Rifle Scopes March 5-42 Gen 2 PRS Edition

Thanks for the feedback on the scope, this is an example of not everyone’s eyes are the same and glass is such a personal experience. Some other prs guys have said the zco seems saturated and “brighter” as you describe but the march on overall clarity was better in his opinion and thought the glass in the March was more of a natural tone.

One zco owner said “the zco seems like a Samsung tv which is very bright and pops but then went on to say the march is far more natural in tone and overall clarity was better”

Good to hear different perspectives, the reality is the theta, zco, and March are tier 1 glass for a reason.
Yeah more of a natural tone is a good way to put it.
When it came to mirage I actually feel the gen2 was better than the zco, the brightness almost accentuated the distortion if that makes sense.
Low light is where the zco is slightly better, but it's negligible.
 
Yeah more of a natural tone is a good way to put it.
When it came to mirage I actually feel the gen2 was better than the zco, the brightness almost accentuated the distortion if that makes sense.
Low light is where the zco is slightly better, but it's negligible.
we have heard from shooters over and over already that the March absolutely does better handling mirage than other optics do. I heard no less than 4 times this past weekend about stages at twisted barrel match that guys couldn’t make out targets clearly that the March could the mirage was so rough. Difficult to put into words but it really does look and feel like a set of Swaro Binos with how you can see the mirage but it doesn’t wash the image out.

The march also handles direct sunlight much better than others in the market, not that we try to shoot into direct sunlight but it does happen in competition sometimes.
 
The writable turrets are another step above the already excellent Shuriken. The locking mechanism has been removed, and the feel has been further improved.
They removed the locking mechanism? But that was where Shuriken got its name - as the locking mechanism looks like a Ninja star. I think March has one of the best locking mechanism's on the market with the Shuriken lock turrets as you can turn the lock on or leave it off to operate like a regular (non-locking turret) and not deal with the silly pull up/push down locking turrets that tend to slip in/out by accident.
 
They removed the locking mechanism? But that was where Shuriken got its name - as the locking mechanism looks like a Ninja star. I think March has one of the best locking mechanism's on the market with the Shuriken lock turrets as you can turn the lock on or leave it off to operate like a regular (non-locking turret) and not deal with the silly pull up/push down locking turrets that tend to slip in/out by accident.
Check the video on the prior page. The turret itself is the prior 0-set version.
 
we have heard from shooters over and over already that the March absolutely does better handling mirage than other optics do.
I have tested multiple high-end optics in multiple mirage situations from Colorado mountains to Eastern pits of despair and I can tell you that March does an excellent job with mirage with their High Master FFP scopes; however, "better" is relative as TT and ZCO et al are phenomenal at handling mirage, I could "see" no distinct advantage to March HM glass vs. the top end glass from others while testing 1000 yards and further. I'm just giving you my experience with multiple scopes in multiple situations.
The march also handles direct sunlight much better than others in the market, not that we try to shoot into direct sunlight but it does happen in competition sometimes.
I would agree on this front, whatever anti-halation (flare for you plebes) pixie dust March is using works and works well, using both the 4.5-28 and the 5-42 Gen2 I could not find any situation where flare became an issue that would obscure my ability to accurately identify a target. The TT, to be honest, is one of the worst in this regard which makes me think the reason they include an ARD with all their scopes is to help control flare in daylight situations.
 
Check the video on the prior page. The turret itself is the prior 0-set version.
Actually, it looks pretty different from the previous March 0-set turrets, I'm thinking like Denys said this is a new design altogether...
1753129429196.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: Denys
I received mine a week or so ago, have had it at the range 3 times. It does control mirage very well, as good when comparing back and forth with my TT 735. The tangent has a lil more contrast, sharpness. The larger FOV of the march is great. Eyebox is forgiving for the larger erector value. Solid scope for the price!
 
Actually, it looks pretty different from the previous March 0-set turrets, I'm thinking like Denys said this is a new design altogether...
View attachment 8731943
The Writable turret is an offshoot of the Shuriken turret. It started as the Shuriken and after removing the locking mechanism, it was further tuned for the discerning PRS shooters who live and die by the turret feel. (So to speak.) It is indeed the bestest turret I've ever tested. They also replaced the face with the erasable surface and minimized the writing and so on. Elegant, simple and superb.
 
They removed the locking mechanism? But that was where Shuriken got its name - as the locking mechanism looks like a Ninja star. I think March has one of the best locking mechanism's on the market with the Shuriken lock turrets as you can turn the lock on or leave it off to operate like a regular (non-locking turret) and not deal with the silly pull up/push down locking turrets that tend to slip in/out by accident.
While the shuriken locking is awesome on the prs model we did remove the locking mechanism entirely (turret is still the same internally) simply because it’s one more thing the prs shooter doesn’t use or need. The running joke in prs is there are two types of prs shooters who use locks in turrets, the new guys who don’t know better and the veterans who have locking turrets that locked them by mistake. It’s a good way to hear “shooter got you for a 9 out of ten” because you opps’ed the turret lock.
 
You scrub! Etc.






Just kidding!

I remember you talking about eyebox a few years ago and you said it isn’t a simple thing to explain, technically. A bit of voodoo to me.


This is what guys need to take to heart. They don’t realize doing so also hurts themselves.


Haven't participated in a long time because a couple of head injuries and the resulting inflammation in the back of my left eye have retired me from shooting (Doc says my shooting days are over, "you're shooting cameras from now on").

Watching this thread; seems like some guys aren't getting enough booze, and sex, in a hot jacuzzi (along w/a long massage), that stops arguing/fussin/fighting when nothing else does.


"Voodoo" is right, always wondered at how what happens at the back end of a scope w/eye placement ended up being called the "eyebox". Yes, Yes, folks are used to that, can understand the "eye" part, but don't know how the "box" part got in?

When the center optical axis of the optic/scope and the center optical axis of your eyeball are in exact alignment (at the right distance)/ those two separate lines become one line, you see what you're supposed to see at the back of the scope.

How the back end of the scope is constructed makes a difference in how the image looks but not in terms of how your eye is lined up to the back of the scope. You're trying to hold the rifle/scope up to your eye as steady as you can, but there is going to be movement, that movement is separating (ever so slightly) the center optical axis line of the scope from the center optical axis line of your eyeball.

When those 2 axis lines diverge/separate into 2 lines, that movement makes the image "dance around" as you adjust to re-align the two separate axis lines merging them back into one line. The two lines merge into one line, then they break into 2 lines, and "on and on", which is the dance.

The dancing around that seems to be happening inside the scope is an illusion.

There is no "eyebox" dynamic taking place inside the scope, the only thing you can see at the back of the scope is the light/illumination coming from the front objective, so what you're seeing is a process taking place outside the scope involving the dance between the back of the scope and your eyeball.

I always thought some catchy reference to the optical axis lines of both the eye and scope aligning/merging/separating/moving around in relation to each other would take the "voodoo" out of it.

Everybody is used to "eyebox", and that's NOT going to change, I get that.

BTW: If you were looking through an empty tube, you could see the light at the other end of the tube, along w/some darkness along the inside walls of the tube, but that isn't the case w/a scope which is full of glass which is projecting an image so when the image dances around in the middle of a "sea of blackness" (from your eye being the incorrect distance from the back of the scope) what is creating that illusion is taking place outside the scope.


When you're at the incorrect distance and adjusting your eye to the rear of the scope, the image of the front objective which is a small spot of light will get larger out of the sea of blackness until it fills the rear of the scope.
 
Last edited: