to really shake things up. As others have mentioned the community has been asking… crying… begging… a manufacturer to come out with something like this for so long.
When I had the second focal plane version of this, I also had a TT3-15 LRH and a 3-20US. The March wasn’t even close to the TT or US in low light situations, and I didn’t expect it to be. Thats a hard ask. It’ll be interesting to see how it does.
The TT is 3 inches longer than the March, almost a half-pound heavier and has an objective lens that's 42% larger by area. And its $1200 more. Of course, one can ask how the TT compared to the March at 1.5X or focused at 10 yards. I'm not being facetious; these two scopes are quite different, and you are very correct in saying that it's a "hard ask" for the March to have low light capability equivalent to the bigger, heavier, larger and 40% more expensive TT.
I always point out that comparing riflescopes is fraught with inconsistencies and loaded with faulty memories.
Last edited:
How is the depth of field on the SFP version? I assume most of the specs are very close between the SFP / FFP / DFP versions?
If the depth of field / parallax is forgiving to 10x this would check a ton of boxes. I wouldn’t be opposed to a ~32mm objective to help with the DOF.
Next up we need a 1280 clip on to keep up with this optic
If the depth of field / parallax is forgiving to 10x this would check a ton of boxes. I wouldn’t be opposed to a ~32mm objective to help with the DOF.
Next up we need a 1280 clip on to keep up with this optic
The comparison was between the SFP version of the March 1.5-15X42 (21 ounces from memory) and the TT 3-15X50 LRH listed at 27 ounces. Difference is 6 ounces, close to half-pound.
The FFP version of the upcoming March-FX 1.5-15X42 is 3 ounces heavier that the SFP version, mainly due to the thick 34mm tube. At least the SFP version is the same as the TT LRH with both having 30mm tubes.
The FFP version of the upcoming March-FX 1.5-15X42 is 3 ounces heavier that the SFP version, mainly due to the thick 34mm tube. At least the SFP version is the same as the TT LRH with both having 30mm tubes.
I'm probably the only guy hoping for this, but fingers crossed they offer the MTR-4 reticle in MOA and Dual Focal Plane. Would be perfect for the .308 shorty lightweight hunter I'm building.
Go to the March website, click on contact-us and tell them. DEON reads those messages and have shown they listen to shooters.
Sent them a message, thanks for the suggestion! I almost pulled the trigger on the SFP 1.5-15x but was holding out for FFP. Really like the dual plane concept though. MTR-4 with an illuminated SFP center circle/dot and the subtensions in FFP would in theory be as good as I could ask for.
Yeah, I'm not sure that's how it works. The MTR reticles are designed for SFP at a specific distance. The FML reticles are designed for FFP, constant relationship with the target. In a dual reticle, the SFP is a simple crosshair with illuminated dot and the FFP is a form of FML reticle. This is a very basic overview.
Last edited:
That would not work all that well. The whole idea of a dual plane reticle in march scopes is to have a fiber illuminated reticle in SFP that gives you really bright dot. All the range/hold subtensions are in the front focal plane so that they are accurate at all magnifications.
The way fiber illumination works, you can not do a reticle like MTR-4 with it. The real strength of the way March does DFP is that on low power, the FFP reticle mostly fades form view and what you have left is a nice bold #4 reticle with a bright dot.
ILya
Thanks for the insight! Clarifying question - so the problem with the MTR-4 is the circle around the center dot? If I'm understanding you correctly and they can only do an illuminated dot in the SFP the MTR-5 would be possible as a DFP reticle?
In the MTR-4 the lighted portion of the reticle is the graduated section of the horizontal line, the circle and the dot, and the graduated portion of the lower vertical line. At low zoom value, you would not even see this reticle in the FFP. As the zoom value increases the reticle will start to appear and the horizontal and vertical lines will be occluded by the statice reticle in the SFP. As you get to 10X and above you will start to see the hash marks on the horizontal and vertical lines start to emerge from the solid lines of the SPF. The circle will be occluded by the SFP center dot until high mag. The hash marks would not be making much sense. The entire lighted portion of the MTR-4 reticle will only be slightly visible after 10X or so. I'm not sure what the picture would be of the lighted circle in the FFP and illuminated dot in the SFP. Plus, you would have double the wiring in the riflescope.
I think it's better to have an FFP designed to be used in concert with the SFP rather than try to retrofit an existing SFP reticle as an FFP reticle and make it work with the other SPF reticle. Read again the last sentence from ILya's post.
I think it's better to have an FFP designed to be used in concert with the SFP rather than try to retrofit an existing SFP reticle as an FFP reticle and make it work with the other SPF reticle. Read again the last sentence from ILya's post.
This is what I asked for...
34mm tube
Under 20oz
Low profile, capped turrets
Brighter dot
Thinner stadia lines-namey the slimmer 3,6,9 o'clock being dropped from .11 mil to .075mil and the thicker posts down to .15-.2mil
Make the parallax adjustment just a tad bit slimmer and the illumination a tad bit thicker. It's easy to accidently mess with the parallax when adjusting illumination
I can dream, right?
Sorry if this was addressed, but after seeing some of the issues present in an early Nightforce 2.5-20, wouldn’t a lot of the other possible optical issues be reduced with a longer scope? I love the idea of the March being so light and short, but if the setup would play better with a longer tube it seems odd not to do it.
I’m echoing others here and I’m cautiously optimistic, but the fact is this scope either changes the game a fair bit or makes a few compromises.
I’m echoing others here and I’m cautiously optimistic, but the fact is this scope either changes the game a fair bit or makes a few compromises.
All scopes are going to have trade off's. I think March has an excellent solution for those willing to make other trade offs with their 3-24x52 FFP. It's longer but just as light, Higher top and bottom end but still really a MPVO or crossover. Plus it's cheaper.
