Rifle Scopes New March FFP 5-42x56 High Master FML-TR1 preliminary review

[hertz654]

I found a deal ($2,949) earlier this year via Dvor.com [outlet website for OpticsPlanet.com] for this scope. Though I'm not worthy, I've always wanted one of their first focal plane 5-40 scopes, but was never happy with the reticle selection. I love the design of their new FML-TR1 reticle [credit in part to @koshkin). So I jumped at the above price (hate the $192 for online sales tax = damn you South Dakota vs Wayfair Supreme Court ruling [and I live in SD]).
Downside with Dvor is they sell stuff that isn't always in stock; my March scope took about 2-1/2 months before it shipped to me.

 

[jbonnie]

I found a deal ($2,949) earlier this year via Dvor.com [outlet website for OpticsPlanet.com] for this scope. Though I'm not worthy, I've always wanted one of their first focal plane 5-40 scopes, but was never happy with the reticle selection. I love the design of their new FML-TR1 reticle [credit in part to @koshkin). So I jumped at the above price (hate the $192 for online sales tax = damn you South Dakota vs Wayfair Supreme Court ruling [and I live in SD]).
Downside with Dvor is they sell stuff that isn't always in stock; my March scope took about 2-1/2 months before it shipped to me.

Ughh. I did not find that deal. Oh well.... At least I have the satisfaction of supporting the nation’s commerce.

 

[Anzac]

Very interested in this scope but have a query re IQ at high elevation/erector travel as 40 mils combined with wide fov HM glass truely sounds like an engineering feat.
So, how does the IQ fare when dialing in fm 30-40 mils ?
Thx for your time and help.

 

[Pete B]

Poorly, March have tried to do to much unnecessary crap with this scope. Plenty to like, but they have over complicated things wanting to include every thought possible and it has actually worked in reverse for them.
It's a shame, there standards are awesome regarding quality etc They have just gotten carried away.
My opinion......
Pete

 

[Anzac]

Hey Pete. Thx for the info.
Ive been hearing same in that they should have called it at ~30mil tvl for that reason.
Additionally, in a short tube having parallax down to 10 yards on a non linear scale that necessitates using a “Carnival “ wheel to deal with overly sensitive focus is also unfortunate, imho.

 

[Denys]

Very interested in this scope but have a query re IQ at high elevation/erector travel as 40 mils combined with wide fov HM glass truely sounds like an engineering feat.
So, how does the IQ fare when dialing in fm 30-40 mils ?
Thx for your time and help.

That is a very good question and the replies have been mainly correct. The IQ does degrade as you get to the adjustment extremes and this is exacerbated by the 25% great FOV. Let me quote from the March 5-42X56 HM WA manual, where on page 1 (definitely not hidden in the fine print at the end of appendix Z-99):

“NOTE:
This riflescope has an internal adjustment range of 40MIL; 20 up, 20 down. In any riflescope the best image quality is at or near the center of the adjustments. Because of the very wide adjustment range of this riflescope, you may experience some image quality degradation as you near the limits of the adjustment range. This can occur because of the extreme refraction of the incoming light at the edges of the objective lens. This degradation will worsen as the magnification increases.

Therefore, we recommend using an appropriate canted rail if you plan to use this riflescope consistently near the limits of the adjustment range and at higher magnification. It can be utilised to gain additional elevation and to keep the scope optically centred as much as possible.

A 20MOA rail will shift the adjustment range by about 5.7MIL to 25.7MIL up and 14.3MIL down.

A 30MOA rail will shift the adjustment range by about 8.6MIL to 28.6MIL up and 11.4MIL down."

I don't know that you can be any more transparent and honest than this. Yes, there can and will be IQ degradation at the extremes. It's physics.

However, there are people who want this maximum adjustment for certain situations, and it's available to them. YOU DO NOT have to use that much adjustment if you don't want to, but it's there if you really need it.

Every time I look at a scope which somebody mounts on a rifle with 0 built-in cant, I can't (pardon the pun) help but think that they have surrendered about half the usable elevation right there. I totally get that the vast majority of shooters never go beyond 100 yards, because that's what the local range has, and that's absolutely fine with a 0 cant. But if your interest is longer range, you should have a 20MOA rail on your rifle or some form of external cant adjustment.

Let me address the carnival wheel comment. Yes, my Match F-TR rifle is topped with a March-X 10-60X56 HM riflescope, which is arguably the finest long range high magnification scope extant. I have a 3.5 inch wheel on my focus knob because I suffer from arthritis in my left hand and I find it difficult and painful to grasp a regular size focus knob. I also play with the focus quite a bit to view the mirage through my scope at various yard lines and I can pop back in forth in an instant with that "carnival wheel". It makes for superb adjustment. Again, if you don't want one on your scope, you don't have to get one. But if you do want one...

My superb March-X 10-60X56 HM is in a set of Burris XTR rings, on top of a 20MOA ramp. I have adjusted the scope so that it's near mechanical zero and 1000 yards, where I compete the vast majority of the time. I never shoot at less than 600 yards with this rifle. Initial load development is done shooting at 100 yards on a 48 inch tall thermometer target.

Since I need about 33 MOA from 100 yard zero, I would be at the end of the adjustment range all the time. That would be an utter waste of a fine riflescope. I mounted my scope so that I would get the best IQ possible from it at 1000 yards and let me tell you, it's glorious and I shoot at 50X virtually all the time, never less than 40X, because this riflescope can do it.

The March-FX 5-42X56 HM WA is one hell of a fine scope but if you're going to use it near its elevation extremes, do yourself a favor and get an appropriate canted ramp.

BTW, the business about looking through the center of the scope for best IQ at all times, is the motivation for the Genesis family of scopes from March. 114 MIL of elevation range (100 up, 14 down) and you're always looking throught the center of the scope with the maximum IQ.

 

[Clearlight]

Poorly, March have tried to do to much unnecessary crap with this scope. Plenty to like, but they have over complicated things wanting to include every thought possible and it has actually worked in reverse for them.
It's a shame, there standards are awesome regarding quality etc They have just gotten carried away.
My opinion......
Pete

Do tell, which ‘unnecessary crap’ would you like to see deleted ?

 

[Pete B]

Locking parallex, locking elevation and the excessive multiplier mag range..... Avoid giving 40mils of adjustment, and then say if you use it, well just don't, because it isn't meant to be.......
Pete

 

[Pete B]

Further to add, I don't need 40mils, I just wonder what is sacrificed internally to give this adjustment. I have owned 4 March scopes, and will more than likely own more. Great company, just wish they would not try and do too much. Everything is a balance, you give more of something, another thing suffers to some degree. Example if you need a max mag of 42, why on earth would you need a lower of 4.5? Another, stop making it so compact, who needs that in this sort of optic, and what are you or how much again giving up to do it???
Pete

 

[Denys]

Further to add, I don't need 40mils, I just wonder what is sacrificed internally to give this adjustment. I have owned 4 March scopes, and will more than likely own more. Great company, just wish they would not try and do too much. Everything is a balance, you give more of something, another thing suffers to some degree. Example if you need a max mag of 42, why on earth would you need a lower of 4.5? Another, stop making it so compact, who needs that in this sort of optic, and what are you or how much again giving up to do it???
Pete

In your two posts above you question the need of the new features introduced with the 5-42X56: compact, lockable turrets, large adjustment range and large zoom range. You should look at the March-FX 5-40X56 instead. It is larger, does not have lockable turrets and has a smaller adjustment range. It does have an 8X zoom, and it is an excellent scope.

 

[Anzac]

Thank your for your input Denys.

For context, I sold my 3-24x42 partly because I couldn't manage the sensitive parallax. I moved on up to a 5-40x56 (using a 20moa rail up to 1000yrds where necessary). It's copped a veritable flogging, always tracked true and I haven't looked back .... until some mug genius designed the FML-TR1 reticle and I immediately wanted one Pity I cant have it retrofitted as I would in a heart beat. My Minox ZP-5 MR-4 will have to suffice.

I acknowledge the Deon "carnival"/Focus wheel in your case Denys is absolutely fit for purpose and that Deon cannot ignore their JP rimfire market. That being said there seems to be a significant market element that is scrutinizing the new 52mm/56mm Obj additions with a deflating sense of "jack of all trades, master of none/some"? That's my impression fwiw.

Caveat; I have not been able to personally evaluate the 5-42 in Oz as they were sent back to Deon due sus IQ >~30mil.


Oh well... I'll just have to slum it out with my 5-40 then..

Thx again to all contributors.

 

[Pete B]

Hi Deny's, I too already have the 5 x 40....... the 5 x 42 I found to be a great scope, just my opinion that it could have have even be better if Deon had tried to do less with it.
Pete

 

[Denys]

Hi Deny's, I too already have the 5 x 40....... the 5 x 42 I found to be a great scope, just my opinion that it could have have even be better if Deon had tried to do less with it.
Pete

Hello Pet'e. I totally understand and have you made your opinion known to Deon? You can contact them directly at their website and I can assure you they read every message they get.

I'm also playing with a 5-42X56 and I absolutely love the large FOV. The other features you mention are not something I use (locks and stuff) but I don't mind them at all.

 

[steve123]

I thought I'd throw in my 2 cents about the March HM 5-42x56 that I've used quite a bit in the last almost a month.

You guys know how I always say there is no perfect scope, I still adhere to that philosophy even after getting this new March.

It's supposed to focus down to 10 yards on 42x but it focuses down to 8Y. That can be considered good in one way and not so good in another way. What are the consequences of this, not sure but here's what's happening?
The good for me, which most will absolutely NOT appreciate in the least, is the parallax setting/sidewheel focus, as far as perfect focus inside 100Y is extremely CRITICAL, by far more than any riflescope I've ever used! GOOD in that it will range distances for a Field Target air rifle super super well! The side focus wheel only requires the TINIEST bit a movement to snap in awesomely clean to snapping out to unfocused. I'm referring to the highest magnification here, it's not so critical on medium magnification but I haven't used 15x or thereabouts much.

I compared it to my S&B PM2 5-25x56, and on 25x for both scopes, the March is definitely superior, I can snap in to resolve better, but again I have to be careful to get it dialed in perfectly.

Unfortunately, and what I was not expecting, is by about 38x the IQ is getting dark and for whatever reason it's almost gets blurry, especially darker and more blurry at 42x???? I don't get it???? I mean a little darker is normal but??? I'm almost considering sending it back for a checkup.

Everything else about the scope is superb, it really is! I liked Ilya's reticle a lot more than I thought I would, and so did my friends BTW. Love the click feel and spacing, the ZS, perfect alignment of the turret lines to the line on the housing, it gets an A+++ in the controls department!! You definitely won't overturn a click by accident with these turrets because they have a medium tension with a distinct click detent and honestly it's a good thing these turrets lock.

One afternoon we had a perfect no cloud day with the sun shining through some oak leaves about 20 yards away and I was blown away how brilliant the picture was through this scope on 20x! What a weird scope, lol???!!!

 

[Pete B]

I believe some of these suggestions have been made by much more knowledgeable and accomplished shooters than myself.
I'm just waiting 'impatiently" for the 4.5 x 28, as I will 100% be looking hard at it. Honestly probably jumped at the 5 x 42 due to impatience, as it was never really meant for PRS, though many of the boxes that were ticked suggestested, why not! lol
Pete

 

[rnlzkbrs]

Unfortunately, and what I was not expecting, is by about 38x the IQ is getting dark and for whatever reason it's almost gets blurry, especially darker and more blurry at 42x???? I don't get it???? I mean a little darker is normal but??? I'm almost considering sending it back for a checkup.

That's what I've noticed too. When you increase magnification the image brightness should decrease. I was just surprised how fast that happened in the top magnification range. So it does not sound to me like there is a problem specifically with your scope. Maybe ILya or someone else who knows details of optical design of this model can elaborate on this feature. Personally for me it's not an issue. I'm just curious.

Can anyone comment on how the eye box of this model compares to other scopes in it's category? I'm relatively new to shooting and the only other scope that I have and can compare with is SWFA SS 3-15x42. That one has much larger eye box, but it's in totally different category. With this COVID-19 thing going on I do not expect to have a chance to look through any other scope until some time next year.

 

[steve123]

That's what I've noticed too. When you increase magnification the image brightness should decrease. I was just surprised how fast that happened in the top magnification range. So it does not sound to me like there is a problem specifically with your scope. Maybe ILya or someone else who knows details of optical design of this model can elaborate on this feature. Personally for me it's not an issue. I'm just curious.

Can anyone comment on how the eye box of this model compares to other scopes in it's category? I'm relatively new to shooting and the only other scope that I have and can compare with is SWFA SS 3-15x42. That one has much larger eye box, but it's in totally different category. With this COVID-19 thing going on I do not expect to have a chance to look through any other scope until some time next year.

Thanks for letting me know yours acts the same at 42x. I got this scope wanting to use 42x often so this scope getting that dark and blurry on 42x is very annoying to me. Honestly I could care less about 5x on the low end, I wish March would build less compromise in that area of their scopes. I guess I'll treat this one as a 7-35x56???, stopping early on both ends.

An eyebox has to be very poor to bother me but I didn't find it bad at all in my March. I've been using riflescopes of all kinds for 50 years and the only time I have trouble with the eyebox is shooting support side. I kinda overcame that by lowering the cheek piece as well as magnification, and practicing a little.

 

[koshkin]

I have one of these here and aside from the regular exit pupil tightening, I am not seeing anything terribly weird on 42x. With the exit pupil shrinking down to ~1.3mm that is to be expected. I am not seeing anything get blurry though.

I expect another one to get here fairly soon, so I will check that one as well.

ILya

 

[rnlzkbrs]

An eyebox has to be very poor to bother me but I didn't find it bad at all in my March. I've been using riflescopes of all kinds for 50 years and the only time I have trouble with the eyebox is shooting support side. I kinda overcame that by lowering the cheek piece as well as magnification, and practicing a little.

Thank you. It was probably just first impression. I think I'm getting used to it and now the eye box seems okay to me.

 

[Dthomas3523]

Haven’t kept up. Sorry if this is a repeat question what’s the realistic out the door ballpark price on these going to be?

 

[ormandj]

Haven’t kept up. Sorry if this is a repeat question what’s the realistic out the door ballpark price on these going to be?

$3800ish would be a relatively safe bet, give or take a little.

I'm debating this scope right now, or another ZCO. It sounds like the March has a wider FOV, but the parallax requires more finesse. I'm curious if the edge distortion is in the extended FOV area, ie: the same FOV as the ZCO would be 'sharp' in the March, and the extended area the ZCO couldn't even see at the same magnification would be the blurry part. If so, then it's a win.

 

[rnlzkbrs]

I'm debating this scope right now, or another ZCO. It sounds like the March has a wider FOV, but the parallax requires more finesse. I'm curious if the edge distortion is in the extended FOV area, ie: the same FOV as the ZCO would be 'sharp' in the March, and the extended area the ZCO couldn't even see at the same magnification would be the blurry part. If so, then it's a win.

I have an astigmatism and when I look through the center the image for me is badly blurry. But if I shift my head just a little bit sideways the image becomes amazingly sharp and crystal clear. I can also make the image sharp if I put my prescription glasses on but that adds some CA. So at this point I would probably not take anyone's opinion on IQ as a gospel. If I were choosing between those two scopes I would somehow arrange to check each one out and then decide which one works best for me personally.

 

[ormandj]

I have an astigmatism and when I look through the center the image for me is badly blurry. But if I shift my head just a little bit sideways the image becomes amazingly sharp and crystal clear. I can also make the image sharp if I put my prescription glasses on but that adds some CA. So at this point I would probably not take anyone's opinion on IQ as a gospel. If I were choosing between those two scopes I would somehow arrange to check each one out and then decide which one works best for me personally.

That’s unfortunately the issue with March scopes. There is quite literally no option to do that anywhere around me. I’ve never even seen one in person in all the time I’ve been shooting in Texas. I need to attend some form of benchrest competition I think, they don’t seem to be used outside of this.

Do you have the same issue with other scopes at the same magnification setting? Or just the March? Is the reticle staying in focus and the target blurry? I’m assuming you’ve done the positional thing with your head to verify parallax is sorted.

 

[rnlzkbrs]

Do you have the same issue with other scopes at the same magnification setting? Or just the March? Is the reticle staying in focus and the target blurry? I’m assuming you’ve done the positional thing with your head to verify parallax is sorted.

Like I said earlier, I'm new to shooting and so far I only have one other scope: SWFA SS 3-15x42. The whole picture can be blurry for me. With SWFA scope that issue is barely noticeable. My current hypothesis is the following: according to March the exit pupil diameter is between 1.33 mm at highest magnification and 5.2 mm at lowest magnification. For most part of that range that should be less than my eye's pupil diameter. Cornea or/and lens of my eye have inhomogeneities (that's where astigmatism comes from), so when the light passes through mostly "bad" parts of my eye I see image as heavily blurred. When I shift my head and the light passes through mostly "good" parts of my eye I see exceptional quality image. The exit pupil of the SWFA scope is between 2.8 and 11.8 mm, which is mostly larger than my eye's pupil diameter. So the light from SWFA scope goes through all parts of my eye and I see an okay image.

That’s unfortunately the issue with March scopes. There is quite literally no option to do that anywhere around me. I’ve never even seen one in person in all the time I’ve been shooting in Texas. I need to attend some form of benchrest competition I think, they don’t seem to be used outside of this.

Unfortunately the SHOT Show 2021 has been cancelled. @Denys is from Texas, so maybe he can suggest a place or event where you can take a look at a March scope. I can tell that my March scope is amazing, so if it fits your requirements you should definitely find a way to take a look at it. Good luck!

 

[Denys]

$3800ish would be a relatively safe bet, give or take a little.

I'm debating this scope right now, or another ZCO. It sounds like the March has a wider FOV, but the parallax requires more finesse. I'm curious if the edge distortion is in the extended FOV area, ie: the same FOV as the ZCO would be 'sharp' in the March, and the extended area the ZCO couldn't even see at the same magnification would be the blurry part. If so, then it's a win.

The price is probably a bit higher than indicated above but it's a good budgetary number.

I have been playing with the March-FX 5-42X56 at maximum magnification at a range. I have not noticed any abnormal darkening and definitely no blurring of the image at maximum magnification. The FOV was nice and clear all around and the IQ was excellent in the middle part. I use that part of the image to aim on a target, but I loved how much I could see all around.

Do remember that the caution only applies at adjustment extremes and the ultra-wide FOV may exhibit some issues at the edges of the picture at these extremes. This is not the case when in the more common adjustment range.

 

[steve123]

The price is probably a bit higher than indicated above but it's a good budgetary number.

I have been playing with the March-FX 5-42X56 at maximum magnification at a range. I have not noticed any abnormal darkening and definitely no blurring of the image at maximum magnification. The FOV was nice and clear all around and the IQ was excellent in the middle part. I use that part of the image to aim on a target, but I loved how much I could see all around.

Do remember that the caution only applies at adjustment extremes and the ultra-wide FOV may exhibit some issues at the edges of the picture at these extremes. This is not the case when in the more common adjustment range.

Yes, I saw that in the instructions. My 5-42 is on a zero moa base and is pretty much in the middle of travel for both windage and elevation.

Plus all my bud's that looked through it saw the same thing I did. I also compared it to my FX 5-40 which has normal dimming and doesn't get the slight blurriness.

Guess I better send it back.......

 

[Denys]

Yes, I saw that in the instructions. My 5-42 is on a zero moa base and is pretty much in the middle of travel for both windage and elevation.

Plus all my bud's that looked through it saw the same thing I did. I also compared it to my FX 5-40 which has normal dimming and doesn't get the slight blurriness.

Guess I better send it back.......

Did you contact March?

 

[steve123]

Did you contact March?

I contacted Don today, the dealer I ordered it from, he's working on the details of sending it back.

I wanted to double check things so I got out my FX 5-40 to compare to the HM a few minutes ago. I think the 5-40 had better image quality when both are on 40x??!! The HM is dimmer on 42x for sure. I wish I had another Tier1 40+ magnification scope around to compare with but I don't.

 

[ormandj]

I went ahead and bought one of these with the FML-TR1 reticle, so I'll compare it with my ZCO 527 (at 27x power max) when it arrives. I expect the ZCO will do better re: parallax sensitivity/DOF, but I'll try to give a basic comparison aside from that. Nothing like @wjm308 has done, but I'll see if my findings line up with his, in general.

 

[Kickin45]

$3800ish would be a relatively safe bet, give or take a little.

I'm debating this scope right now, or another ZCO. It sounds like the March has a wider FOV, but the parallax requires more finesse. I'm curious if the edge distortion is in the extended FOV area, ie: the same FOV as the ZCO would be 'sharp' in the March, and the extended area the ZCO couldn't even see at the same magnification would be the blurry part. If so, then it's a win.

Huge max magnification difference between the two. Odd choice to choose from as they are so far apart mag wise.

 

[ormandj]

Huge max magnification difference between the two. Odd choice to choose from as they are so far apart mag wise.

It doesn't mean you can't compare the two - I don't have a Tangent Theta or ZCO in 42x, so it's not like that's an option. There's a lot of people like me, shopping for scopes in different magnification ranges, who want to know how they compare. Right now, it's nearly impossible to find March scopes to look through in person. I would have loved (thank you @wjm308 and @Denys) to have feedback with a comparison with scopes people DO own. Just because it's not the same class doesn't mean the comparisons can't be made, just that you need to understand the design differences required.

I don't think anybody will argue that TT/ZCO optical quality/DOF/etc is some of the best there is, and I happen to have some of these scopes to compare with this one. I don't have any expectations that this scope will have the same brightness at 42x the ZCO has at 27, or that parallax adjustment will be as easy, etc. I just think having at least a rough idea how these stocks stack up will allow people to make education decisions when purchasing $4000+ scopes...

I just had to make a gamble to purchase this scope since there's limited information available online re: reviews, so I'm trying to contribute back something that will help other people in my situation evaluating the same. I'm not the only person looking for a good higher-magnification scope that doesn't have a bench full of other 42x scopes, but would love to have some idea of how it stacks up against top-tier glass that I _do_ have available, as I wanted a higher magnification scope. Comparisons with 42x+ glass that I don't have aren't as helpful to me, since I have no idea what other 42x+ scopes look like.

 

[lte82]

I have yet to see one at a match. Wish they would go do some product demos so we could see them in person without having to spend $3800 on one.

 

[rnlzkbrs]

I just had to make a gamble to purchase this scope since there's limited information available online re: reviews, so I'm trying to contribute back something that will help other people in my situation evaluating the same. I'm not the only person looking for a good higher-magnification scope that doesn't have a bench full of other 42x scopes, but would love to have some idea of how it stacks up against top-tier glass that I _do_ have available, as I wanted a higher magnification scope. Comparisons with 42x+ glass that I don't have aren't as helpful to me, since I have no idea what other 42x+ scopes look like.

I was also considering buying a ZCO so I could compare these two scopes side-by-side. But I could not justify installing such scope on any other rifle that I own. I'm looking forward to see your comparison.

 

[Gleedus]

I know Frank was trying to put together criteria for a new scoring system, not sure how much they align but I tried to create some score cards for these two scopes, curious what everyone's thoughts are

View attachment 7376702

View attachment 7376703

I like this format for a quick review. But i prefer your detailed format because you may have rated one lower for a reason that means nothing to me or my use case.
You and ILya are in my favorite because you are presenting of the details not you opinion on how good it rates.
The numbering system is a good thought but in practice it is not suited for comparing high end optics no matter what manufactures think.
For instance I now have a Minox because of you guys detailed reviews both said that they have good micro contrast and that is important to me. Lets say it has a smaller eyebox then xyz it may have made the scope rate less but to me at this level the eyebox means very little.
I do my own optics testing etc for my own pleasure so small story lol. ILya has stated there is variation in IOR for optical quality sample to sample. I have had 3 he is correct I can verify that with my own tests. Vortex PST gen 2 I have had several the new ones are not what the first ones where.
So thanks for the detailed work you guys some of us really appreciate it and dont have access to all the optics to see for ourselves.

I use these to test optical quality. I think you could create a numbering system for it but best would be to have 3 numbers red green blue as the different colors show different characteristics of when the optic will fail. The white and black mean very little for real world proformance. You can definitely tell which has better micro contrast and resolution.

As you can see I'm into details lol. Cheers

 

[ormandj]

Just received my 5-42x56. I've had a brief look through it as compared to the ZCO, but don't want to say too much until I get it out to further distances. It definitely has a wide FOV for the power level it's set at, and I do see the edge softness discussed. I'll see if it only extends beyond the 'normal' FOV on the ZCO, in which case, it's not a massive negative.

One thing I will say, the illumination is not anywhere near daylight bright. It doesn't matter to me, but don't let anyone tell you otherwise. It's barely visible at level 6 (max) on a treed background in Texas. It's closer to min/low illumination on a Razor G3, for example. I will compare with the ZCO illumination later.

Also, as noted, the 'zero set' on this scope is somewhat 'soft'. The click just prior becomes more difficult, and then the actual click is fairly firm, but you can keep going if you want. I'm not going to experiment with this, as I have no idea if it's dangerous to the scope, but this really should be a hard stop. That said, you'd have to 'try' to twist through it.

On a positive note, I can say with 100% certainty, the turrets have a better 'feel' than my ZCO by a good margin. Between the spacing of clicks and the feel of them, these turrets are VERY nice.

Picture is a ZCO 527 next to the 5-24x56. I'm not taking the caps off the ZCO, but rest assured, the 5-42x56 is definitely a good bit smaller.

 

[Glassaholic]

Just received my 5-42x56. I've had a brief look through it as compared to the ZCO, but don't want to say too much until I get it out to further distances. It definitely has a wide FOV for the power level it's set at, and I do see the edge softness discussed. I'll see if it only extends beyond the 'normal' FOV on the ZCO, in which case, it's not a massive negative.

One thing I will say, the illumination is not anywhere near daylight bright. It doesn't matter to me, but don't let anyone tell you otherwise. It's barely visible at level 6 (max) on a treed background in Texas. It's closer to min/low illumination on a Razor G3, for example. I will compare with the ZCO illumination later.

Also, as noted, the 'zero set' on this scope is somewhat 'soft'. The click just prior becomes more difficult, and then the actual click is fairly firm, but you can keep going if you want. I'm not going to experiment with this, as I have no idea if it's dangerous to the scope, but this really should be a hard stop. That said, you'd have to 'try' to twist through it.

On a positive note, I can say with 100% certainty, the turrets have a better 'feel' than my ZCO by a good margin. Between the spacing of clicks and the feel of them, these turrets are VERY nice.

Picture is a ZCO 527 next to the 5-24x56. I'm not taking the caps off the ZCO, but rest assured, the 5-42x56 is definitely a good bit smaller.

I look forward to hearing more about your side by side with the ZCO and especially once you get a chance to use both scopes in the field. Your thoughts on illumination mimic my experience as well, it's not horrible but it's not anywhere close to the illumination of some of the better scopes out there, low light situations it will do very well, but not really daylight situations. Also, your thoughts on the turrets mimic my experience, some of the best clicks out there, very distinct with very little play and really good spacing. I was hoping the new 4.5-28x52 was going to inherit the same turrets but for now they do not, still nice, but not as nice as the 5-42. I also like that you can turn the locking feature on and off, so if you don't want it locked you can leave it unlocked and you don't have to worry about messing with anything each time you adjust. Like you said, the 0-set is not a hard stop, you crank down the hex key on top and find increasing resistance, but if you manhandle the turret hard you can go beyond the setting - not sure if this will loosen over time or if it will stay pretty solid, but for those who like to go by feel alone, they may have issues with "did I really go all the way to my zero stop or did it go slightly past or short of the mark", I did a "blind" test where I spun forward then spun back and every time it stopped where I set it so maybe it's more reliable than it first appears. It is a surprisingly small scope, for a 5-42x / 8.4x erector it is extremely compact.

 

[ormandj]

I look forward to hearing more about your side by side with the ZCO and especially once you get a chance to use both scopes in the field. Your thoughts on illumination mimic my experience as well, it's not horrible but it's not anywhere close to the illumination of some of the better scopes out there, low light situations it will do very well, but not really daylight situations. Also, your thoughts on the turrets mimic my experience, some of the best clicks out there, very distinct with very little play and really good spacing. I was hoping the new 4.5-28x52 was going to inherit the same turrets but for now they do not, still nice, but not as nice as the 5-42. I also like that you can turn the locking feature on and off, so if you don't want it locked you can leave it unlocked and you don't have to worry about messing with anything each time you adjust. Like you said, the 0-set is not a hard stop, you crank down the hex key on top and find increasing resistance, but if you manhandle the turret hard you can go beyond the setting - not sure if this will loosen over time or if it will stay pretty solid, but for those who like to go by feel alone, they may have issues with "did I really go all the way to my zero stop or did it go slightly past or short of the mark", I did a "blind" test where I spun forward then spun back and every time it stopped where I set it so maybe it's more reliable than it first appears. It is a surprisingly small scope, for a 5-42x / 8.4x erector it is extremely compact.

I honestly can't think of a scope I think had better turret click feel than this one; I'd rank it above TT, for me. Quite frankly, I didn't think I was going to find something I felt was better than the TT, so this surprised me.

The locks are excellent on this scope, far better than the push in/pull out style on my ZCO, which I detest. I'm not sure on the parallax lock yet, hopefully I don't accidentally engage it (the problem I have with the ZCO locks, I accidentally turn on the lock on the elevation somewhat frequently.) I really don't see any issue with the recessed zero set, I've always set mine for 0.5mil below zero, and then they stay set that way. I briefly tested rotating beyond the zero set, then back out, then back to it - it didn't need to be reset. So the only time you're going to be messing with the zero set is when you change rifles/mounts, and if this were to be plugged with something, you could use a pick or something to dig it out.

To those who commented on the scope being dark at 42x - it definitely is darker. Still usable, but you won't be using that setting at night. That said, I don't have any other 42x scope to compare with, and this is likely completely normal. It didn't strike me as any dimmer than the ZCO 527 at 27x, and all scopes dim as you increase magnification.

 

[ormandj]

I had some more time behind this scope today, and have a few comments. Turrets are amazing, truly some of the best I've ever used. The FOV is great, you definitely have some blur at the edges, but the center area (normal FOV portion) is sharp as you would expect. Eyebox is just fine compared to other scopes at the same magnification. Color is spot on! Definitely ZCO/TT level. CA, there is some, more than ZCO/TT, less than Vortex. Sharpness/resolution, edge goes to ZCO/TT. I suppose this is the tradeoff you make with the shorter tube/wider FOV. Let's be clear, it's better than Vortex, but it's not a ZCO/TT. Parallax - it's not as bad as some have made it out, at the same power levels. It definitely does take more finesse, but it's not night-and-day different. Keep in mind this is comparing with TT/ZCO, which is a really high bar.

All in all, I'd say it's a very nice scope, and if you're used to Vortex Razor HD glass quality, it's a step up. It's around NF ATACR overall, to my eyes. If you want more magnification in a shorter/lighter scope, with great turret feel, this is a great choice.

 

[Glassaholic]

I had some more time behind this scope today, and have a few comments. Turrets are amazing, truly some of the best I've ever used. The FOV is great, you definitely have some blur at the edges, but the center area (normal FOV portion) is sharp as you would expect. Eyebox is just fine compared to other scopes at the same magnification. Color is spot on! Definitely ZCO/TT level. CA, there is some, more than ZCO/TT, less than Vortex. Sharpness/resolution, edge goes to ZCO/TT. I suppose this is the tradeoff you make with the shorter tube/wider FOV. Let's be clear, it's better than Vortex, but it's not a ZCO/TT. Parallax - it's not as bad as some have made it out, at the same power levels. It definitely does take more finesse, but it's not night-and-day different. Keep in mind this is comparing with TT/ZCO, which is a really high bar.

All in all, I'd say it's a very nice scope, and if you're used to Vortex Razor HD glass quality, it's a step up. It's around NF ATACR overall, to my eyes. If you want more magnification in a shorter/lighter scope, with great turret feel, this is a great choice.

Really appreciate your thoughtful response here

In my review on Opticsthoughts, I compared to the Schmidt 5-45 only, I did not compare to the ZCO or Minox ZP5 because I didn't feel that was a fair comparison; however, I may be getting another 5-42 specifically for comparison to the ZP5/ZCO similar to what you've done.

From what you say above, it sounds like you would put the 5-42 on par with the IQ of the ATACR series glass, maybe a step above Razor HD Gen II glass, but definitely not at the level of ZCO/TT. The price of the 5-42 is about $1000 more than ATACR 7-35, but you're getting more magnification and an even more compact package, I think those are some of the tradeoffs when comparing against more tradition 5x erector designs. If I do get another 5-42 to play with, I think I'll try and ask one of my friends who have ATACR 7-35's for a day of fun and see how those compare.

 

[steve123]

I like this ZS system! With a tiny bit of finesse the stop can be adjusted to land perfectly where you want it. Yes you can force it through but.....
I put the cool little ZS adjustment tool that came with the 5-42 on my keychain. A bonus is it just so happens that it fits a bunch of my Athlon scopes.

Here's the deal guys, I'm not sending my 5-42 back just yet or maybe not at all. Look at my previous post above so you can understand what my problem was. Basically I'm not enthused at the way this scope pulls off 42x.

My March scope dealer has been very good handling this situation and has been honest and forthright. I put no fault to him at all.

Me; I see "it" now and know "the" why's concerning the compromises present in this 5-42, = sacrifice one thing and something else has to suffer....
I was suspicious of the likelihood of compromises to begin with but didn't exactly know what the outcome would be.
The below is C&P'ed from an email I got from the dealer I bought the scope from when I was emailing back and forth with him.
Someone at Deon Optics is responding to him which he included in his email to me. The other scope he's referring to is the March FX 5-40x56.
So here you have it in a different font than I have been using.

Though 5-42 uses High Master lenses as it has a shorter body length than 5-40,
unfortunately the IQ may not be that superior compared with 5-40.
High Master in 5-42 is to supplement the deficit of its short scope body.
But we will check your customer's scope if it is returned.

As we use high optical engineering our scopes are more compact than other manufacturers
but in general longer scopes have better IQ but smaller amounts of elevation.
Shorter scopes have less IQ but have large amounts of elevation.
It's like a tradeoff.
5-40x56 has 22MIL whereas 5-42x56 has 40MIL.
5-42x56 has a shorter body in order to have more elevation than 5-40.
5-42 has a High Master lens in order to not degrade the IQ.
Moreover the apparent field of view of 5-42x56 is 26 degrees.
5-40x45 has 20 degrees.
5-42x56 is wider than 5-40x56 by 30%.
Personally I think 5-42x56 is a great scope for the military and for hunting.
It's really hard to choose a perfect scope according to each person's needs.
I'm now making a chart so that anyone can easily understand the characteristics
of each scope but it may take a while for me to complete as I'm running out of time...

 

[rnlzkbrs]

One thing I will say, the illumination is not anywhere near daylight bright. It doesn't matter to me, but don't let anyone tell you otherwise. It's barely visible at level 6 (max) on a treed background in Texas. It's closer to min/low illumination on a Razor G3, for example. I will compare with the ZCO illumination later.

I also noticed that when I change illumination level the reticle flashes at max brightness for a short moment. I do not think it can ever be a problem for anyone but I wonder if it's a "bug" or intentional feature?

CA, there is some, more than ZCO/TT, less than Vortex. Sharpness/resolution, edge goes to ZCO/TT. I suppose this is the tradeoff you make with the shorter tube/wider FOV. Let's be clear, it's better than Vortex, but it's not a ZCO/TT. Parallax - it's not as bad as some have made it out, at the same power levels. It definitely does take more finesse, but it's not night-and-day different. Keep in mind this is comparing with TT/ZCO, which is a really high bar.

I hope sooner or later I will have a chance to look through any of ZCO/TT, but I really doubt I will notice any difference with my eyes. I wish I was somewhat 30 years younger. With all other features mentioned by you and others in this thread I think I made the right choice and this is the best scope for me.

Thank you for comparing these scopes!

 

[steve123]

Well cry me some tears guys?!!!

I mounted my March 5-42 on my 22rf and took it to the NRL22 match today. Had my buds look through it and another scope, both on 15x. The other scope was a latest gen Kahles 5-25x56, the owner of that scope who's 45 years old gave the March the nod.
The other friend who's 50 years old gave the March the nod too but saw a significant difference in IQ, he was very impressed.
I thought the March was barely nicer.

Then I had them look through my scope on 42x. Both of them thought it was great??????????????????
I said to them, don't you think it's a little dark and blurry, both said nope.

Darn, I guess my 60 year old eyes suck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My other friends that looked through this March back when I commented in October were in their mid to late 60's. Maybe there's something to the old eye thing here??

It sure was pretty IQ on 15x during the match which was what I used for the more dynamic stages and the parallax wasn't very finicky on this mag setting.

 

[ormandj]

Well cry me some tears guys?!!!

I mounted my March 5-42 on my 22rf and took it to the NRL22 match today. Had my buds look through it and another scope, both on 15x. The other scope was a latest gen Kahles 5-25x56, the owner of that scope who's 45 years old gave the March the nod.
The other friend who's 50 years old gave the March the nod too but saw a significant difference in IQ, he was very impressed.
I thought the March was barely nicer.

Then I had them look through my scope on 42x. Both of them thought it was great??????????????????
I said to them, don't you think it's a little dark and blurry, both said nope.

Darn, I guess my 60 year old eyes suck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My other friends that looked through this March back when I commented in October were in their mid to late 60's. Maybe there's something to the old eye thing here??

It sure was pretty IQ on 15x during the match which was what I used for the more dynamic stages and the parallax wasn't very finicky on this mag setting.

Good that it wasn't the scope, unfortunate that it doesn't work with your eyes. Do you have corrected vision? Do you have an adjustable comb? Perhaps on 42x the exit pupil being small + your head position is leading to some issue? I do know mine was sensitive at 42x to eye positioning, even a tiny little bit off and it'd go dim/dark/etc. It could just be your eyes physical qualities, nature always wins these battles!

 

[Glassaholic]

I'm only 51 but feel my eyes have definitely gotten worse with regard to low light sensitivity, maybe I need to eat more carrots

 

[rnlzkbrs]

Darn, I guess my 60 year old eyes suck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry to hear that. After I figured out that my issues are with my eyes and not the scope I expected that to be your case too.

I do know mine was sensitive at 42x to eye positioning, even a tiny little bit off and it'd go dim/dark/etc.

I think ideally the diameter of the exit pupil of the scope should be the same as the diameter of the eye's pupil. If it's larger then we'll lose some light and the image would not appear as bright as it could be. If it's smaller we'll get issues like this. Because of this type of issues I think 56mm is too small for high magnification scopes. They should have objective diameter maybe 80mm or maybe even 100mm to make exit pupil large enough at top end.

 

[ormandj]

Sorry to hear that. After I figured out that my issues are with my eyes and not the scope I expected that to be your case too.


I think ideally the diameter of the exit pupil of the scope should be the same as the diameter of the eye's pupil. If it's larger then we'll lose some light and the image would not appear as bright as it could be. If it's smaller we'll get issues like this. Because of this type of issues I think 56mm is too small for high magnification scopes. They should have objective diameter maybe 80mm or maybe even 100mm to make exit pupil large enough at top end.

Everything is a tradeoff. I'd never own a 80/100mm objective scope (I don't want the size or the weight that comes with that), but I'm also not a BR/F-class/ELR guy. 42x w/ a 56mm objective was fine for me, my cheek weld is very repeatable and I had no dimming issues even at 42x so it played well with my eyes in that regard.

It sounds like @steve123 's eyes need the 80/100mm objective or a different optical design, though. I think they have some high magnification scopes that are 'kinder' in this regard; it sounds like this one has the wrong balance for him.

My biggest issue with March up until their most recent releases is they only focused on what the BR/F-class/rimfire folks wanted. I'm glad to see them starting to cater to the rest of us. I also see there's a huge amount of inertia from the existing March customers to not create riflescopes that don't fit them. They really are two different classes of scopes, and March just needs to be clear about which is for whom in their marketing. Trying to cater to both with the same scopes sounds like those huge 100 tool Swiss Army knives; they do everything terribly. I'm glad to see them branching out with the 5-42 and the 4.5-28. I just think they need to make it clear what they are strong at/weak at so buyers can make informed decisions, since you can't try them out anywhere.

 

[steve123]

Good that it wasn't the scope, unfortunate that it doesn't work with your eyes. Do you have corrected vision? Do you have an adjustable comb? Perhaps on 42x the exit pupil being small + your head position is leading to some issue? I do know mine was sensitive at 42x to eye positioning, even a tiny little bit off and it'd go dim/dark/etc. It could just be your eyes physical qualities, nature always wins these battles!

Yes I was wearing my shooting glasses which have corrective lenses. I'm due to go back to the eye doctor here in a month so I'll find out how much worse they have gotten in the last 1.5 years since I went last time.
And to think I used to have perfect vision, what a bummer!

Yes I do have an adjustable cheek piece and have it set up just right to look down the scope.

I almost didn't believe my buds were not seeing what I was on 42x??!!

 

[Glassaholic]

Yes I was wearing my shooting glasses which have corrective lenses. I'm due to go back to the eye doctor here in a month so I'll find out how much worse they have gotten in the last 1.5 years since I went last time.
And to think I used to have perfect vision, what a bummer!

Yes I do have an adjustable cheek piece and have it set up just right to look down the scope.

I almost didn't believe my buds were not seeing what I was on 42x??!!

I'm in the same boat Steve, used to have perfect vision, then my late 40's hit and I can no longer see things up close clearly and can no longer see things far away with the same acuity I once had. I used to be able to see my turret numbers with my non dominant eye, but no I have to back away from the scope to read it, but Tyler's (MKM) magnifier has helped there!

 

[steve123]

I'm in the same boat Steve, used to have perfect vision, then my late 40's hit and I can no longer see things up close clearly and can no longer see things far away with the same acuity I once had. I used to be able to see my turret numbers with my non dominant eye, but no I have to back away from the scope to read it, but Tyler's (MKM) magnifier has helped there!

From mid 20's to early 40's I used to shoot steel and combat pistol matches for many years, even winning B stock world champion at the AHWS by the time I decided I would get into other shooting disciplines. When I was 45 years old I went to a tactical match for the fun of it. After shooting the first stage I walked out with the tapers to see how I had done. I was shocked to find out I had completely missed 3 IPSC targets???????!!!!!!!!!!!!! Up to that point I don't think I had ever missed the whole target before???!!!

I got to looking at the front sight and saw that it was a blurry. In a despairing state I went to the eye doctor and had some shooting glasses made with a slight correction to accommodate my dominant eye.

As they say "the writing was on the wall". Head hangs low....

 

[ormandj]

Don't worry, I'm soon to join the club. I've already started to see my vision decline and have scheduled a visit to my ophthalmologist to find out how thick my lenses are going to need to be.