Rifle Scopes March 3-24 FFP Impressions, Photos, Reticle Photos

maladat

Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
May 3, 2010
266
2
39
TX
Well, I got my March 3-24x42 FFP Illuminated scope yesterday and have been playing with it. As mentioned in my other posts on the subject, the rifle that this scope is going on is currently being built and I am going to send the scope on to APA in the next few days.

Some initial thoughts. The scope is SMALL. The scope is INCREDIBLY clear. I really like the wide, low-profile knobs which have very crisp, audible clicks that are firm enough I'm not worried about them getting bumped off but also aren't a pain to twist. The lines line up perfectly with the index line on the scope body every time. The build quality looks excellent. The illumination is pushbutton and with the bright illumination module ranges from dim enough to use at night on bright nights to bright enough to show up against dark backgrounds on a sunny day. It does wash out against bright objects or the sky, but the reticle is pretty bold so that isn't a problem. The reticle is VERY similar to the IOR MP-8 A5 found on the 3.5-18x50, except even mills are numbered, the wide bars outside the main reticle area are tapered and the main reticle extends 4 mils up and to the sides, is interrupted for 1 mil, then has 1 mil of very fine .2 mil hashes for ranging or measuring. The reticle is usable even down to the .5 mil hashes on 3x (although on 3x you have to slow down and look a bit to use the .5 mil hashes - it's easier at 5x and above). I think they struck a perfect balance on the reticle for an FFP scope with this wide a magnification range. The mag ring has a little lever on it to help it turn and the 3x-24x range is accomplished in a little less than a half turn of the ring. The objective does not turn. The objective does turn to adjust diopter and has a locking ring.

Note that in the photos, the erector housing is resting on one of the lens covers, it doesn't have a huge growth on the bottom.

march_right.jpg


march_left.jpg


march_turrets.jpg


march_ocular.jpg


march_ocular2.jpg


Logo on the side of objective bell:
march_logo.jpg


Reticle pics next. The 24x pic is pretty dark because I had to underexpose a lot to keep glare from around the scope from washing out the photo. The scope is bright and clear and illumination visible on 24x. The 12x photo is closest to the actual illumination quality on the highest setting. The background and reticle are clear across the entire field of view, the blurriness at the edges is entirely due to my photography. All photos are of plants and a wood picket fence approx. 10-15 yards away in my back yard.

3x (reticle taper is accurate despite photo fuzziness):
march_3x_ill.jpg


12x:
march_12x_ill.jpg


24x (note the interruption from 4 mils to 5 mils on the sides and top of the reticle and the fine .2 mil hashes from 5 mils to 6 mils. Also note that as mentioned above the photo is dark because I had to purposely underexpose the photo to keep light outside the scope from washing out the photo - I need some kind of shroud or something):
march_24x_ill.jpg


 
Re: March 3-24 FFP Impressions, Photos, Reticle Photos

Non-illuminated is $2230, illuminated is $2850. In the US they are only available from Kelbly's.
 
Re: March 3-24 FFP Impressions, Photos, Reticle Photos

I have both illumination modules - the "module" is just the battery cover (which has the switch built into it) and is easy to switch. All the photos were taken with the bright module on the highest setting. The 24x photo is not representative of the illumination brightness because of intentional underexposure.
 
Re: March 3-24 FFP Impressions, Photos, Reticle Photos

Well I just got mine. Man this thing is light compared to my S&Bs, IORs and NF. Very compact scope. I don't have the rifle I am putting this scope on so, it's not mounted yet. I can't wait now for the rifle I have on order shows up.

The main reason for wanting to try this scope out is I like the MP8 reticle and the FML-1 is same. I would say not as thick as the IOR MP8. Once, I get the rifle I will mount it and take some picks.
 
Re: March 3-24 FFP Impressions, Photos, Reticle Photos

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: glock24</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Very nice.

What was the final dimension of the center dot?

Thanks</div></div>

.1 mil
 
Re: March 3-24 FFP Impressions, Photos, Reticle Photos

Received my two yesterday, will take one out for a test this weekend.

First impressions as previously mentioned, the scope size is a surprise.
Very compact.
Crisp, clear, firm clicks.
Build feels solid.
The clarity is amazing. See how we go once setup on the rifle and in low light.

Will saddle it up next to my Hensoldt and Vortex HD, but first impressions have me excited.
 
Re: March 3-24 FFP Impressions, Photos, Reticle Photos

Tried shooting any really small targets with that reticle? I know that .1 mil sounds small, but can appear large when lined up on a tarter, which is why I ask. The reticle is only .05 mil thick in my Helsoldt, but still seems like it covers most of a one inch dot at 100 yards. .05 mil should only be 1/7 of an inch or so, but seems like it covers more than that. Which is why I ask how the .1 mil aiming point works.

Thanks for your time,

-Bob
 
Re: March 3-24 FFP Impressions, Photos, Reticle Photos

Jon, I follow you, it is the same as the way a 10" square is bigger than a 10" circle. Easy to picture if you put the circle on the square.

But it doesn't change the fact that a .1 mil circle is still bigger than a .05 mil cross, and hence, my question about the small targets remains.
 
Re: March 3-24 FFP Impressions, Photos, Reticle Photos

I am just following ya'lls conversation for fun.

Reduce magnification of said .1 mil circle to fit just inside the diameter of target.

Whatcha think?
 
Re: March 3-24 FFP Impressions, Photos, Reticle Photos

I had an IOR w/the MP8 and it was a neat reticle. The only problem w/the IOR scope and the funky housing (Sniper's Hide Ed).

This scope looks great.
 
Re: March 3-24 FFP Impressions, Photos, Reticle Photos

This review is worthless unless you blow it up with tannerite! K, not really.

Makes me wonder why March isn't sold at more retailers? Perhaps they should team with Premier and learn some marketing techniques (snicker). This scope looks VERY nice. A super compact scope with an insane range of magnification...drool.
 
Re: March 3-24 FFP Impressions, Photos, Reticle Ph

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Cuban Croc</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am just following ya'lls conversation for fun.

Reduce magnification of said .1 mil circle to fit just inside the diameter of target.

Whatcha think?
</div></div>I take it you don't know what "front focal plane" means?
 
Re: March 3-24 FFP Impressions, Photos, Reticle Photos

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bm11</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="color: #3366FF">Tried shooting any really small targets with that reticle?</span> I know that .1 mil sounds small, but can appear large when lined up on a tarter, which is why I ask. The reticle is only .05 mil thick in my Helsoldt, but still seems like it covers most of a one inch dot at 100 yards. .05 mil should only be 1/7 of an inch or so, but seems like it covers more than that. Which is why I ask how the .1 mil aiming point works.

Thanks for your time,

-Bob </div></div>

Used FFP scopes for 12 years. What's the point?

I am just stating that if the mil "circle" is to big...reduce the magnification just enough...the mil "circle will get smaller and will not cover up the target.
 
Re: March 3-24 FFP Impressions, Photos, Reticle Photos

The point is, in a FFP scope, the reticle changes in apparent size at exactly the same rate as the target, so there would be no benefit to changing magnification, hence my question.
 
Re: March 3-24 FFP Impressions, Photos, Reticle Photos

No prob. Anyhow, my question still remains, for those who have used this scope- how does the reticle work on really small targets?
 
Re: March 3-24 FFP Impressions, Photos, Reticle Photos

On the subject of .1 mil dot vs .05 mil crosshair:

A 1" dot has an area of A=pi*.5"^2=.785 in^2.

At 100 yards, .1 mil on the target is .36", so it has an area of A=pi*.18"^2=.102 in^2.

Thus a .1 mil dot covers .102/.785*100=13% of the area of a 1" dot at 100 yards.

.05 mils at 100 yards is .18". The area this covers on the dot is approximately A=.18"*1"+.18"*.82"=.328in^2 (the area of the horizontal arm plus the area of the vertical arm minus the overlap). For exact numbers calculus is good: A=(4*integral from 0 to .09" of (1"-x^2)^.5dx)-.18"^2=.327in^2.

Thus a .05 mil cross hair covers .327/.785*100=42% of the area of a 1" dot at 100 yards.

A .05 mil crosshair covers more than 3x as much of the area of a 1" dot at 100 yards than a .1 mil dot does.
 
Re: March 3-24 FFP Impressions, Photos, Reticle Photos

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bm11</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No prob. Anyhow, my question still remains, for those who have used this scope- how does the reticle work on really small targets? </div></div>

I find a .1 mil dot to be just <span style="font-style: italic">slightly</span> oversize, but that's getting real picky. I like the .1 mil dot in my IOR better than anything else I've tried. If .1 mil dot covers one centimeter per 100 meters (which is smaller than a dime at 100), that equates to ~4" at 1000 meters (if my math is reasonably accurate). If shooting for groups on paper, it helps to have a bullseye slightly larger than the reticle dot.

In the end, I suppose it boils down to user preference, and how small your targets are.

With the expanded adjustment range of the March, I figure the .1 mil dot is probably as small as they wanted to go on its lowest power.
 
Re: March 3-24 FFP Impressions, Photos, Reticle Photos

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bm11</div><div class="ubbcode-body">how does the reticle work on really small targets? </div></div>
I guess it depends upon your definition of small. I've never found the .1 mil dot on the IORs too big but I don't hunt P-dogs with it either. But that's sort of what I was getting at--I've never been bothered by the dot's size, but the .1 mil thick lines do seem a bit excessive at times.

With the March's .08 lines I can't see myself having any problems with it. Thicker than needed for some things but on such a versatile scope, getting the job done for many different types of things is what's important.
 
Re: March 3-24 FFP Impressions, Photos, Reticle Photos

I just received mine recently and some quick, and completely biased observations. I have not been able to get it to the range and zero it yet, check tracking, etc.... So these are just off the cuff.

I like the reticle. But I also like the IOR MP8 and it is basically the same thing more or less. The optic is very clear and resolves well, I would say the resolution is excellent. The scope is very light, pleasingly so. The adjustments are crisp and the parallax is smooth like butter. The eye relief is OK, not great and not bad. It lacks the "pop" of a premium Euro style scope, the contrast is OK. A Hensoldt is a mile ahead in terms of the sweet spot for your eye. The Premier has better contrast and depth of field to my eyes.

To me, this is the most underwhelming great scope I have owned. I don't mean that is a negative way because it is a great scope. The compactness of the scope for what it is is remarkable. I think for an SPR this is probably the ultimate optic for the reasons stated above. That is the application I will use it for.