March optics questions

[TheRedPill]

Hi all. Last optics I purchased were probably around 2008-2010. Currently looking for something a little lighter than 30oz for a tactical type optic. Will not be hunting, only being used for precision type shooting. Something in the 3-4 x 12-16 x 42-44obj , maybe go up to 50mm obj range would be nice and would also like illumination. Just looking for something a little more compact/lighter and say under $2500.
I came across March F optics 3x24x42 at 22.5oz which would seem to fit the bill. I tried doing my research. Youtube has limited info and a lot of videos are from back in 2017 and not a lot of recent articles/postings about them. From what I can gather they seem to be good low ED glass, solid billet tubes not extruded, etc. The negatives include bad eyebox and really finicky parallax. If I am correct, the bad eyebox is due to the 10x magnification; the higher the magnification in a small optic, the worse the eyebox is, correct? It also seems like this March F optic has been around a long time. Not sure if they updated anything over the years in them.
Other options I was looking at would be the Leupold Mark 5HD 3.6x18x44 and NF ATACR 4x16x42, both of which are heavier.
Thoughts, suggestions, etc on the March F series. GTG, Avoid, look elsewhere???

 

[GoingTheDistance]

I purchased that same scope 8 years ago and am running it on a heavy barreled AR varmint, soon to be moving it to the Desert Tech. The eyebox is a little tight but I don't have a problem with it. I got one of those large focus wheels (years later) and it really helps.

 

[TheRedPill]

I purchased that same scope 8 years ago and am running it on a heavy barreled AR varmint, soon to be moving it to the Desert Tech. The eyebox is a little tight but I don't have a problem with it. I got one of those large focus wheels (years later) and it really helps.

--Do you have issues with the parallax? Can you compare this to any other optics? The only other thing I heard about this is the tracking issue when they used 6400 as the standard but I think that was changed and fixed. Not sure exactly when that was done.

 

[koshkin]

The click spacing was changed quite a long time ago.

I have a 3-24x52 and used to have a 3-24x42. The 52mm version is only slightly heavier and I like it a bit more. The eyebox is slightly tighter and that is the penalty for light weight, to be honest.

If you want a scope that is a little easier to get behind, but is still reasonably light weight, March has a new 4.5-28x52 that is a little heavier at around 30 ounces, but still compact and easy to get behind.

I am planning to keep the 3-24x52 on an accurate semi-auto, but I will likely also get the 4.5-28x52 for a different gun (a bolt gun).

ILya

 

[TheRedPill]

The click spacing was changed quite a long time ago.

I have a 3-24x52 and used to have a 3-24x42. The 52mm version is only slightly heavier and I like it a bit more. The eyebox is slightly tighter and that is the penalty for light weight, to be honest.

If you want a scope that is a little easier to get behind, but is still reasonably light weight, March has a new 4.5-28x52 that is a little heavier at around 30 ounces, but still compact and easy to get behind.

I am planning to keep the 3-24x52 on an accurate semi-auto, but I will likely also get the 4.5-28x52 for a different gun (a bolt gun).

ILya

I'm planning on using on an accurate ar15 which is why I was curious about the 42mm version. If I was to go to 30oz, I would probably just settle for the ATACR. I just got done watching your video on the Mark5HD, if that was you hatin' on your air conditioner. LOL.

 

[koshkin]

I'm planning on using on an accurate ar15 which is why I was curious about the 42mm version. If I was to go to 30oz, I would probably just settle for the ATACR. I just got done watching your video on the Mark5HD, if that was you hatin' on your air conditioner. LOL.

That's an old video. I have a different house and different AC and I am just as skeptical about both...

ILya

 

[GoingTheDistance]

--Do you have issues with the parallax? Can you compare this to any other optics? The only other thing I heard about this is the tracking issue when they used 6400 as the standard but I think that was changed and fixed. Not sure exactly when that was done.

I didn't have any issues with the parallax, but the large focus wheel lets me fine tune it. Also this is the most expensive scope I own so I can't really compare it to much...

 

[TheRedPill]

That's an old video. I have a different house and different AC and I am just as skeptical about both...

ILya

I guess what I'm really asking is the March 3x24x42 a good enough optic to put on a precision semi auto or would I be better off getting something else, like the Leupold MK5 or maybe something I haven't thought of. I only ever plan on shooting out to 300 yards or so but maybe max 500 if I ever find a range that distance.
I found this online at optics planet:
If you shoot in low light condition we recommend 3-24x52, which takes in more light and has a greater resolving power. The depth of focus will be shallower than the 3-24x42, we recommend that you attach a MD disk if you wish to increase the depth of focus. If you only shoot during the day, 3-24x42 is a perfect compact scope with a deeper depth of focus.

 

[Hairy Biker]

I have both. I use the March 3x24x42 on a very accurate bolt gun out to 600m with no problems. For 300, it is a no brainer. I would reinforce GoingTheDistance and get a focus wheel.

I'd flip the eye box talk on its head, what the March does, and the 28x really does, is tell you when your body position is wrong. Cheek weld and head position matter in precision shooting and removing variables is what makes a difference.

All the other issues you raise were dealt with years ago.

 

[Glassaholic]

I guess what I'm really asking is the March 3x24x42 a good enough optic to put on a precision semi auto or would I be better off getting something else, like the Leupold MK5 or maybe something I haven't thought of. I only ever plan on shooting out to 300 yards or so but maybe max 500 if I ever find a range that distance.
I found this online at optics planet:
If you shoot in low light condition we recommend 3-24x52, which takes in more light and has a greater resolving power. The depth of focus will be shallower than the 3-24x42, we recommend that you attach a MD disk if you wish to increase the depth of focus. If you only shoot during the day, 3-24x42 is a perfect compact scope with a deeper depth of focus.

I've had both the 3-24x42 and 3-24x52 and I agree with ILya that I prefer the 52mm a bit better. For me personally, I think these scopes perform best under 20x as there is some image degradation above 20x, that being said, for long range my scopes generally sit around 15-20x anyway (due to atmospherics). March makes surprisingly good scopes within their design parameters, meaning that few scopes with such high FFP erectors can compete. I think the 3-24 makes for a very compelling lightweight and short 3-20 option for a gas gun.

 

[koshkin]

I guess what I'm really asking is the March 3x24x42 a good enough optic to put on a precision semi auto or would I be better off getting something else, like the Leupold MK5 or maybe something I haven't thought of. I only ever plan on shooting out to 300 yards or so but maybe max 500 if I ever find a range that distance.
I found this online at optics planet:
If you shoot in low light condition we recommend 3-24x52, which takes in more light and has a greater resolving power. The depth of focus will be shallower than the 3-24x42, we recommend that you attach a MD disk if you wish to increase the depth of focus. If you only shoot during the day, 3-24x42 is a perfect compact scope with a deeper depth of focus.

If you are looking for a light weight scope with high erector ratio, March is the best currently available and is most certainly good enough for a precision semi-auto.

With smallish objective, the exit pupil on higher magnifications gets pretty small, so if you plan to use it on 20x or more most of the time, get something with larger objectives.

The way I used mine when I had it was more like an excellent 3-15x that also has higher magnifications available when the conditions allow for it (decent light, steady shooting position, etc).

I eventually sold it, largely because I wanted a different reticle, and when I got another one I stepped up to the 52mm model since on an AR, it makes no difference for mounting height and and the weight is only marginally higher.

ILya

 

[TheRedPill]

I know that optics planet and euro optic carries these March scopes. What I was concerned with is how long have they been sitting on the shelves and what are the chances of getting an old one that had the tracking issue with the 6400. Probably slim to none, but still crossed my mind.
In all honesty I really can't make up my mind between the ATACR 4x16x42 and the March F 3x24x42/52 Both are around the same cost, NF may have the upper edge on some of the features, but March is 8oz lighter.

 

[Glassaholic]

I know that optics planet and euro optic carries these March scopes. What I was concerned with is how long have they been sitting on the shelves and what are the chances of getting an old one that had the tracking issue with the 6400. Probably slim to none, but still crossed my mind.
In all honesty I really can't make up my mind between the ATACR 4x16x42 and the March F 3x24x42/52 Both are around the same cost, NF may have the upper edge on some of the features, but March is 8oz lighter.

The likelihood of a March 3-24 with the 6400 issue still being on a store shelf should be at about zero, this was years ago and March is a pretty popular brand, no one wants to have inventory sitting around for years so those scopes should be long gone (and even if you bought used March will take care of you and fix that with a turret upgrade). The ATACR 4-16 is a great scope, no doubt about that, but a very different design from the March 3-24. Do you want wider FOV (offered by lower magnification) and do you want the benefit of using higher magnification in some situations then the March is going to offer you those options where the ATACR does not. I would choose the ATACR for reticle and more forgiving eyebox, outside of that the March has the benefits you've already mentioned.

 

[ohiofarmer]

The 6400 issue was way back - when Kelbly's was handling them.

 

[TheRedPill]

I would say I would most likely be using this at a higher magnification most of the time (old eyes). it will be on an AR15 where cheek weld is not always optimal, since I won't be running a PRS stock, a better eyebox would be preferred just incase.
I did have a NXS 3x15 a while ago and mostly ran that at 15x. I do have a leupold mark 4, 3.5x10x40 currently and run that at 10x.
I guess I really don't need a wide fov for punching paper on static targets. I will NOT be running and gunning with this.
So with that in mind, is the ATACR better suited???

 

[Glassaholic]

I would say I would most likely be using this at a higher magnification most of the time (old eyes). it will be on an AR15 where cheek weld is not always optimal, since I won't be running a PRS stock, a better eyebox would be preferred just incase.
I did have a NXS 3x15 a while ago and mostly ran that at 15x. I do have a 3x10 currently and run that at 10x.
I guess I really don't need a wide fov for punching paper on static targets. I will NOT be running and gunning with this.
So with that in mind, is the ATACR better suited???

I have "old" eyes too but I would not say higher magnification helps, what helps is optical quality and better clarity. How would the ATACR perform at 16x and how would the March perform at 16x I could not tell you, but in general I would say March glass is very comparable to ATACR glass, with the new High Master scopes from March being a step above in my experience. The biggest difference between the two is going to be eyebox and parallax forgiveness. If you are always shooting at known distances from a bench I doubt the March is going to be a hindrance, it's the "running and gunning" situations where I think the ATACR is going to have the advantage. These are my personal opinions so take them with a grain of salt. In the end, you are not going to go wrong with either scope.

 

[TheRedPill]

I might have to take a drive to euro optic. I'm about 3hrs away. My buddy will be looking for an optic as well but he just likes the NF brand and won't bother looking at anything else. He also just wants max magnification so he is thinking a NX8 in 4x32x50. He is between me and euro optic so a drive may be in the cards for us.

Going to be a tough decision for me though. The occasional extra magnification of 24x in the March may be nice to have. I also see that scopelist has a 15 day return policy as long as they are not mounted.

 

[Glassaholic]

I might have to take a drive to euro optic. I'm about 3hrs away. My buddy will be looking for an optic as well but he just likes the NF brand and won't bother looking at anything else. He also just wants max magnification so he is thinking a NX8 in 4x32x50. He is between me and euro optic so a drive may be in the cards for us.

Going to be a tough decision for me though. The occasional extra magnification of 24x in the March may be nice to have. I also see that scopelist has a 15 day return policy as long as they are not mounted.

Eurooptic has the same policy for return if not mounted.

Your buddy is shortsighted, tell him to join the Hide and we'll "open his eyes" Not saying NF is bad (they are usually quite good) but too many people think NF are the end all be all of rifle scopes when there are many options just as good and even better. I'm a believer of being well informed and making decisions based on gathering all the information I can, if a NF stands out among the rest for what I'm looking for I have no issue going that route, but to date I have not found a NF that checks all the boxes for what I have been looking for, that being said the ATACR 4-16x42 probably comes the closest but right when I was going to pull the trigger on one Kahles came out with their K318i and I went that direction instead. If you do get to EO, try to check out a few scopes and make sure you set the diopter to your eye, too many times guys have complained about poor performance from a scope when they never bothered to set the diopter to their eye. I shoot with a friend who also has a love for high end optics and we are often looking through each others scopes, and he has to crank the diopter quite a bit further than where I have it set, but I have "older" eyes and imagine that's a big part of it, if he doesn't adjust my scopes and I do not adjust his scopes it's likely the image isn't going to be ideal.

 

[TheRedPill]

Funny you said that about the diaopter as I thought of that the other day as well.
There are just too many options. For both of us, with the amount we shoot, a NX8 would be perfectly acceptable. Neither of us are high power shooters but typically are the buy once, cry once type of people. We both have over 2 dozen firearms each so most of the time they just collect dust in the safes.
The only thing I'm not a fan of is the March reticles. I do like the NF mil-c.

 

[Glassaholic]

For the longest time Nightforce had no .2 mil option, but I agree the Mil-C and Mil-XT are really nice options. If EO has the ATACR 4-16, NX8 2.5-20 and the March 3-24 I'd encourage you take them all out for a look through, who knows you may end up really liking the NX8 and even throw in the Burris XTR III 3.3-18x50 which I think gives the ATACR a run for its money. I have not seen the 4-32 but I hear better things from it vs. the 2.5-20 and your buddy being a NF fan will probably like it. There is also another scope that is coming out later this year that should impress with its magnification range and how light it is for a FFP scope, and that's all I can say on that But waiting for a scope that doesn't exist yet can be agony so I generally don't recommend waiting as anything could happen to push out dates.

PS - if you want buy once cry once, then go with a Tangent Theta TT315M, at 27oz it is the best scope you will ever look through under 30oz!

 

[TheRedPill]

But I have an astigmatism and may need bifocals soon. I might not be able to tell the difference between a Tangent and Tasco.
Yes I've heard better things on the NX8 4x32 than the 2.5x20.
Is the new scope which is coming out later this year by NF?

 

[koshkin]

But I have an astigmatism and may need bifocals soon. I might not be able to tell the difference between a Tangent and Tasco.
Yes I've heard better things on the NX8 4x32 than the 2.5x20.
Is the new scope which is coming out later this year by NF?

No, it is not a Nightforce, but it is light enough for me to take sheep hunting next week. That ain't bad for a good quality FFP design.

ILya

 

[Glassaholic]

...but it is light enough for me to take sheep hunting next week...

I envy you. Was hoping I’d get to do at least one successful hunt before I moved out of Colorado. Have a great time, I hope you get the sheep of a lifetime!

 

[beetroot]

There is also another scope that is coming out later this year that should impress with its magnification range and how light it is for a FFP scope, and that's all I can say on that But waiting for a scope that doesn't exist yet can be agony so I generally don't recommend waiting as anything could happen to push out dates.

Here's hoping it does get released this year, been hanging out for an illuminated XTR3 since it was first announced.
If the FOV and reticle is good on this new thing I'll be most pleased.

Been trying to find the perfect crossover scope for years.

 

[TheRedPill]

So one last question. FPP vs SFP. what are the opinions on reticle clarity/useablity on NX8/ATACR. If I'm just trying to shoot for precision, I'm going to assume the reticle is going to either appear small/large and maybe fuzzy at different mag on a FPP. Also is 4-8x even useable on a FPP optic? Thoughts on a SFP NX8 maybe better???

 

[Glassaholic]

Here's hoping it does get released this year, been hanging out for an illuminated XTR3 since it was first announced.
If the FOV and reticle is good on this new thing I'll be most pleased.

Been trying to find the perfect crossover scope for years.

You and me both beet. I've kind of given up on the XTR III illumination, the 3.3-18 really needs illumination for it to have interest for me, for those who can do without it is a great option.

I would not say the "new" scope is the "perfect" crossover, but it will be a very compelling option, especially for the weight, just nothing else on the market like it.

 

[Glassaholic]

So one last question. FPP vs SFP. what are the opinions on reticle clarity/useablity on NX8/ATACR. If I'm just trying to shoot for precision, I'm going to assume the reticle is going to either appear small/large and maybe fuzzy at different mag on a FPP. Also is 4-8x even useable on a FPP optic? Thoughts on a SFP NX8 maybe better???

That's really a can of worms and comes down to personal preference. I used to be a big SFP fan until I "saw the light" and now all my scopes are FFP, I hunt with FFP, I have no issues with FFP and feel more confident using FFP. If you're just shooting with crosshairs and dial everything then go SFP, but if you use any kind of mil or moa hash reticle do yourself a favor and go with FFP, the last thing you want is to hold based on the reticle and your magnification not be in the right spot and miss the shot.

Between NX8 and ATACR, there is no question, ATACR is better optically which is also represented in the price difference.

No issues using March 3-24x52 at 4-8x, in fact, the FML-1 reticle really shines at the lower mags.

Do NOT use the images below to judge image quality of the scope, these pics are for reticle purposes only, I assure you the image was excellent and I am unable to focus my DSLR or get it perfectly aligned with the scope which introduces optical anomalies that are not present when looking through with your eye.

 

[TheRedPill]

Thanks for the images. I guess I need to determine which reticle I like better. Kinda digging the .2mil in the mil-c from NF over the .5mil from March.

 

[Glassaholic]

Thanks for the images. I guess I need to determine which reticle I like better. Kinda digging the .2mil in the mil-c from NF over the .5mil from March.

You will like the FML-TR1 reticle in the 4.5-28x52 even better, this is one of the best .2 mil hash reticles I've used - it is an extremely simple yet well thought out design. Yes, the scope is a few ounces heavier than the 3-24 but it has the widest FOV of any scope in its class and superb optics make it a very compelling option.

 

[Glassaholic]

Thanks for the images. I guess I need to determine which reticle I like better. Kinda digging the .2mil in the mil-c from NF over the .5mil from March.

Also, I'll let @MNTC chime in on .5 mil hash reticles. After using a number of .2 mil hash styles, he's gone back to the P4L Schmidt which is a plain .5 mil reticle for several of his rifles. The difference between .2 and .5 is more an issue with what our eyes perceive than it is about what our brains can deduce.

 

[TheRedPill]

The FML-TR1 reticle in the 4.5-28x52 is in the FX line which is bigger, heavier, and probably outside my budget.

 

[Glassaholic]

The FML-TR1 reticle in the 4.5-28x52 is in the FX line which is bigger, heavier, and probably outside my budget.

Yes, bigger and heavier than the 3-24, but same length and weight as the ATACR 4-16x42. Yes, the 4.5-28 is $640 more than the 3-24. Personally I think the difference is worth saving for. Again, in the end the choice is ultimately up to you, we are here to help as best we can (well some of us ) and give you food for thought, but in the end, whatever you choose, learn it well and it should serve you well.

 

[koshkin]

I envy you. Was hoping I’d get to do at least one successful hunt before I moved out of Colorado. Have a great time, I hope you get the sheep of a lifetime!

With my luck, the sheep will all migrate out to Antarctica for the season and the mountains will be full of unicorns that I do not have a tag for.

ILya