Not sure exactly what you mean but yes, you can take the cover off and leave it that way. It’s a very nice turret underneath with good visible markings and distinct clicks. But the one downside is the lack of a windage stop. If you bump your turret you can end up a full revolution off. I choose to run the cover since I hold wind anyway, but just food for thought.
Gotcha. Nope didn’t see a thread protector in the box. But I also can’t imagine damaging those threads without also seriously harming the entire scope. But maybe it’s just an aesthetics thing?
Yes. Don’t know why I couldn’t thing of “thread protector” lol. And I will reach out to them to see.
Not going to lie, part of it is for aesthetics.
I am completely ignorant on scopes compared to most so take this with a large grain of salt, but I love everything about the scope aside from a capped windage (just preference for me). Glass is clear. Reticle (TR-1) is nice plus having just the center illuminate is awesome as it isn’t distracting like having the entire reticle lit up. Compact and lightweight compared to similar mag range scopes. I don’t think you will be disappointed.
When the rifle is built I'll take pics. It is a Left Handed Defiance Action with a Proof 16.5 inch 6mm CM carbon barrel going into a Manners MCS CS2 w/ mini chassis and Badger EFR stock March 4.5-28 scope, Triggertech Diamond trigger and Silencerco Omega. Action and Barrel should be back from Mid South shortly but I think I'm still 2 months out on the stock.
If you do find something else out there, please let us know. On my F-TR Match rifle, my March-X 10-60X56 wears the leather caps from March. I simply remove them at the beginning of the day and place them in my shooting bag. Then I put them back on when I put my rifle in its case. I have no need for flip up caps on that rifle.
Sorry, my hard drive crashed and backup wasn't backing up for 3 months so I lost all my pictures and my writeup, I've had to redo everything and trying to do that in the midst of putting our house on the market has not been fun.
Aaaaarrrrggg. Sorry to hear and you don't have to tell me about getting a house ready for market. Went thru that last fall.
www.snipershide.com
@Reppa I thought I'd bring this over into this thread so we could discuss the merits of the different reticles for PRS use. You mention a reticle that can be used from 10-15x and mention the FML cannot be used even at 20x. There are 3 reticles offered in the March 4.5-28, the FML-TR1, the FML-3 and the FML-PDK. Which FML are you referring to? I only have experience with the FML-TR1 reticle and am trying to figure out if you feel the reticle is too thick or too thin for your use? For my eyes the reticle is usable even below 10x, these are crude iPhone images I took through my scope from 10-20x so help me understand what needs to change in order for this to be "usable". I am honestly not trying to argue here, I truly want to understand so I might be able to help March improve on future reticles.
I was talking about the fml tr1, but referring to the tree, not the main cross. Doing quick holdovers at say 1.8mil elevation and 1.3 wind against a dark background would be impossible for me.
Oh gotcha, it’s the tree that poses an issue if you are holding your solution. So if the dots were thicker it would work better for you? Anything else you would like to see changed? Would you rather see a thicker PDK or would you prefer a thicker TR1?
A thicker Tr1 would do it for me. Ebr7c is pretty similar, but with 0.6 and 0.9 dots in the tree.
Thank you Reppa. I wonder how many other PRS shooters would prefer thicker dots? I know March had one of their PRS shooters help them design the PDK reticle which is very thin, and I know some prefer thin reticles but your comments make me wonder how many in the PRS community might be moving away from "thin" and preferring thick for exactly the scenarios you mention above. @canezach, do you have any thoughts on this as well?
Here, a lot of the top shooters have moved to ZCO mpct3. The popularity of that scope in the top echelon is a strong indicator IMO. I presume the trend is similar in the US. Curious to know.
lte, you bring up another interesting point. Over the past 5 years or so (probably since the SKMR series came onto the scene) it seems the big push in PRS has been towards a center dot, but you're saying open circles in the tree at full mil marks and a standard crosshair in the center would be preferable? In your opinion, which reticle have you used that has the ideal "thickness" within the Goldilocks zone of magnification (let's say 12-18x)
Honestly, I don't. My personal favorite reticles are the MR4 from Minox and the Gen3XR. Both give me a perfectly usable tree, if I need it, at the mag range I prefer, but I don't know the exact size of the dots.
I've never understood the open circles, I find them distracting, would like to explore their benefit vs a larger dot in more detail.
Well that's a very good point, I only use the center dot for 100 yard load dev, but anything further or in gusty winds we're going to be holding off center so I see your point on how a crosshair provides the quick center reference.
That's funny, reminds me of the shave ice trucks that have a 1000 flavors to pick from
Hmmm, I wonder how popular a scope rental truck would be at PRS match, offer 20-30 different scopes with different reticles for shooters to try out and play with, maybe I just figured out a new business venture, I could buy a nice RV and travel around to the various PRS and NRL venues...
Right, see I think you and I are more similar in that we prefer dots in the tree, but I wonder if I can make some type of dot circle hybrid, let me jump into CAD and see what I can come up with.
You and I definitely prefer dots. We discussed that before when we were talking about ZCO
I like it overall. The .1 dots are interesting as well inside 2 mil, but they would need to be viewable at say 12-14x otherwise it sorta turns that section into a half mil reticle, and that section is by far the most important, and I think a lot of people shoot in the 12x range for some stages. And if it did work, why not go all the way across with it? Consistency in sight picture to me is worth a lot, which is why simple seems to work better for me.
This is, in part, why I designed the first 2 mils around center to be the dots, since this gets used a lot, just not sure how much dots on the main stadia will be received
If it does work as you say, do you see a drawback to using dots across the horizontal stadia instead of a solid line, was trying to think outside the box a bit, but might be too far outside the box...
Well that's the hope, a more compelling tree design that would get competitors to use it, and maybe some who haven't used tree reticles before.
