Rifle Scopes March 3-24 and NX8 Replacement

[treillw]

I've been out of the scope game for awhile. I currently own a nx8 4-32 ffp and a March 3-24x52 ffp.

The March was a very unique scope in weight and magnification range years ago when i purchased it. It's not the best at everything, but very versatile and I've taken multiple elk with it.

Contemplating getting a new scope for a new gun I'm dreaming up and wondering what has come out in recent years that is better than what I have.

I'm looking for something that is relatively light, has a pretty high magnification at the top end for load development, and a wide field of view on low power for hunting in timber. The reticle also needs to be visible in dark timber on low power without illumination. This is one area that the March really excels - looks like a duplex on 3x and the center dot is amazing for shooting groups on high power.

Any suggestions? Surely something better has had to come out in the past 8 years. The nx8 didn't exist when i bought the March. I like the nx8, but the March has a more versatile reticle.

Thanks!

 

[OlivierFR]

March 1.5-15x42 is pretty awesome

 

[treillw]

March 1.5-15x42 is pretty awesome

Does it have any of the same downfalls of the March 3-24x52? (Finicky parallax and some optical distortion)

 

[OlivierFR]

Yes , edge distortion under x3 and parallax at x15 is tricky but if you want trustable tracking, RTZ, robustness in a light package, there is no better option on the MPVO market…

After you can have a look to Leupold Mark (FFP) or VX (SFP).

A low cost option seems to be Athlon Helos BTR Gen2 2-12x42, may be the next for me!

Heavy option and top optical quality would be ZCO, but no longer a hunting scope apart the soon coming ZC210 2-10x30 scope, but not so light !

 

[OlivierFR]

I hunt wild boars at short distance (10 to 100m) in Provence and Chamois up to 400m in the Alps and have never been disappointed by the performance of the March: quick acquisition with good eyebox is more important than edge distortion than you don’t even notice during action

 

[javemtr]

I hunt wild boars at short distance (10 to 100m) in Provence and Chamois up to 400m in the Alps and have never been disappointed by the performance of the March: quick acquisition with good eyebox is more important than edge distortion than you don’t even notice during action

Just out of interest: which specific version of the March 1.5-15x42 are you using? FFP, SFP or dual reticle? Which turrets? Thanks!

 

[OlivierFR]

I selected the SFP FP-2 reticle shuriken lock as I prefer to keep things as simple and as light as possible - but nothing wrong with others options. Due to the size of the scope, only one Quick Detached Mount fit this scope on the market: the Tier-One QD

 

[OlivierFR]

I selected the SFP FP-2 reticle shuriken lock as I prefer to keep things as simple and as light as possible - but nothing wrong with others options. Due to the size of the scope, only one Quick Detached Mount fit this scope on the market: the Tier-One QD

Sorry, I mean without the shuriken lock...

 

[Rancid Coolaid]

The March 1.5-15 is indeed great, and if contemplating someday going thermal clip-on, it is absolute titties.

Another option is the NX8 2.5-20, is a platform you know well in a mag range closer to what you want for the new dream gun.

I own both, I run both; my priority for both guns is thermal compatibility - these are on the work-horse bolt gun and the medium-range gasser. I like both scopes as stand-alone optics (the March edges out the NX8 in almost every optical respect) but love them for thermal use.

 

[Rancid Coolaid]

"Stone age kinda guy", so prejudicial... but he's not wrong.

 

[treillw]

I wish they would come out with some better reticles for the NX8. They kind of suck for low power tasks.

 

[Secant]

It sounds like you only want a high top end magnification for load development? If so, could you just use a separate scope for load development? You'd have a lot more options available if you don't need to go from 3 or below to ~25+.

 

[Denys]

The March 3-24X52 has a more critical depth of field than the 42mm version because of the larger objective. The 3-24X42 is a favorite for hunters, but some wanted the capability to hunt longer hours, so the 52mm version was produced.

If one of your criteria is a wider field of view, the 1.5-15X42 will have the same 20° FOV as the 3-24X42/52. You might want to look at the March-FX 4.5-28X52 with the LDK reticle since that riflescope has a constant 25° FOV at all magnifications. The LDK reticle is not illuminated and it's not very busy, just a nice hunting reticle.

https://marchscopes.com/scopes/d28hv52wfmlx/

 

[treillw]

It sounds like you only want a high top end magnification for load development? If so, could you just use a separate scope for load development? You'd have a lot more options available if you don't need to go from 3 or below to ~25+.

It's always nice to have the high magnification for other things. Target ID (counting points), setting zeros, etc.

I've identified many elk herds several miles away with my 24 power march - not carrying around a spotter.

I've also seen changing scopes drastically change the tune of the rifle - I got a new rifle that wouldn't shoot. I checked everything (screws, etc, etc). Swapped the scope from my 24 oz march to my buddies 2.5 pound night force. The gun was stringing three inches vertically with my scope. Swapping to his scope, the stringing changed to a few inches horizontally. Kind of crazy, but reloading and tuning a rifle is all about harmonics, right? Changing the weight of the vibrating mass substantially has to change the way it vibrates. I can't think of anything else to attribute this to. Greater stiffening of the action maybe?? Probably a combination of both.

 

[treillw]

The March 3-24X52 has a more critical depth of field than the 42mm version because of the larger objective. The 3-24X42 is a favorite for hunters, but some wanted the capability to hunt longer hours, so the 52mm version was produced.

If one of your criteria is a wider field of view, the 1.5-15X42 will have the same 20° FOV as the 3-24X42/52. You might want to look at the March-FX 4.5-28X52 with the LDK reticle since that riflescope has a constant 25° FOV at all magnifications. The LDK reticle is not illuminated and it's not very busy, just a nice hunting reticle.

https://marchscopes.com/scopes/d28hv52wfmlx/

I don't need a wider field of view than what I already have - just saying that I don't want a 6-30 power scope that you can't see anything in the timber with it.

I'm confused - how does the FOV stay constant at 25 deg for the 4.5-28?? That seems impossible.

 

[Denys]

I don't need a wider field of view than what I already have - just saying that I don't want a 6-30 power scope that you can't see anything in the timber with it.

I'm confused - how does the FOV stay constant at 25 deg for the 4.5-28?? That seems impossible.

The idea behind a wider field of view is that the image you see in the riflescope is larger and is magnified, says at 4.5X yet you see a lot more in the eyepiece. The 25° measure is the equivalent of what it would be at 1X. Let me explain.

Your 3-24X52 has an FOV of 20°. The specs show that at 3X, the FOV at 100yards is 35ft and at 24X, it is 4.3ft. That is a constant 20° AOV, so when you zoom in and out, there's a natural progression in the FOV.

The 4.5-28X52 has an FOV of 25°. The specs show that at 4.5X, the FOV is 29.1ft at 100yards and at 28X it is 4.7ft. That is a constant 25° AOV.

You will have noticed that the 4.5-28X52 is 29ft compared to the 35ft of the other one but at 3X. You will also notice that the 4.5-28X52 has a larger FOV at 28X, than the 3-24X52 at 24X. This means that at equivalent magnifications, the 4.5-28X52 will have 25% great FOV compared to the 3-24X52. You will have a view that will be larger and magnified by the same amount.

You said that you liked a wider FOV and therefore favored lower magnification. Having a wider angle of view is one way to have your cake and eat it also. Higher magnification and same FOV, or same magnification and wider FOV.

I'm a big fan of wide-angle eyepieces. My current favorite riflescope is the March Majesta 8-80X56 and it has the wide-angle eyepiece at a constant 25°. Now some riflescopes have wide-angle eyepieces but they are not constant AOV. At low magnification their AOV is less than the AOV at higher magnification.

I hope this explains it to you without getting too technical.

 

[treillw]

The idea behind a wider field of view is that the image you see in the riflescope is larger and is magnified, says at 4.5X yet you see a lot more in the eyepiece. The 25° measure is the equivalent of what it would be at 1X. Let me explain.

Your 3-24X52 has an FOV of 20°. The specs show that at 3X, the FOV at 100yards is 35ft and at 24X, it is 4.3ft. That is a constant 20° AOV, so when you zoom in and out, there's a natural progression in the FOV.

The 4.5-28X52 has an FOV of 25°. The specs show that at 4.5X, the FOV is 29.1ft at 100yards and at 28X it is 4.7ft. That is a constant 25° AOV.

You will have noticed that the 4.5-28X52 is 29ft compared to the 35ft of the other one but at 3X. You will also notice that the 4.5-28X52 has a larger FOV at 28X, than the 3-24X52 at 24X. This means that at equivalent magnifications, the 4.5-28X52 will have 25% great FOV compared to the 3-24X52. You will have a view that will be larger and magnified by the same amount.

You said that you liked a wider FOV and therefore favored lower magnification. Having a wider angle of view is one way to have your cake and eat it also. Higher magnification and same FOV, or same magnification and wider FOV.

I'm a big fan of wide-angle eyepieces. My current favorite riflescope is the March Majesta 8-80X56 and it has the wide-angle eyepiece at a constant 25°. Now some riflescopes have wide-angle eyepieces but they are not constant AOV. At low magnification their AOV is less than the AOV at higher magnification.

I hope this explains it to you without getting too technical.

I never thought about how the angle actually works until now. Initially when I read your post, I thought you were saying that the field of view observed inside the scope was always the same at different magnifications. Misunderstood you, thanks.

I think the March scopes have the best reticles in the game. I really wish nightforce would come out with some more. I looked at the SFP 2.5-20 NX8 and the reticle on that is more useless than the FFP one for timber. There is no vertical reference line to approximate the center of the scope even.

 

[treillw]

I remember when the March F 3x24x42 was the scope of choice during the GAP 6.5 SAUM Secret Squirrel Extreme Hunter craze. I bought one for the same purpose on a 6.5 SAUM build. I've really enjoyed that scope over the last 10 years. I recently was looking for another lightweight hunting scope. I already have a few NX8's but they're 28oz. I ended up buying a 3x24x52 because it weighs 24oz and my first March F has been a great scope. When I compare hunting scopes that have the features I want (FFP, MRAD, longer range oriented reticle, zero stop, parallax) there really is a market gap. The NF NX8's are great on 12 + pound long range hunting rifles but if you're counting ounces and buying 21oz custom actions and 8oz titanium hunting suppressors it doesn't make sense to put a 28oz scope on the same rifle. The March F scopes are really the only options for a substantial scope at 22oz or 24oz. A person could even go super light for a non-long range hunting rifle and mount an 18oz 1-10.

The march was the best option I could come across roughly nine years ago. Funny that nothing much has changed.

 

[koshkin]

I never thought about how the angle actually works until now. Initially when I read your post, I thought you were saying that the field of view observed inside the scope was always the same at different magnifications. Misunderstood you, thanks.

I think the March scopes have the best reticles in the game. I really wish nightforce would come out with some more. I looked at the SFP 2.5-20 NX8 and the reticle on that is more useless than the FFP one for timber. There is no vertical reference line to approximate the center of the scope even.

This should explain the concept of AFOV: apparent field of view.

 

[BurtG]

Another option is the NX8 2.5-20, is a platform you know well in a mag range closer to what you want for the new dream gun.

I own both, I run both; my priority for both guns is thermal compatibility - these are on the work-horse bolt gun and the medium-range gasser. I like both scopes as stand-alone optics (the March edges out the NX8 in almost every optical respect) but love them for thermal use.

Me too on the 2.5-20s

Vortex 1-10s are also my go to.

Zco420 if weight and close shots don’t matter.

 

[D_TROS]

i dont think there is a better scope out there than the ZCO 4-20 for all around


GL
DT

 

[Glassaholic]

The new Schmidt FFP Meta 3-18x42 might shake some things up a bit if Schmidt wises up and adjusts the price to something more reasonable. The March 3-24 was definitely a game changer in many areas, especially in weight, at about 24oz there was just not much that was close (still not), I tend to think of the 3-24 as an excellent 3-18 design and really good 3-20 design but above 20x I am not thrilled with IQ and finicky nature. The March 4.5-28x52 solves a lot of that, but if it was a 3.2-20x52 I think it would be a lot more useful for crossover and gas gun use, that said the wide FOV is very beneficial and the IQ even up to 28 is really good but the limited exit pupil does cause it to struggle some in low light; however, the excellent micro contrast kind of makes up for it YMMV.

Your comment here

The reticle also needs to be visible in dark timber on low power without illumination.

is what changes the conversation for so many options. There have been some great scopes introduced but the reticle designs have been seriously lacking.

So here are the what ifs

• What if NF offered the FC-DMx reticle in the NX8 2.5-20
• What if Vortex offered the EBR-9 MRAD reticle in the 4.5-22x50
• What if March made a 3.2-20x52 or even 56mm with FML-TR1H reticle without limiting the exit pupil
• What if Schmidt brought a new scope to market that was less that $5k
• What if Tangent Theta made a Gen 4XR reticle that was usable at 3x on the TT315M (what if TT brought out a TT318M with 10 mil turrets and usable crossover reticle)
• What if Steiner had a usable reticle at 3x for their 3-18x56
• What if Bushnell brought back the LRHSi with G2H reticles
• What if Leupold made a usable reticle and didn't charge the price of a used car for their illumination in their 3.6-18x44 (what if Leupold refreshed the Mark6HD line with better glass/optical formula and 34mm tubes).

I could go on, but I think you get the point, there are a lot of great scopes that could work if there were some tweaks, mostly to just the reticle...

If you want the absolute best in IQ then the TT315M 3-15x50 is hard to beat, if you don't mind the weight penalty the ZCO 4-20x50 with MPCT1x is very close, if you can live with 4.5x on the bottom (with FOV better than many 4x scopes) the March 4.5-28x52 is fantastic, if the reticles work for you and you want very forgiving eyebox and low light capability the Steiner 3-18x56 is really impressive even though it's a bit on the heavy side.

Outside of that, sounds like you have two really good scopes that you really like...