Rifle Scopes New March-FX 4.5-28X52 HM WA
- Thread starter Denys
- Start date
I will check next time I'm at the range , but glass is nice.
At 28 it's very clear as that's what power I was shooting groups on.
Elmer
Very usable. Will try to get some through the scope images, maybe even do a little video. What I love about ILya's FML-TR1 design, is that the tree virtually disappears when you don't need it, and when you do, it is very usable.
I have a 5-42 coming, I have been trying to find out if the 4.5-28 is identical at the same magnification or if they tweaked it for the smaller range of the 4.5-28.
The 5-42 is purely for elr, but if the reticle works at 10-12x I may get the 4.5 for PRS.
The one I got to play with really "popped" at the 18 power point and was very usable in the 10 - 15 power range for sling shooting.
Great to hear. While I like my Leica, I need a scope with a clearer tree at 10x
Received the 4.5-28X52 HM today and mounted.
First observations,
Will view side by side this weekend and follow up.
First observations,
- Wow, definitely a compact, solid, attractive scope.
- Turrets seem solid and distinct, no complaints.
- Very limited looking through the glass, but looks impressive.
- Parallax doesn’t seem nearly as finicky as the previous 3-24.
- Reticle, FML-TR1, a big step up from prior generations.
- Illumination dial position 1-6 seems awkward & difficult to rotate - on/off push button is simple.
- I’m not a fan of capped windage
Will view side by side this weekend and follow up.
Last edited:
The windage knob on this model is fully and precisely adjustable by simply removing the cap. The difference is that the windage knob does not have the big knurls like the elevation knob; it's not "tactical," but it is fully adjustable. I believe this model is aimed (pun fully intended) at hunters and so on, a more general application. The other model, with its finer reticle and all "tactical" knobs, is aimed that the PRS competition folks.
Other model? With non-capped windage in 4.5-28 and illuminated reticle?
Or are you referring to the previous generation 3-24x52?
And to be honest' "D28HV52WFIML - Tactical Model with Illumination module" doesn't sound like the hunter model - but rather, "tactical."
"This scope was developed with practical precision shooting competitors in mind,
but ease of use and compact configuration make it equally at home on nearly any shooting platform."
IMHO, capped windage was a poor design choice.
What am I missing?
Thanks
Last edited:
My understanding (and it can surely be faulty) is that the 4.5-28X52 with the PDK reticle (non-illuminated) was designed expressly for the PRS crowd with its fine reticle and tree. That model has "tactical" knobs for both windage and elevation. The model you are talking about has a thicker reticle, which can be illuminated, and they capped the windage knob. I think the overall design of the scope was aimed at the PRS crowd and they decided to expand its appeal to more general shooting. So, if I read the blurb you quoted in that light, it says: "We designed this scope for PRS and realized it has a wider appeal and made some adjustments for that in this model."
I'm guessing here, of course. Marketing blurbs are not my forte.
Thanks for the info. Not the end of the world but a bit of a bummer none the less. Don’t know why they can’t include an exposed windage but with a simple locking feature for hunting situations.
I prefer locking or capped windage. I dial elevation and hold wind in just about every situation, many prefer capped windage, but like Denys said you can just leave the cap off and have your windage dial.
True, it’s a little nit-picking, but the smaller windage turret and labeling makes it even more difficult to read with my aging eyes. It’s still a solid turret, just smaller. I do like the larger, exposed, windage dial on previous models and would have preferred a similar, updated locking style. Again, nit picking.
(I’m sure I’m going to eventually lose the cap)
I hear you, I nit pick stuff all the time. Good news is March is looking at a modified version of the locking turret they offer on the 5-42, but no ETA on when that might be.
Other good news, March is introducing a Gen II version of the 5-40x56 scope, complete with the same locking turrets found on the new 5-42x56 HM and also a brand new reticle called the PDKi. This should come in a bit cheaper than the 5-42...
D40V56FIML10-G2 (MIL, Tactical, Illumi, 0.1MIL adj, Lock, Genll) | MARCH Scopes | DEON Optical Design CorporationMARCH Scopes | DEON Optical Design Corporation
MARCH Scopes Official Site
marchscopes.com
Same. Mine isn’t to arrive until very late March or early April. My 6.5 feels naked and ashamed right now.
Since it’s a shorter scope body, I am curious about how it looks and takes up space on different rifles. I know that may sound silly but the Nightforce NX8 2-20 model is a ugly looking scope to me. IMHO I think NF should have just used the same body as the 4-32 model, than maybe optically it would have been a better performer for folks too.
Just my opinion, but I think it looks great sitting on a rifle. I have mocked mine up on an Impact action with a 22" light Palma barrel and a Tikka with a #3 Bartlein contour 18" barrel. Both look awesome to me. I'm hoping to get out this coming week and do some comparisons with other glass. So far, I like what I see.
I finally got a chance to take a few pics of the March today. Mounted it to a Tikka t3X chambered in 6.5 CM with a Hawk Hill 18" barrel #3 contour. I'm really liking this scope. Field of view, contrast, low light capabilities, eye box ease of use, and FML-Tr1 reticle are awesome. It stands equal or better with all the upper tier optics I've used. I can't compare to Tangent Theta, because I've never looked thru one, but I have pretty much owned all of the rest of them. Hats off to the designer of the FML-TR1 reticle. I couldn't imagine a better design if I tried. The center section is very open, yet precise. No cluttering at all. The MR4 reticle in the Minox ZP5 has been my favorite, but this one tops it. The Christmas tree is there if you need it, but not there if you're not looking for it. My meaning is that you never notice the tree unless you look for it. The illumination is going to be great for hunting applications. I have found that at low light, the Tree reticle that is totally illuminated will obscure the animal completely. I would highly recommend this scope. At first reading about it, I was skeptical. After trying it, I think March has a winner.
Attachments
Last edited:
I feel as if I could have written that, my thoughts mimic yours almost word for word. I too have had a ZP5 with MR4 reticle, for years it has been my "top" scope with the TT and ZCO 4-20 being the only one's that have really challenged it (optically). I have a TT now (sold the ZP5 soon after I got the March) but to be honest the ZP5/ZCO glass is comparable to TT, very difficult to discern a big difference between the two. You can thank the Hide's own @koshkin as he is the brains behind the FML-TR1 design and I agree with you, on paper I wasn't so sure about the reticle but in practical application it excels, a brilliant design by ILya especially for this type of scope. Same thoughts on the tree, so well done with the design that it virtually disappears, in fact, when I went shooting with @MNTC a couple weeks ago and he looked through my 4.5-28x52 the first thing he said was "the tree disappears when you don't need it but easy enough to pick up when you do" (my paraphrase from two weeks ago
). The control of CA is done extremely well, in fact, in high contrast situations it managed to keep CA minimal as good as my TT during testing. Eyebox is a little more finicky than the TT/Minox and ZCO but was expected from such a short scope with high magnification, the new parallax gearing allows the parallax to be more forgiving than previous March FFP scopes and the edge to edge sharpness is impressive for a scope with wide FOV.I've been meaning to wrap up my review of the scope but I've had some family emergency situations that have delayed my ability to stay on task.
I have not, it takes a lot of time and effort to write up a full review and many others have already covered TT and Minox. One of the best is from hk dave, here is the link to his review:
Rifle Scopes - Tangent Theta 5-25 v Minox 5-25 v Nightforce 7-35 v Schmidt & Bender 5-25 v Vortex 4.5-27
Tangent Theta TT525P 5-25x56mm vs Minox ZP5 TAC 5-25x56mm vs Nightforce ATACR 7-35x56mm F1 vs Vortex Razor HD Gen II 4.5-27x56mm vs Schmidt Bender PMII 5-26x56mm L/P DT This review and comparison has been a long time coming. It’s essentially the comparison I’ve always wished someone did in an...
www.snipershide.com
My experience mimics Dave's - the TT and ZP5 are so close optically it is very hard to tell them apart which is not too far fetched since they both share the same lineage with Optronika (now GSO) being responsible for the design of both scopes (as well as the original Premier Heritage scopes). The big difference between the two are the turrets, TT being one of the best in the business and the ZP5 being "really good" but not quite on par with TT. For a while the Minox had the "better" reticle IMO with the MR4 vs. the Gen 2XR, but later TT came out with the Gen 3XR which I like better than the MR4 now; however, I find the Gen 3XR and FML-TR1 to be very close to usability and features, hard to decide a clear winner between the two but as spyder mentioned above, the FML-TR1 makes for a very compelling competition and crossover reticle.
Can someone please get me the main tube length on the 4.5-28?
I'm wanting to use the Hawkins LR Hybrid rings but I'm not so sure they'll work on my Defiance LA
I'm wanting to use the Hawkins LR Hybrid rings but I'm not so sure they'll work on my Defiance LA
Apologies if this has been covered already in the thread and I missed it but how are people finding the eye boxes on the production models? Especially compared to comparable scopes?
Though it seems "eyebox" is a numerically defined value, my impression of this scope is you do need to be more conscious of proper alignment with this scope for the perfect image - more so than any other scopes I use. Also, though the eye relief if listed as about 70-90 mm, for me, to get the best image, I need to move the scope one slot closer on the rail compared to my other scopes.
It's a beautifully designed compact scope, but I think there are compromises we must accept for the package.
How would you compare the eyebox on the March 4.5-28 to the eyebox on your ZCO? I would also be interested in any thoughts you have about the differences in FOV and DOF between the two as well.
Thanks.
This eye box stuff is making me nervous..
I had an NX8 4-32 before ordering the 4.5-28, it had a terrible eye box that made finding targets difficult.
Drove me nuts, I'm really hoping the March isn't like that!
I had an NX8 4-32 before ordering the 4.5-28, it had a terrible eye box that made finding targets difficult.
Drove me nuts, I'm really hoping the March isn't like that!
It's not terrible, just more noticeable than the ZCO and Minox I'm comparing it to.
Eyebox on the ZCO 4-20 is "more" forgiving, but the 4.5-28 is still really good, meaning not far behind and ahead of a lot of other scopes, best I have seen in a March scope. If you want the absolute best optical quality and/or eyebox then I'd say you want a TT, ZCO or ZP5, but I'd put the March ahead of the Schmidt 3-20 Ultra Short (keep in mind this is going off memory from having had three 3-20 US's in the past). The March has an impressive lead with FOV, just look at the specs, March has greater FOV at 4.5x than the ZCO does at 4x and this follows through the entire mag range. DOF I'd have to give the edge slightly to ZCO, the March has impressive DOF for such a short scope with high magnification, but the ZCO has incredible DOF.
I do not have experience with the NX8 4-32, but I do with the NX8 2.5-20 which is the WORST high end optic I've ever looked through, eyebox and DOF on that scope along with gross edge distortion had me selling it immediately after my review, I honestly do not know what NF was thinking when they released that scope, and it baffles me when I see fanboys saying "this is the best scope I've ever owned" which makes me wonder what on earth did they own previously. Maybe at $1k the NX8 would be appealing but at $2k there are much better options out there. That being said the NX8 4-32 seems to get better feedback and I've thought of grabbing one at some point but my experience with the 2.5-20 left such a bad taste in my mouth I have not had the itch to do so yet. I need more time behind the March to really make a determination on eyebox and different positions, etc. but so far I am impressed as I compare side by side with my TT which has one of the best eyebox's on the market, I do not think you will be disappointed with the eyebox.
^Don't get it - garbage value. At 1K, fine, but at 2K, the competition destroys it, same as the one you had.
I like it too! FML-TR1
It wasn't until I bought the March HM 5-42x56 that I found I liked it more than most reticles I've seen through actual scopes vs just photos of them. I liked it more than I thought I would!
I use this scope on 15x-20x the most and it's nice to see the center of the reticle easily. Guys with young eyes might like thin reticles on 12x-15x but I prefer the FML-TR1 in this mag range. It's awesome dialed up too.
I could suffer the 4.5-28 for sure
Yeah what you described applies 100 percent to the 4-32 as well, its pretty terrible all the way around.
The mk5 blew it away in every comparison I made.
Great to hear your praise of the 4.5-28, I should have mine in hand within 2 weeks
Can't wait
If you liked the Mark 5 that much better than the NX8 4-32 then you will love the 4.5-28.
For me, Mk5 to ZCO was a bigger jump than NX8 to Mk5.
Any comparison of this March vs the Steiner m7? I think I like the MSR2 even more than the FML-TR1, and don't want to spring for S&B pricing now with the Eurooptic exclusivity.
Concur, the drawings don’t do the reticle justice. In actual use, it’s very nice.
My ”eyebox” and eye relief relief comments are more observations than criticism - the scope is very, very nice in form, function and experience.
There is nothing out there that competes in compactness, mag range and quality. I’ve looked.
I’ll be keeping it.
Last edited:
Seems like the norm of late. So if I ordered a bunch of 4.5-28 scopes and had them in inventory, would that be a benefit for y'all? Not sure how I'd do it but if I can figure out a way and had enough interest I might look into it just to benefit Hide members.
Just so you know, the collective noun for riflescopes is "mirage", not "bunch". So you would order a "mirage of 4.5-28X52s"
As mentioned earlier, I mount the scope a slot further back than my other scopes. (Could just be an anomaly with me, cause I’ve thought about moving the ZCO back as well) But, if you so the same, lows wont cut it due to the short, sloped bell. Mediums work on this sendero profile.
Shot a bunch today - so far, I’m impressed. (But still not a fan of capped windage)
Last edited:
Similar threads
