Rifle Scopes Mountain Rifle scope - MARCH 3 - 24 x 42 FFP

[Eric B.]

Just purchased a Browning X-Bolt Pro in 6.5 CM and am thinking this MARCH scope is about the lightest, shortest high quality scope that checks my boxes.

This "boxes" are:
1. FFP
2. mil/mil
3. lighted and numerically indexed reticle
4. side focus/parallax knob
5. less tha 25 oz.
6. shorter than 13 "
7. at least 18 x top end magnification

So, yeah, this is a spendy scope, a lot more than the cost of my very nice X-Bolt Pro. But it does check all those boxes.
An alternative scope would be a Vortex Razor AMG.

Coments? Suggestions?

Eric B.

 

[gregsjt]

The 52 version is a little brighter and still short and light. I've got one of each and feel like they are very hard to beat if you're looking for a short light weight scope that can still do everything.

 

[Clint E.]

I have been running the March 2.5-25x42 SFP on my primary elk/sheep hunting rifle for over 5 years. It has been extremely reliable and repeatable. I have also had a Razor AMG but on a PRS rifle not a hunting rifle.
For me the 2.5 on the low end of the March is great for when things are up close and personal, the FOV is large enough that I can see the barrel in the sight picture.

 

[koshkin]

As much as I like March (and I used to own 3-24x42), for field use, I really prefer the TT315M 3-15x50, which is what I replaced the Mark I had with.

The biggest difference for me was the ease of getting parallax set up, although Tangent Theta is also a bit easier to get behind from an eye relief standpoint. With the March, I found myself messing with the side focus too much.

ILya

 

[b6graham]

ilya hit the nail opn the head. questionable eyebox and parallax

 

[koshkin]

ilya hit the nail opn the head. questionable eyebox and parallax

I am not sure questionable is a good word to describe this. They are what they are and are a part of the design compromise. For deliberate shooting when I have time, March is just superb.

ILya

 

[b6graham]

I am not sure questionable is a good word to describe this. They are what they are and are a part of the design compromise. For deliberate shooting when I have time, March is just superb.

ILya

For a hunting rifle, i'd be wanting something much more forgiving is more what i meant by questionable

 

[koshkin]

For a hunting rifle, i'd be wanting something much more forgiving is more what i meant by questionable

I fully agree with that.

 

[steve123]

However, if the March is on lower mag, fiddling with the parallax is much less critical. Millions of game animals have been killed with fixed parallax and often times cheap scopes, right??!! To me having the scope on lower mag means a closer shot is more likely so if the parallax is slightly off it's not a big deal.

If hunting, and the mag is up high, like say you were prone off the bipod, it's somewhat assumed you have the time to adjust the parallax perfectly in 2 seconds as usual.

Nevertheless I'd go for the x52 version.

But yeah, no doubt the TT is a superior scope.

Me, I'm not buying another scope that has more than 25Y close focus again, because I tend to try out different scope on different rifles, like 22's and air rifles, so March is appealing in that way.

Eyebox - a little training, or in other words throwing the rifle up on a regular basis, as well as setting the scope up so you'er looking right down the scope tube helps a bunch.

The reticle in the 3-24 is on the thick side so that would help with picking it up when hunting on low to medium mag.

 

[koshkin]

However, if the March is on lower mag, fiddling with the parallax is much less critical. Millions of game animals have been killed with fixed parallax and often times cheap scopes, right??!! To me having the scope on lower mag means a closer shot is more likely so if the parallax is slightly off it's not a big deal.

If hunting, and the mag is up high, like say you were prone off the bipod, it's somewhat assumed you have the time to adjust the parallax perfectly in 2 seconds as usual.

Nevertheless I'd go for the x52 version.

But yeah, no doubt the TT is a superior scope.

Me, I'm not buying another scope that has more than 25Y close focus again, because I tend to try out different scope on different rifles, like 22's and air rifles, so March is appealing in that way.

Eyebox - a little training, or in other words throwing the rifle up on a regular basis, as well as setting the scope up so you'er looking right down the scope tube helps a bunch.

The reticle in the 3-24 is on the thick side so that would help with picking it up when hunting on low to medium mag.

You are mostly correct, except your reference to cheap scopes with fixed parallax is not valid.

March 3-24x has very shallow depth of field. At the same magnification, it is notably shallower than most other scopes out there even at fairly low mag. That is one of the reasons you end up fiddling with March parallax so much.

March depth of field is much larger at 6x than at 20x. However, even at 6x, it is much shallower than let's say a Leuopld 6x42 which has the same magnification.

ILya

 

[Hairy Biker]

As always the March conversation gets hijack on theory and hypotheticals. As a long time user of both the 42 and 52mm in both hunting and target situations, I would make the following points based on real world experience and testing and re-testing Internet "facts".

1. In a hunting situation, using normal magnification ranges of between 6 and 10 power, both March models are superb at what they do. The lens quality gives extra definition to the target animal and removes many of the glare problems encountered in other brands.

2. Eyebox is not an issue if you know what you are doing, have set up your scope properly, and practice.

3. At 24 power, there is a need to focus any high range scope. If you are shooting at over 20 power at a live target then you need to offer the game the courtesy of getting things right for a clean kill (see point 2). This includes focussing properly.

4. With the Xmas Tree reticle, I found that it has a fantastic optical sweet spot at 17 power.

5. For weight to magnification ratio, on a hunting rifle, the 42mm is a go to.

6. And if you want a bit simpler, the SFP models are more than adequate.

But in the end it all comes down to brand loyalty and personal preference.

 

[steve123]

You are mostly correct, except your reference to cheap scopes with fixed parallax is not valid.

March 3-24x has very shallow depth of field. At the same magnification, it is notably shallower than most other scopes out there even at fairly low mag. That is one of the reasons you end up fiddling with March parallax so much.

March depth of field is much larger at 6x than at 20x. However, even at 6x, it is much shallower than let's say a Leuopld 6x42 which has the same magnification.

ILya

Even still, I can think of many scopes I wouldn't pick over the March 3-24x52. I hunt small game with scopes not having the best DOF, or glass, or eyebox, at closer distances than typical big game hunting and a slightly out of focus condition won't cause me a miss. Granted I like using 4x the most and i'm setting the focus to the intended distance I estimate I will encounter.

 

[koshkin]

Even still, I can think of many scopes I wouldn't pick over the March 3-24x52. I hunt small game with scopes not having the best DOF, or glass, or eyebox, at closer distances than typical big game hunting and a slightly out of focus condition won't cause me a miss. Granted I like using 4x the most and i'm setting the focus to the intended distance I estimate I will encounter.

As I said, I think March is an excellent scope and, as all designs do, it has its strengths and weaknesses which match some users and applications better than others.

In the case of the 3-24x March, the reason to have it for field use is to primarily use it as a 3-10x or thereabouts and dial up the magnification when time demands and conditions allow it. There is nothing wrong with that and it gives you a lot of magnification and resolution in a very compact platform.

Where the tradeoff happens compared to competing designs like the 3-15x50 Tangent Theta that I switched to, is in the 10-15x range. There is a depth of field difference across the board, but you really feel it the most above 10x or so. The choice there was whether I want the ease of use and substantially better microcontrast of the TT or the higher magnification of the March. For me, TT ended up a better option.

ILya

 

[koshkin]

As always the March conversation gets hijack on theory and hypotheticals. As a long time user of both the 42 and 52mm in both hunting and target situations, I would make the following points based on real world experience and testing and re-testing Internet "facts".

1. In a hunting situation, using normal magnification ranges of between 6 and 10 power, both March models are superb at what they do. The lens quality gives extra definition to the target animal and removes many of the glare problems encountered in other brands.

2. Eyebox is not an issue if you know what you are doing, have set up your scope properly, and practice.

3. At 24 power, there is a need to focus any high range scope. If you are shooting at over 20 power at a live target then you need to offer the game the courtesy of getting things right for a clean kill (see point 2). This includes focussing properly.

4. With the Xmas Tree reticle, I found that it has a fantastic optical sweet spot at 17 power.

5. For weight to magnification ratio, on a hunting rifle, the 42mm is a go to.

6. And if you want a bit simpler, the SFP models are more than adequate.

But in the end it all comes down to brand loyalty and personal preference.

Theory and hypotherticals? I tested 2.5-25x42, 2x 3-24x42, 2.5-25x52, 3-24x52, 5-40x56, 1-8x24 and 1-8x24 Shorty March scopes. Which part of that hands on experience exactly do you call theory and hypotheticals?

At the end of all that, I liked the 3-24x42 enough to buy it and use it for several years, until the TT315M came about and I switched to that as my general purpose precision scope for several reason that I have carefully outlined multiple times.

You may disagree with my choices since, of course, they are personal (that is why I take the time to explain my reasoning when it comes to choices), but calling them "theory and hypotheticals" is pure and unadulterated BS.

As far as brand loyalty goes, that is where you may want to look in the mirror. I do not have a whole lot of brand loyalty if any. Now, there are a few brands out there I distinctly dislike, but as far as loyalty goes, I do not really have any. If anything, March is one of the brands I happen to really like since they kinda speak to my engineering sensibilities, although you are testing that a little right now.

At the moment, I own scopes and sights from SWFA, Burris, TT, Vortex, Delta, Bushnell, HiLux, Shield, Sightron, Elcan and MTC and like them all for different reasons. I have owned products from just about every brand imaginable in the past and I sorta have a habit to speak from experience.

Somehow I missed the memo that March is such a special brand that your take on their products is factual, but everyone else's is purely hypothetical.

ILya

 

[lennyo3034]

He attacks everyone that doesn’t think the March scopes are the greatest ever made. I made a post a while back stating I had been successfully using mine for gas gun competitions but I was “fake news” according to him because I stated it had the older click value.

 

[Hairy Biker]

I think we have reached a point here where we are saying much the same thing only slightly differently. I remain happy to have my words attacked but these are my experiences in a diverse set of environments; some similar and some different and that is the way it stands.

For Lenny, I am sorry if I have caused you offence. Your comment at the time was factually wrong and I felt the need to correct it in a "Frankly Speaking" manner. This is not my preferred way but it appears to be the way of the Internet forum and so I apologise for that.

The bottom line is my final point. Brand loyalty is an unconscious bias and the question I pose to people is "are you buying this because you think it is the best for you or because it the gear that will bring you respect on the line?". That is a difficult thing for some guys to hear. And personal preference is just that.

BTW, I still think the OP would be better off with a SFP personally.

 

[Clearlight]

In answer to the OP, if you have good fundamental shooting skills, and you are able to set up your
cheekweld and optic postion correctly, you won’t have an issue with the March. As ILya said above,
the shallow depth of field doesn’t suit everyone, but I find it is very helpful in eliminating parallax.
Mechanically the 3-24 is first class, and light for its mag range.

The Tangent Theta gets great reviews, but I’ve unfortunately never even seen one here in Australia.
I really also like the Hensoldt ZF 4-16, but it is heavier than the March. Neither optic is acceptable
to the goomba PRS crowd around here . Seeing as you hunt in the mountains, you are probably not
too concerned about what the cool kids think of your optic, and are more concerned about
reliability. Hensoldt and March are the only two optic brands whose products I’ve never had failure
with, so far.....

 

[koshkin]

Hairy Biker: noone has an issue with your sharing your experience and opinions. Denigrating opinions and experiences that do not match yours as theory and hypotheticals is what irritated me.

Clearlight: I have seen every brand fail at some point in some way, I think. My basic take on this is that I expect all of the better brands to have roughly similar reliability and durability. I do agree on March's build quality. They do a very good job of combining build quality with a lightweight package.

ILya