Rifle Scopes New March HM vs S&B

[Lmi3]

Hi everyone,

I need your feedback to make a decision, so here's my question :
If ruggedness and tracking is your only concern, what would you choose between the new March HM 5-42x56 and the S&B PMII 4-45x56 ?
I already tried a March scope so i know that i won't be disappointed by the glass, but everyone around me is swearing by the PMII when it comes to ruggedness.

• What is the platform for the scope? (AI AT)
• What cartridge are you shooting? (6.5 CM & 308)
• What is your intended use for the scope? ( Benchrest, Hunting in some harsh environment ,)
• What type of conditions will you typically shoot in? (Daylight, Lowlight,)
• What are the typical distances you intend to shoot? ( 600-1,000 yds, 300-600 yds)
• Are there any specific specifications you would like? (Ruggedness)
• What is the price range you can afford? (4-5k)

Thanks

 

[GIXXER2000]

I don't have the S&B 4X45 I have 3X27 and yes it rugged, I had my drag bag strap break and drop my AI-AXMC .338 LM on the ground. I did put an nice mark on the evaluation turret. Other then the mark it put the turret tracks and works fine. I shoot out to 2600 yards with no issues.
I have looked at the new March 5x42 for ELR use and would like to know more.

 

[Glassaholic]

I just finished with both the March 5-42 and Schmidt 5-45, review coming on OpticsThoughts.com soon. Both scopes are excellent, there are some pros and cons to each. I’ll try and write up a summary tomorrow. One thing you don’t mention is reticle, which one are you looking at on the Schmidt?

 

[koshkin]

In terms of durability, I'd be surprised if there is any practical difference between them. Both seem to be very well built.

ILya

 

[Lmi3]

I just finished with both the March 5-42 and Schmidt 5-45, review coming on OpticsThoughts.com soon. Both scopes are excellent, there are some pros and cons to each. I’ll try and write up a summary tomorrow. One thing you don’t mention is reticle, which one are you looking at on the Schmidt?

Many thanks for your feedback, i will definitely check your summary
For the reticle, i will go with GRID if i would take the S&B.
By the way, is there other scope in your March review ?

 

[Lmi3]

In terms of durability, I'd be surprised if there is any practical difference between them. Both seem to be very well built.

ILya

Thanks ILya, just saw your video on the new March scope, excellent glass indeed.
Would like to get your feedback also vs the TT525

 

[Hairy Biker]

I've been treating mine to casual disregard. Dust, rain, hail, snow, bushfires and baking heat (and that was only the past 5 months in Australia). You will need a lot of careless handling and a hammer.

 

[koshkin]

Thanks ILya, just saw your video on the new March scope, excellent glass indeed.
Would like to get your feedback also vs the TT525

That's a tough call because the excel at different things. TT is easier to get behind and has much more forgiving depth of field. It also has a little better microcontrast, especially toward the edges.

March 5-42x56 is smaller, lighter, has broader mag range and absolutely spectacular center field resolution.

In terms of turrets, I think TT still has overall the best turret feel in the business, but the turrets on this new March are a serious step up (and their original turrets are pretty good too) and I really like the locking feature.

Both have good tree reticles. I designed the TR1 reticle for March and had some input into the Gen3 XR reticle in the TT, so I like both.

It really comes down to what is more important to you. They really appeal to somewhat different preferences.

I liked the original 5-40x March, but I think 5-42x56 is a solid improvement.

I have a lot of scopes go through my hands. They come and go and I generally part with them easily. You can say that I am very jaded.

Of the high end stuff, somehow, Tangent and March is what ends up staying here and I fully expect to have a proper production 5-42x56 get here and stay here right alongside my 5-25x56 TT.

ILya

 

[Lmi3]

That's a tough call because the excel at different things. TT is easier to get behind and has much more forgiving depth of field. It also has a little better microcontrast, especially toward the edges.

March 5-42x56 is smaller, lighter, has broader mag range and absolutely spectacular center field resolution.

In terms of turrets, I think TT still has overall the best turret feel in the business, but the turrets on this new March are a serious step up (and their original turrets are pretty good too) and I really like the locking feature.

Both have good tree reticles. I designed the TR1 reticle for March and had some input into the Gen3 XR reticle in the TT, so I like both.

It really comes down to what is more important to you. They really appeal to somewhat different preferences.

I liked the original 5-40x March, but I think 5-42x56 is a solid improvement.

I have a lot of scopes go through my hands. They come and go and I generally part with them easily. You can say that I am very jaded.

Of the high end stuff, somehow, Tangent and March is what ends up staying here and I fully expect to have a proper production 5-42x56 get here and stay here right alongside my 5-25x56 TT.

ILya

Many thanks ILya for all this info, really appreciated.
I see already a deal on opticsplanet for the March @ 3780 usd I don't think i can get even closer to this price with the TT.

 

[Glassaholic]

Many thanks for your feedback, i will definitely check your summary
For the reticle, i will go with GRID if i would take the S&B.
By the way, is there other scope in your March review ?

I did not review any other scopes (side by side) because there are no other scopes that compare spec wise. Sure I could compare my ZP5 5-25 but that is a 5x design by GSO and felt the parameters between that and an 8.4x design would be too limiting. The March 5-42x56 was really designed to compete toe to toe with the Schmidt 5-45 (a 9x design). I realize we make comparisons all the time but I felt for this scope it was appropriate to keep it targeted to the design intent and not wander too far outside those walls.

So quick summary:

• Center Resolution - advantage March
• Edge to Edge Sharpness - advantage Schmidt
• Center CA - tie
• Edge CA - advantage Schmidt
• FOV - advantage March
• Turret Clicks (subjective) - advantage March, but the .05 clicks with the Schmidt DT II+ turrets were impressive
• Overall elevation - advantage March
• Illumination - advantage Schmidt (first daytime bright Schmidt reticle I've seen)
• Reticle (subjective) - advantage March, the FML-TR1 is my new favorite. I found the LRR-Mil to be extremely thin, too thin for my preference
• Ergonomics (subjective) - I like the size and weight of the March better, in fact, the March is shorter than many 5-25 designs. I wish Schmidt would do away with the illumination tumor, it continues to stick out like a... tumor.

 

[Glassaholic]

Here's a side by side comparison so you can see what I mean about the ergonomics of the March compared to the Schmidt

March on the Left, Schmidt on the right

Okay, so it's not quite that bad, but the Schmidt is a monster of a scope while the March keeps things streamlined.

 

[carbonbased]

If scopes were hookers, @wjm308 would prefer “spinners.” https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=spinner

Thx for the comparisons!

 

[Glassaholic]

^^^ Ummm

 

[Denys]

There is another fairly important optical feature that has not been discussed yet, field of view (FOV). The March-FX 5-42X56 sports a wide angle eyepiece that provides for a wider FOV compared to other scopes at the same magnifications and distances. I visited the S&B site and the March sites to get their base FOV values at the lowest setting (5X) and did a quick spreadsheet to provide the values at other magnifications.

	S&B 5-45X56	S&B 5-45X56	March-FX 5-42X56	March-FX 5-42X56
Mag	Mtrs@100m	Ft@100y	Mtrs@100m	Ft@100y
5	7.80	23.4	8.73	26.2
10	3.90	11.7	4.37	13.1
15	2.60	7.8	2.91	8.7
20	1.95	5.9	2.18	6.5
25	1.56	4.7	1.75	5.2
30	1.30	3.9	1.46	4.4
35	1.11	3.3	1.25	3.7
40	0.98	2.9	1.09	3.3
42	0.93	2.8	1.04	3.1
45	0.87	2.6

 

[arrow179]

in for more info...

 

[Hairy Biker]

The wide FoV is an upshift to be sure. After playing with the March 42x for a while, I went back to my March 40x and thought I was looking through a toilet roll because of the FoV was suddenly a lot narrower.

I'm really looking forward to this wider FoV feature being used on the 28x model currently under development. It is not just the increased left and right of the target down range that you get, but I was getting more feedback on why fliers were happening - trigger control and grip - as a result of the direction of reticle movement during follow through.

And of course, in non-standard shooting positions the wider eyepiece gives a bit more flexibility to avoid the dreaded black circle parallax ring.

 

[Denys]

That riflescope (4.5-28X52) is coming soon.

 

[brianf]

I'm really looking forward to this wider FoV feature being used on the 28x model currently under development. It is not just the increased left and right of the target down range that you get, but I was getting more feedback on why fliers were happening - trigger control and grip - as a result of the direction of reticle movement during follow through.


Confused how a larger FOV gives you better feedback on flyers.

If you trigger control and grip are causing issues your ret will be in the same position after the shot regardless of the scope magnification, scope mfg or iron sights for that matter.

 

[Glassaholic]

There is another fairly important optical feature that has not been discussed yet, field of view (FOV).

I can't believe I missed that in my summary, it is definitely one of the things I tested between both. Before the March I would have told you the Schmidt 5-45 had the best FOV I've seen in a long range scope, but when looking side by side with the March the March is considerably larger in FOV throughout the magnification range.

 

[Hairy Biker]

I'm really looking forward to this wider FoV feature being used on the 28x model currently under development. It is not just the increased left and right of the target down range that you get, but I was getting more feedback on why fliers were happening - trigger control and grip - as a result of the direction of reticle movement during follow through.


Confused how a larger FOV gives you better feedback on flyers.

If you trigger control and grip are causing issues your ret will be in the same position after the shot regardless of the scope magnification, scope mfg or iron sights for that matter.

Sadly not so. The break point direction of the reticle is the clearest I have every experienced with this glass and the increased FoV gives the brain/my brain more reference points to measure against. Strap into a sling and try it, then move to Hawkins and Layback. What I am saying is that I found this increased FoV increased my attention on the small details that made a difference to my score (and did not leave me wondering why I had missed).

 

[Denys]

I can't believe I missed that in my summary, it is definitely one of the things I tested between both. Before the March I would have told you the Schmidt 5-45 had the best FOV I've seen in a long range scope, but when looking side by side with the March the March is considerably larger in FOV throughout the magnification range.

Since March first introduced their wide angle eyepieces, they have been adding them to most of their new designs, especially the FFP models. The 4.5-28X52 has a 25 degree WA eyepiece. It's specifically aimed at PRS and that larger FOV will be an added bonus.

 

[Franko]

That riflescope (4.5-28X52) is coming soon.

I am really looking forward to seeing the reviews from wjm308 and koshkin on this one. I don't "need" it but my wallet is already starting to get nervous...

 

[usmc45]

I have never looked through a March, always wanted to. But I have read hear on SH about the sensitive parallax and smallish "eye box". Are these things of the past with this new scope? Still love the idea of putting one on a hunting rifle.

 

[koshkin]

I have never looked through a March, always wanted to. But I have read hear on SH about the sensitive parallax and smallish "eye box". Are these things of the past with this new scope? Still love the idea of putting one on a hunting rifle.

The 5-42x56 is more forgiving than older models and the upcoming 4.5-28x52 is even more so.

ILya

 

[carbonbased]

As far as FOV goes, there are discussions on this thread about the eyepiece FOV and then there are discussions about the FOV downrange. I took the downrange FOV as the standard definition and perhaps mistakenly, I understood the eyepiece FOV as a bigger eyebox.

Are these two FOVs interrelated? If so, how?

edit: @koshkin any thoughts?

 

[Hairy Biker]

Yes. The ocular is a different design to "normal" scopes and has a 26 degree Wide angle lens in it. I found this offers the user two things - a bigger down range picture of the target and surrounding areas and a much bigger lens closer to your eye.

Throw the "eye box" term out the window here. A properly set up scope will rely on your cheek weld to be repeatable and exact. Repetition (again in a range of positions and not just bipod) will develop muscle memory on this and you can mark out the max and min eye relief points on the butt if required.

Butt style is also important here. On my AI the cheek weld was spot on and repeatable. On a German hunting rifle, sitting positions were great but prone positions were a struggle because of the curved shape of the butt.

But here is the "but" from my experience of using this scope. The scope rewards good shooting technique and shows up when I was getting lazy with my holds like no other scope I have ever used. The HM glass goes a long way to this, I think, by giving visual clarity that I had not seen before. It is a very different scope that I spent a lot of time going "ahhhh" with as I learnt something new about what it could do.

 

[koshkin]

As far as FOV goes, there are discussions on this thread about the eyepiece FOV and then there are discussions about the FOV downrange. I took the downrange FOV as the standard definition and perhaps mistakenly, I understood the eyepiece FOV as a bigger eyebox.

Are these two FOVs interrelated? If so, how?

edit: @koshkin any thoughts?

FOV downrange and the Apparent FOV (AFOV) subtended by the eyepiece in front of your eye are indeed related. Apparent FOV is real FOV multiplied by magnification.

For example, if Apparent FOV of the eyepiece is 25 degrees and the scope is on 5x, the real FOV of the scope is 5 degrees.

Eyebox is something else entirely.

ILya

 

[Hairy Biker]

A March owner in Slovakia has posted some photos of his 42x in action on the March FB page. https://www.facebook.com/MarchScopes

At 42 power there is shot of stand at 950m:

And the same stand at 5 power:

There is a bit more detailed commentary and a few more photos on the FB site. I must admit that I like this reticle more than the one I had for testing.

 

[ofelas]

I REALLY like that FML-TR1.

Very easy to acquire a target.

I've only seen it on screen/printed paper, not through the actual scope.

 

[jbonnie]

If scopes were hookers, @wjm308 would prefer “spinners.” https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=spinner

Thx for the comparisons!

I thought the term was wing nut