Rifle Scopes March-X 10-60x56 vs. March-FX 5-40x56 Comparison

[mmahoney]

Here is my (admittedly short term) experience of the March 10-60x56 HM compared to the March 5-40x56 scope.

Background
I own a March 1-10x24 and 2.5-25x42 and love both scopes. However,I am looking for a higher magnification optic that will reliably allow me to spot .22 caliber holes in paper at 200 yards. I purchased both these scopes with the intention of choosing the one that best fits my needs, and reselling the other.

Glass
The March 10-60x56 HM has “HighMaster” glass which is supposed to be the best March has to offer. The glass is awesome, but my eyes do not see a difference between the HighMaster glass and the extra-low dispersion glass of the 5-40x56. I’ve spent several afternoons and evenings comparing the glass side-by-side as the sun sets. At 40x, both offer a crystal clear image. To my eye neither scope has an image quality edge over the other. I prefer looking through the 10-60 at 40x as opposed to the higher magnifications. Above 40x the darkening of the image becomes noticeable enough that it sometimes becomes a distraction. The image quality also starts to degrade slightly so that some of the finer details begin to blur. The image is still very good at 50 and 60x and definitely usable at those magnifications, but I catch myself dialing the magnification back down to 40x when shooting because the image is perfect there. The 5-40x does not suffer at its highest levels of magnification and is perfect to my eye throughout its magnification range.

Eyebox
The 5-40x56 has a more generous eyebox and is easier to get a good sight picture on. I don’t know how much bigger the exit pupil on the 5-40 is compared to the 10-60, but it is a big enough difference to be quite noticeable in use.

Reticle
For target shooting, I prefer the fine 3/64 dot of the 10-60. It is a second focal plane reticle and maintains the thin crosshairs and fine aiming dot at all magnifications.

The FML-1 reticle of the 5-40 is a first focal plane reticle. I love the center dot size in the 15-25x magnification ranges, but prefer a more fine dot at higher magnification for target shooting.

Turrets
It is easier to dial the turrets of the 5-40 than the 10-60 because the reference lines are more obvious. When shooting an air rifle at long distances, up to 40 MOA of elevation change can often need to be dialed in. The .1 mil clicks of the 5-40 are much easier to keep track of than the fine ⅛ MOA clicks of the 10-60. The 5-40 also has 15 MOA more adjustment range. I also prefer the lower profile of the turrets on the 5-40. Both scopes have a zero stop option, but I’m more familiar with the simplicity of the zero stops on the 5-40 as they are the same as my other March scopes. The 10-60 requires a small allen wrench to set. In addition, the zero stop has writing on it that contradicts the direction of the turrets (see pic) and has caused me a bit of confusion.

Ranging
I 3D printed a side focus wheel for each scope and collected dope for each out to 100 yards. I then tested using the parallax wheels to range distances and compare them to my laser range finder. Neither scope ever gave me a reading that was more than 1 yard different from my laser rangefinder out to 50 yards. I suspect even those small errors were caused by estimation mistakes on my part or misaligned numbers on my printed side wheel.

Conclusion:
I think the 5-40x56 is the better scope. It’s advantages are that it is shorter, weighs less, has lower profile turrets, can be dialed down to 5x magnification, has an easier to use zero stop, more adjustment range and larger exit pupil. It has glass just as good as the 10-60x56 HM, and ranges equally well. However, it will be the scope I am going to sell.

The 10-60x56 better fits my needs because of it’s more target shooting friendly reticle. Since I am never in a hurry to dial in my elevation and windage, I actually prefer the finer ⅛ MOA click adjustments the 10-60x56 HM offers. I also have 2 other MOA scopes and am more familiar with dialing in MOA as opposed to mil. I don’t get any benefit from the first focal plane reticle of the 5-40x56. Although I find the more generous eyebox a big plus on the 5-40x56, it does not trump the more useful reticle and finer clicks available on the 10-60x56 HM for benchrest use

 

[Denys]

Excellent review.

I have had a March-X 5-50X56 for 6 years now. I believe it has the same glass as the March-FX 5-40X56, which is to say ED glass from the same glass sources. Last year I compared a 5-50X56 to a 10-60X56HM for a very few minutes and I could detect a small difference in the contrast and how the colors pop more in the 10-60X56 HM. It was a subtle difference, but it was there.

At the beginning of the year, I acquired a 10-60X56 HM and it now sits atop my F-TR Match rifle. The 5-50X56 and tje 10-60X56 both have the exact same reticle, the MTR-5; excellent for F-class and better for my aging eyes than the original MTR-2 reticle started with.

I shoot at 40X all the time. The FOV is perfect for my needs as I see my target and one on either side of mine and a bit beyond. I also see the target number, which is useful for cross-fire prevention. Also, at 40X the hash marks on the MTR-5 reticle become very meaningful in MOA parlance.

Last weekend, at the 1000 yard match, there wasn't a trace of inkling of a soupcon of mirage for the entire match. At 40X, I was able to discern the horizontal number on the LR-1FC target and could see the ravage in the X- and 10-ring of the bullets being fired that day. I didn't have my 5-50X56 handy to compare the view but this 10-60X56 HM is awesome. It was heavily overcast that day (one reason there was no mirage) and I didn't even consider or think of increase magnification but yes, it would have been markedly darker. That's exactly what happens as magnification gets into enormous values.

I see you have XTR rings for your 10-60X56 HM, that's exactly what I have also. I set up my ramp and the inserts to produce a 30 MOA cant, I wanted to be as close to optical center as possible at 1000 yards and still have room to go down to 600 yards for those rare occasions.

The 0-Set is different on the March-X compared to others, I line up my 0-set to be right below 600 yards and tighten it down semi-permanently. The 0-set on your March-FX is easy to set and change and that has its plusses, but in my mind, it's also easy to unset and that's not a plus for me because of the way I use my scoped rifle.

I also have the March wheel on the focus knob; very nice to use and you can be very precise in focus.

 

[mmahoney]

Nice!

I'm using 30 MOA adjustment in my rings. It is as close to keeping the scope optically centered as I think I can get.
I 3D printed a focus wheel to the size I wanted. It is as big as I can make it while still being out of the way of the elevation turret. Focus rings are definitely handy!

 

[lastglimmerman]

Excellent review.

I have had a March-X 5-50X56 for 6 years now. I believe it has the same glass as the March-FX 5-40X56, which is to say ED glass from the same glass sources. Last year I compared a 5-50X56 to a 10-60X56HM for a very few minutes and I could detect a small difference in the contrast and how the colors pop more in the 10-60X56 HM. It was a subtle difference, but it was there.

At the beginning of the year, I acquired a 10-60X56 HM and it now sits atop my F-TR Match rifle. The 5-50X56 and tje 10-60X56 both have the exact same reticle, the MTR-5; excellent for F-class and better for my aging eyes than the original MTR-2 reticle started with.

I shoot at 40X all the time. The FOV is perfect for my needs as I see my target and one on either side of mine and a bit beyond. I also see the target number, which is useful for cross-fire prevention. Also, at 40X the hash marks on the MTR-5 reticle become very meaningful in MOA parlance.

Last weekend, at the 1000 yard match, there wasn't a trace of inkling of a soupcon of mirage for the entire match. At 40X, I was able to discern the horizontal number on the LR-1FC target and could see the ravage in the X- and 10-ring of the bullets being fired that day. I didn't have my 5-50X56 handy to compare the view but this 10-60X56 HM is awesome. It was heavily overcast that day (one reason there was no mirage) and I didn't even consider or think of increase magnification but yes, it would have been markedly darker. That's exactly what happens as magnification gets into enormous values.

I see you have XTR rings for your 10-60X56 HM, that's exactly what I have also. I set up my ramp and the inserts to produce a 30 MOA cant, I wanted to be as close to optical center as possible at 1000 yards and still have room to go down to 600 yards for those rare occasions.

The 0-Set is different on the March-X compared to others, I line up my 0-set to be right below 600 yards and tighten it down semi-permanently. The 0-set on your March-FX is easy to set and change and that has its plusses, but in my mind, it's also easy to unset and that's not a plus for me because of the way I use my scoped rifle.

I also have the March wheel on the focus knob; very nice to use and you can be very precise in focus.View attachment 7268170

Would love to talk to you on the March scope. Just starting out in f-tr and would love some pointers!! Is there a way to pm me? The March was my pick also. Have 10x60x52 but want the high master..

 

[steve123]

I don't know how old you are mmahoney but it's my opinion that the HM glass is better appreciated by good and young eyes.
At least that's what my younger friends see compared to me at 60 years old.
My reference is the HM 5-42x56 and a 5-40x56.

I would still like to peer down a HM 10-60 out in the brightness of mid day for the heck of it.

 

[mmahoney]

I'm 46. I've heard similar opinions from several others that would indeed suggest my opinion is the outlier. Enough for me to wonder what the light transmission percentages are of the glass in both scopes. If the differences are subtle, I'll feel better. If the differences are drastic, then I'll need to reevaluate how I compare optics.

 

[Denys]

Well, I have 20 years on you. I have been shooting with my March-X 10-60X56HM a lot since we restarted the matches in June. I now have about 15 match-days with the scope on my rifle. A match-day is 66 scored rounds. 10 match-days at 1000 yards and 5 at 600 yards.

I am now shooting at 50X all the time, even during the South Texas summer, something I did not do with my 5-50X56. The 10-60X56 is an absolute optical masterpiece. I had mentioned in my earlier post that I could detect contrast a little bit more with the 10-60X56 compared to the 5-50X56. I have confirmed that to my satisfaction and in spades. This is most readily apparent on the F-class target where I can't detect any color fringing or "hairy rings" on the target. When the mirage runs, as it does in South Texas, the HM is less affected than the 5-50X56 and I stay at 50X. The rings appear to shimmer but they are not deformed. This allows me to be extra surgical in placing the center dot exactly where I want on the target, in a repeatable manner. Of course, calling wind is still the big challenge.

At the last match, I brought along a March-FX 5-40X56 with the FML-1 reticle, mounted on a tripod to look at the target. It's not exactly the same position and setup, but it shows the IQ of the scope on the tripod to good effect. That 5-40X56 is one heck of a great scope, but I can really detect the difference between it and the 10-60X56; to my eye, it's advantage 10-60X56 for my F-class shooting.