-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes New March in Exhibitions 2018.
- Thread starter kristian55
- Start date
The forum's reaction will be fun to watch. Off to buy popcorn and a new deck chair now.
I'll be interested to see what it is regardless. March claim it's a game changer, we'll see soon enough.
Well , March have moved the goalposts several times before ,
forcing S & B and NF etc to follow . Very curious to see what
they have been working on .
forcing S & B and NF etc to follow . Very curious to see what
they have been working on .
Someone needs to come out with something better than this: http://bullets.com/products/MAR1073 becuase I cannot find a better DMR/SWS optic on the market. Factor in footprint, weight, reticle, glass quality and durrability; its very hard to beat. 20% discounts brings it down to about $2500.
Doc from AB was online talking about his 001 serial number so there is that, big clues. He was being coy about S&B and the bluetooth connect vs taking on the Revic. Though I fail to see where NF or S&B responded to anything March did, I mean I talk with all those guys (my S&B meeting at SHOT was 2 hours) and never once does that name come up.
Hard to beat the REVIC in this department having used it for the last 3 months or so, it's super accurate, elegant and works. No silly truing necessary, data straight out of the devices into the software had me hitting 1 MOA targets out beyond 1000 yards, at 1500 it was only off 25 yards, again no truing necessary. It works with or without, the FOV is clean and the interface is super simple.
Guys are gonna start getting AB overload with everything using the same software at an additional cost. If your Kestrel has AB, your Laser has AB, and your Scope have AB what is the point of having them all, you can move to the lower cost options.
Still the place will Ooh and Ahhh for a bit but I still won't let them advertise, or promote it beyond what you super fans post. I am sure that is enough but the fact I can say no makes me the happiest on the planet. You want to screw me after I took care of you, good on ya, you won the battle but history has shown who the real warrior is.
Hard to beat the REVIC in this department having used it for the last 3 months or so, it's super accurate, elegant and works. No silly truing necessary, data straight out of the devices into the software had me hitting 1 MOA targets out beyond 1000 yards, at 1500 it was only off 25 yards, again no truing necessary. It works with or without, the FOV is clean and the interface is super simple.
Guys are gonna start getting AB overload with everything using the same software at an additional cost. If your Kestrel has AB, your Laser has AB, and your Scope have AB what is the point of having them all, you can move to the lower cost options.
Still the place will Ooh and Ahhh for a bit but I still won't let them advertise, or promote it beyond what you super fans post. I am sure that is enough but the fact I can say no makes me the happiest on the planet. You want to screw me after I took care of you, good on ya, you won the battle but history has shown who the real warrior is.
Of course other companies are going to say that they reviewed their product in light of the opposition and learned from that.
As I sid in the 22lr post the other day, the shooting world has changed a lot since the late 90s. I well remember being the only guy on the line in '96 using a 16x Tasco on a Ruger 223 to win a 500m. Surely optics couldn't get much bigger and better than this?? Then NF brought out the fantastic BR range at 42x and a shot a 1inch group in competition at 500m. Surely optics did not need/could not be improved from here ... and so on.
As I said, popcorn and a new deckchair for the theatrics.
As I sid in the 22lr post the other day, the shooting world has changed a lot since the late 90s. I well remember being the only guy on the line in '96 using a 16x Tasco on a Ruger 223 to win a 500m. Surely optics couldn't get much bigger and better than this?? Then NF brought out the fantastic BR range at 42x and a shot a 1inch group in competition at 500m. Surely optics did not need/could not be improved from here ... and so on.
As I said, popcorn and a new deckchair for the theatrics.
Did AB and crew try to screw over SH somehow? Litz has made a nice little empire over there. Its a shame once we buy the software (I think I bought AB or AB products about 4 or 5 times now for same software) we could just use that license and save some money.
I think what Clearmark meant was the power factor and light weight offerings. March hass been doing it for years and other are just starting to catch up. The new NX8 specifically.
I think what Clearmark meant was the power factor and light weight offerings. March hass been doing it for years and other are just starting to catch up. The new NX8 specifically.
March were first with high mag , FFP in the 5-40 . Schmidt and NF
followed with the 5-45 and 7-35 variants . I have no idea what AB’s
involvement with this new design is , haven’t used the Revic yet , and
have no info on other comments .
AB is all good, I am talking the US March distributor
They really weren't paying attention to march in that, trust me on that one. And they (the other guys) did it better in my opinion.
March was definitely not putting a dent in their business, plus didn't NF have the 8-32, the 42x etc NXS for a long, long time, you guys with the revisionist history are funny. S&B has the 12-50x too, been around for years.
The fact some people want the higher magnification is function of the business, not competition with a minor player in the field.
I talk to these companies when they have a S&B 5-25x on the bench they tell you, we made this match this scope, sure as hell they will say, Vortex is changing how they do business. so tell me again what we talk about when you are not in the room
They really weren't paying attention to march in that, trust me on that one. And they (the other guys) did it better in my opinion.
March was definitely not putting a dent in their business, plus didn't NF have the 8-32, the 42x etc NXS for a long, long time, you guys with the revisionist history are funny. S&B has the 12-50x too, been around for years.
The fact some people want the higher magnification is function of the business, not competition with a minor player in the field.
I talk to these companies when they have a S&B 5-25x on the bench they tell you, we made this match this scope, sure as hell they will say, Vortex is changing how they do business. so tell me again what we talk about when you are not in the room
Last edited:
If only it had a more forgiving parallax adjustment and a decent reticle!
No, I gave a real review of the product,
I just won't let them promote it here, in fact I turned down their Money douche ...
I don't see a review to be given anyway you fucktard, though I do see a member leaving the floor
I just won't let them promote it here, in fact I turned down their Money douche ...
I don't see a review to be given anyway you fucktard, though I do see a member leaving the floor
Regarding production volume and sales , I think March are as concerned
about the competition , as Bugatti is about Corvette ....
The 8-32 and 42 NF scopes are SECOND Focal Plane , not FFP . I said FFP .
They were designed at LOW when March’s leading designer worked there .
Co-incidence ? No .
I should have mentioned ‘ HIGH ZOOM RATIO ‘ as well as high magnification ,
which was what I was referring to . The Schmidt 12-50 is only a low 4.16
ZOOM RATIO . Do you actually know anyone who uses one ? It has a serious
thermal expansion issue : ask the Airgun guys who ( attempt ) to use them
for ranging on the reticle .
The March 5-40 is an 8 times zoom ratio : as I said accurately above , the
first FFP ( not SFP ) with such a high ratio . Schmidt responded , and went
one better with a 9 times zoom ratio . NF could only manage a 5 times ratio
in the 7-35 ... No revisionist history , just stating the facts .
I suspect a lot of the first sales of this new design , are going to find their
way to the engineers bench’s , in the workshops of the optics brands
you like chatting to .
Last edited:
Way above my pay grade and level of knowledge. Firm believer there is a reason we have two ears, two eyes and only one mouth. Better to listen especially if your not sure.
Nothing better than a little healthy dialog. If they don't understand, turn up the volume.
Nothing better than a little healthy dialog. If they don't understand, turn up the volume.
As if,
You guys are nuts, as much as hate to say, just look at "what the pros use" and everyone else, hardly any use, march.
That great zoom ratio comes a price, the scope is finicky to get behind except for the F Class and Benchrest guys. They swing and miss every time with the tactical crowd. The other guys nailed the ratios without the compromise, here you talk about the 5-40x, all this time, barely any market share. Where is the grand following ?
Youtube March Tracking and you guys are fucked six ways from Sunday and my video is the only one clarifying it. Nobody knows how to test a March hence the, "Don't buy this scope videos" out there. Meanwhile I am bad guy and clarified it.
I turned down a great deal on one because, well, I had one and that was enough, the second made no sense. When shit works I use it, pretty simple. Even with the ups and downs of S&B over the years, I use them because they are worth it, same with my Nightforce scope. Who cares where the engineer came from, whether LOW built something off the March design or whatever. Andy who designed the S&B 5-25x went to Premier ala Optronica, then over to Minox, next GPO... a designer who moved around, tell me something new.
Honest review, they work for the bench rest crowd and F Class guys, for us, not so much. It's a good idea, weak on execution for us.
You guys are nuts, as much as hate to say, just look at "what the pros use" and everyone else, hardly any use, march.
That great zoom ratio comes a price, the scope is finicky to get behind except for the F Class and Benchrest guys. They swing and miss every time with the tactical crowd. The other guys nailed the ratios without the compromise, here you talk about the 5-40x, all this time, barely any market share. Where is the grand following ?
Youtube March Tracking and you guys are fucked six ways from Sunday and my video is the only one clarifying it. Nobody knows how to test a March hence the, "Don't buy this scope videos" out there. Meanwhile I am bad guy and clarified it.
I turned down a great deal on one because, well, I had one and that was enough, the second made no sense. When shit works I use it, pretty simple. Even with the ups and downs of S&B over the years, I use them because they are worth it, same with my Nightforce scope. Who cares where the engineer came from, whether LOW built something off the March design or whatever. Andy who designed the S&B 5-25x went to Premier ala Optronica, then over to Minox, next GPO... a designer who moved around, tell me something new.
Honest review, they work for the bench rest crowd and F Class guys, for us, not so much. It's a good idea, weak on execution for us.
I don't know the background behind this, although the way a company conducts their business is a big deal to me. I've chosen to go with some companies instead of others for that reason.
Is the issue you're referring to with their current dealer?
I don't really see how March made a major impact on the other manufacturers, they seem too small scale.
What are the tracking issues? When they had the non-standard mils?
The March scopes I've handled have been pretty nice. It seems like they come up short on marketing. I don't see any March sponsored shooters.
Honestly I don't think the zoom ratio made that much of an impact. Kahles is still one of the most commonly used scopes out there and it only has a 4X. I currently own both the March 3-24 and Kahles 6-24. On some guns the 3X is necessary, most of the time its not.
If March made any impact in the tactical market, it was reducing the size of scopes, although I'm not sure how much of that would have happened anyways.
Yes, the 1/6400 value instead of 1/6283.
I do remember several years ago reading Frank's description of why it was off. That helped me a lot. I have since run box tests on mine and have confirmed it was a 1/6400 value.
The ghost of Cal Zant's flawed tracking survey using a prototype scope and comparing apples with sheep. Everything has been standard for years now but it is the default criticism.
Confirmation:
March-F 3x-24x42 except initial scopes : 1/6283 MIL
All of March-F 3x-24x52 : 1/6283 MIL
All of March-F 5x-40x56 : 1/6283 MIL
Looking forward to seeing what gets released now!
Confirmation:
March-F 3x-24x42 except initial scopes : 1/6283 MIL
All of March-F 3x-24x52 : 1/6283 MIL
All of March-F 5x-40x56 : 1/6283 MIL
Looking forward to seeing what gets released now!
Last edited:
Parallax is not a big deal it’s just more sensitive and the T1 reticle is decent. Nighforce has shit reticle too so at least they are not alone.
I've never really understood why some people seem determined to bad mouth March. I ran a S&B for years, ran a NF for years. Used a March 5-40 in matches too. They are all outstanding and anyone who thinks that a tactical/practical shooters score would change running any of the Alpha scopes (of which March most certainly is) hasn't spent enough time with them or is too biased to spot their own blindspots.
Last edited:
Well each to their own really. March have their positives, for F-class and benchrest they are damn fine scopes, but I've owned the 5-40x56 and as much as I liked the profile and features, I wouldn't use it for tactical comps, not if I was going to take tactical comps seriously like some people on here do. Pick the right tool for the job, there's a reason why Vortex are so popular at PRS comps, along with the likes of NF, S&B and Kahles. They're designed and marketed at a different shooting demographic. If March decide to really have a decent crack at the PRS market, good luck to them, they've got the quality behind them, but they'll need some practical reticles and a straightforward zoom ratio that allows for more flexible eyebox and parallax adjustment IMO.
So true that it’s the Indian , not the arrow most of the time . We’ve all
seen guys shoot brilliantly with very modest equipment . That guy with
the 7 STW that finished second place in ELR Central’s world record shoot
in Vegas was running an SWFA ....
Regarding things being ‘ finicky ‘ to use , maybe that’s a bit like the old
911 Porsche . Journalists and average drivers were scared of them , experts
ran them hard and loved them .
Perception trumps truth the damage is done. They screwed up to start, and were too slow to react to the negative press over the mil tracking.
Their consumer education sucks as does their marketing. Talking in a circle to the same 3 people proclaiming to each other they are the best doesn’t make it so. Again market share.
They lost any US market share they might have had thanks to the above and the main reason which you can see, the switch from Kelby. Bullets tanked them here.
The minor was the scope, the major was the move to bullets.com
Their consumer education sucks as does their marketing. Talking in a circle to the same 3 people proclaiming to each other they are the best doesn’t make it so. Again market share.
They lost any US market share they might have had thanks to the above and the main reason which you can see, the switch from Kelby. Bullets tanked them here.
The minor was the scope, the major was the move to bullets.com
I'm a fan of my March but everything above is true. Going with 1/6400 was a mistake but what was worse was not educating their customers on it. A friend of mine just bought a 3-24x42 second hand and neither he nor the seller knew anything about it.
I've bought many high end scopes since the March and each are different. In all fairness, I'm considering another but that's for a 75% hunting 25% match use so I'm drawn to the compactness. My 100% match rifles have other brands on them.
Confirmation:
March-F 3x-24x42 except initial scopes : 1/6283 MIL
All of March-F 3x-24x52 : 1/6283 MIL
All of March-F 5x-40x56 : 1/6283 MIL
I'll be taking a closer look at March. Sounds like their stuff could be really good but suffers on the marketing side.
Having used both the 3-24x52 and 5-40x56 this is the perception I'm left with. World class products with third world marketing
From my understanding March made the change around 2015 time frame. I bought mine in 2012 and they had been out for even longer than that. That covers more than just the initial scopes.
means absolutely nothing anymore when most of the videos on Youtube are showing it as tracking incorrectly and everyone with them have no idea what the difference is... as I said my video is pretty much the only one I know that addresses this, and the ones with incorrect information have a heck of a lot more views than mine.
This is a quiet fix that came too little too late, thanks for posting you educated no one, as most people here know this information now as its a big topic back when they fixed it.
But the videos, the comments, etc, all point to a problem, one they failed to address properly.
I still have my March, it's a backup and currently sits on the floor in my car under the passenger seat. It looks good there.
All you Aussies who are so hot and bothered about March and want to see them succeed, tell them to get a new distributor in the US and to start listening to actual tactical shooters vs the benchrest crowd, which we know is their bread and butter. Their crossover stuff is failing here.
If they paid any attention at all they should have been doing much better here in the US, I know, we're not the expert shooters like you guys driving your 911s like a raped ape, (PS my Mother in Law drives a 911, LOL) But we know what we want to buy, and this ain't it.
If the ability of the design team and engineers are to be believed, we'd have to see something we can actually use. The fact a company like NF can put out a 7-35x with more than 100 MOA of elevation, a better eyebox, superior reticles, and they can't keep them in stock should be a clue, that a similar scope being smaller and lighter can't get any traction points to a big problem in their efforts. They are listening to the wrong people, unfortunately, that may include you all being an echo chamber instead of honest.
If they paid any attention at all they should have been doing much better here in the US, I know, we're not the expert shooters like you guys driving your 911s like a raped ape, (PS my Mother in Law drives a 911, LOL) But we know what we want to buy, and this ain't it.
If the ability of the design team and engineers are to be believed, we'd have to see something we can actually use. The fact a company like NF can put out a 7-35x with more than 100 MOA of elevation, a better eyebox, superior reticles, and they can't keep them in stock should be a clue, that a similar scope being smaller and lighter can't get any traction points to a big problem in their efforts. They are listening to the wrong people, unfortunately, that may include you all being an echo chamber instead of honest.
Unfortunately the thread mentioning the change to the mil value was lost on Scout. Which was 2014 and later. Meaning they were out for at least 3 years before the change to 1/6283. Again, not just initial scopes.
Wow I can see why Lowlight gets irritated. I'm here praising my March and how I like it, and have won tactical comps with it but still get shit because I don't think its the end all of scopes.
Wow, this is starting to look like some of the IOR and Leupold threads, I may be in the minority here but I am curious what they'll release next month. March is definitely geared toward the benchrest crowd and I believe that is their bread and butter with crazy 10x erectors and then someone convinced them to make a FFP line with 8x erectors which few have matched. Outside of the issues with the non-standard mil value in early versions, I think their biggest struggle as Frank has mentioned has been distribution. Even when Kelbly's had them they were the sole distributor, and now with bullets.com again - sole distributor??? I am unaware of the issues with Bullets.com so I'll leave that one alone, but why won't March work with other distributors in the US?
Is Doc still on the Hide, he works for Applied Ballistics (AB) and is a huge March proponent, maybe they've listened to him for the tactical/competition market. Many seem to rave about the High Master glass, I'd rather see that come to the 3-24/5-40 before BT connectivity along with an update to the reticles, I like their low profile turrets but they are a bit mushy and could be improved. What is still amazing about March is how they get an 8x optical formula packed into such a small package and maintain the level of clarity that they have. I think that is the appeal for many as they are some of the lightest scopes in their range.
I've been through so many scopes I can't count since I got caught in this pursuit of the perfect scope, but here's the thing, there is no perfect scope and certainly no perfect scope for everyone. Most of the time we argue about preferences with subjective reasoning. Look at the list of scope brands from the top 100 PRS shooters from last year
Vortex is at the top, but I would venture to say that if any of the competitors were given one of the other scopes and they had time to train with it that they wouldn't have done just as well? Does running a Vortex mean you're guaranteed a victory even if you shoot like crap? Certainly not, so maybe a better survey would be not "what scope brand do you use" but "why do you use this scope"? Mechanics, reticle and glass are probably going to be what the consensus is: Mechanics - does it accurately track throughout the elevation range (and windage if you dial wind), Reticle - Does it allow me to to effectively get my bullet on target, and Glass - does it allow me to clearly see my target. Eyebox and parallax might come into the mix as well as some scopes are more forgiving than others which may be a competitive advantage. Here's the thing, we can argue all night about how my reticle is better than your reticle, or my glass is better than your glass or my turrets feel better than your turrets (let's try and not go there) but if the scope meets your objectives and you're willing to live with some minor shortcomings then so what about who makes it? Do you think the 3 guys running the Sig Sauer scopes thought at the end of the season, "gee, if only I was running the Vortex I could have won it all." Well, here's the thing, if they really thought that was the case then I guess they'll be running a Vortex next year, but I'd venture to say that all the scopes listed above check the boxes and therefore the rest becomes subjective, maybe they did prefer a reticle on one vs. the others or whatever reason they have, heck, maybe they were sponsored and that's why they use that scope.
So back to the subject of March, why does March not show up in this list? Is it because March scopes don't check all the boxes? Or is it for other reasons. For me, I am not a competitor and don't shoot nearly the number of rounds that many on the Hide have the opportunity to shoot. I am passionate about the sport and would love to compete if I had the time, but logistically it is just not possible for me right now. So I look at scopes not from a competitive standpoint (though I can appreciate the reasons why those scopes perform so well on the circuit), but from the perspective of how do I intend to use the scope. All my rifles can be used for hunting, therefore, weight is a big factor for me when making a decision about a scope and this is why March is always on the top of my mind, the weight factor alone appeals to me, so the next questions are, can it track, do I like the reticle and is the glass good. I think March has a pretty good history of tracking well (outside of aforementioned 1/6400 mil issues), they have great glass, but the reason I don't own one now is the reticle, again, personal preference, plenty of shooters are perfectly happy.
Is Doc still on the Hide, he works for Applied Ballistics (AB) and is a huge March proponent, maybe they've listened to him for the tactical/competition market. Many seem to rave about the High Master glass, I'd rather see that come to the 3-24/5-40 before BT connectivity along with an update to the reticles, I like their low profile turrets but they are a bit mushy and could be improved. What is still amazing about March is how they get an 8x optical formula packed into such a small package and maintain the level of clarity that they have. I think that is the appeal for many as they are some of the lightest scopes in their range.
I've been through so many scopes I can't count since I got caught in this pursuit of the perfect scope, but here's the thing, there is no perfect scope and certainly no perfect scope for everyone. Most of the time we argue about preferences with subjective reasoning. Look at the list of scope brands from the top 100 PRS shooters from last year
Vortex is at the top, but I would venture to say that if any of the competitors were given one of the other scopes and they had time to train with it that they wouldn't have done just as well? Does running a Vortex mean you're guaranteed a victory even if you shoot like crap? Certainly not, so maybe a better survey would be not "what scope brand do you use" but "why do you use this scope"? Mechanics, reticle and glass are probably going to be what the consensus is: Mechanics - does it accurately track throughout the elevation range (and windage if you dial wind), Reticle - Does it allow me to to effectively get my bullet on target, and Glass - does it allow me to clearly see my target. Eyebox and parallax might come into the mix as well as some scopes are more forgiving than others which may be a competitive advantage. Here's the thing, we can argue all night about how my reticle is better than your reticle, or my glass is better than your glass or my turrets feel better than your turrets (let's try and not go there
) but if the scope meets your objectives and you're willing to live with some minor shortcomings then so what about who makes it? Do you think the 3 guys running the Sig Sauer scopes thought at the end of the season, "gee, if only I was running the Vortex I could have won it all." Well, here's the thing, if they really thought that was the case then I guess they'll be running a Vortex next year, but I'd venture to say that all the scopes listed above check the boxes and therefore the rest becomes subjective, maybe they did prefer a reticle on one vs. the others or whatever reason they have, heck, maybe they were sponsored and that's why they use that scope. So back to the subject of March, why does March not show up in this list? Is it because March scopes don't check all the boxes? Or is it for other reasons. For me, I am not a competitor and don't shoot nearly the number of rounds that many on the Hide have the opportunity to shoot. I am passionate about the sport and would love to compete if I had the time, but logistically it is just not possible for me right now. So I look at scopes not from a competitive standpoint (though I can appreciate the reasons why those scopes perform so well on the circuit), but from the perspective of how do I intend to use the scope. All my rifles can be used for hunting, therefore, weight is a big factor for me when making a decision about a scope and this is why March is always on the top of my mind, the weight factor alone appeals to me, so the next questions are, can it track, do I like the reticle and is the glass good. I think March has a pretty good history of tracking well (outside of aforementioned 1/6400 mil issues), they have great glass, but the reason I don't own one now is the reticle, again, personal preference, plenty of shooters are perfectly happy.
"... so maybe a better survey would be not "what scope brand do you use" but "why do you use this scope"?..."
Thank you wjm308 for your thoughtful comments. Price and sponsorship (in the US space) are also factors to consider. We dream of such things in the free world but remain gifted amateurs!
Thank you wjm308 for your thoughtful comments. Price and sponsorship (in the US space) are also factors to consider. We dream of such things in the free world but remain gifted amateurs!
I have a question for @Lowlight
Do you have any issues with March other than their sensitive parallax and tighter eyebox? Or are your issues related to their business/distribution model?
I always said they need to fire who ever is in charge of their marketing/distro because they could have the greatest product on the market, but if no one knows its exists, then it doesn't matter. They are one of the most frustrating businesses to watch, like wtf are they doing.
They need to go talk to Mile High, EuroOptics and SportOptics and get their scopes on guns. Sponsor some shooters and get the name out there.
I have always been impressed with their engineering and features but I don't know one other person who owns one of these.
Do you have any issues with March other than their sensitive parallax and tighter eyebox? Or are your issues related to their business/distribution model?
I always said they need to fire who ever is in charge of their marketing/distro because they could have the greatest product on the market, but if no one knows its exists, then it doesn't matter. They are one of the most frustrating businesses to watch, like wtf are they doing.
They need to go talk to Mile High, EuroOptics and SportOptics and get their scopes on guns. Sponsor some shooters and get the name out there.
I have always been impressed with their engineering and features but I don't know one other person who owns one of these.
This is my former March scope. My understanding of the mil values is that with 1/6400 the click adjustments were smaller than the newer 1/6283. Apparently the adjustments in mine were larger than 1/6283. I didn't care about that much because it was repeatable. This was to be a hunting scope and it took extreme concentration to dial out the parallax, not something worth dealing with on a hunting scope or PRS style competition scope. The other problem was that getting parallax dialed out, a clear picture, and a clean reticle rarely happened. I did not buy from bullets.com but their response was basically "these never have problems you just don't know how to set it up". Killswitch had the same observations and he has set up a few Ffp scopes.
I'm surprised people like the T1 reticle. When in precision shooting is it beneficial to have a small opening as the POA surrounded by a thick gob of reticle obscuring the target area around the POA? I can't think of a scenario I'd want that reticle in any shooting discipline.
I love the package they come in, size, shape, weight, turrets, and glass. As a functional aiming device there are many better executed options for much less $ IMO.
I have many from the list...
...for me - MARCH really great rifle scope.
This is only my subjective view
...for me - MARCH really great rifle scope.
This is only my subjective view
Wow, this is starting to look like some of the IOR and Leupold threads, I may be in the minority here but I am curious what they'll release next month. March is definitely geared toward the benchrest crowd and I believe that is their bread and butter with crazy 10x erectors and then someone convinced them to make a FFP line with 8x erectors which few have matched. Outside of the issues with the non-standard mil value in early versions, I think their biggest struggle as Frank has mentioned has been distribution. Even when Kelbly's had them they were the sole distributor, and now with bullets.com again - sole distributor??? I am unaware of the issues with Bullets.com so I'll leave that one alone, but why won't March work with other distributors in the US?
Is Doc still on the Hide, he works for Applied Ballistics (AB) and is a huge March proponent, maybe they've listened to him for the tactical/competition market. Many seem to rave about the High Master glass, I'd rather see that come to the 3-24/5-40 before BT connectivity along with an update to the reticles, I like their low profile turrets but they are a bit mushy and could be improved. What is still amazing about March is how they get an 8x optical formula packed into such a small package and maintain the level of clarity that they have. I think that is the appeal for many as they are some of the lightest scopes in their range.
I've been through so many scopes I can't count since I got caught in this pursuit of the perfect scope, but here's the thing, there is no perfect scope and certainly no perfect scope for everyone. Most of the time we argue about preferences with subjective reasoning. Look at the list of scope brands from the top 100 PRS shooters from last year
View attachment 6872553
Vortex is at the top, but I would venture to say that if any of the competitors were given one of the other scopes and they had time to train with it that they wouldn't have done just as well? Does running a Vortex mean you're guaranteed a victory even if you shoot like crap? Certainly not, so maybe a better survey would be not "what scope brand do you use" but "why do you use this scope"? Mechanics, reticle and glass are probably going to be what the consensus is: Mechanics - does it accurately track throughout the elevation range (and windage if you dial wind), Reticle - Does it allow me to to effectively get my bullet on target, and Glass - does it allow me to clearly see my target. Eyebox and parallax might come into the mix as well as some scopes are more forgiving than others which may be a competitive advantage. Here's the thing, we can argue all night about how my reticle is better than your reticle, or my glass is better than your glass or my turrets feel better than your turrets (let's try and not go there
So back to the subject of March, why does March not show up in this list? Is it because March scopes don't check all the boxes? Or is it for other reasons. For me, I am not a competitor and don't shoot nearly the number of rounds that many on the Hide have the opportunity to shoot. I am passionate about the sport and would love to compete if I had the time, but logistically it is just not possible for me right now. So I look at scopes not from a competitive standpoint (though I can appreciate the reasons why those scopes perform so well on the circuit), but from the perspective of how do I intend to use the scope. All my rifles can be used for hunting, therefore, weight is a big factor for me when making a decision about a scope and this is why March is always on the top of my mind, the weight factor alone appeals to me, so the next questions are, can it track, do I like the reticle and is the glass good. I think March has a pretty good history of tracking well (outside of aforementioned 1/6400 mil issues), they have great glass, but the reason I don't own one now is the reticle, again, personal preference, plenty of shooters are perfectly happy.
I don't disagree with what Frank is saying. March do buggerall in the way of advertising and while they may associate the branding "Tactical" with some of their scopes, I don't think they're on the same playing field as others in the tactical/PRS market. When I was initially getting into F-class I'd never heard of them until I saw a few guys running them and saw the incredible zoom ratio, which for F-class is good. I don't know what last year's sales figures were for March, but I do know a couple of years back they sold more scopes in Australia than the US, and that says a lot given the population and licensed shooter difference between the two countries - we're a speck in the ocean compared to the US, but March and NF have the F-class/benchrest crowd covered well here.
I've seen a couple of guys run them on tactical guns here, but again, we don't have the same freedoms as the US PRS guys who get to shoot at unknown distances and off of all sorts of barricades that we simply aren't allowed to. I'm putting two tactical rifles together this year, I've already got an AMG Razor waiting to go on a Konohawk stock. The MPA chassis I'm waiting on may very well have a ZCO later in the year. It won't have a March because personally I don't think they offer anything that is the right tool for the job.
I've seen a couple of guys run them on tactical guns here, but again, we don't have the same freedoms as the US PRS guys who get to shoot at unknown distances and off of all sorts of barricades that we simply aren't allowed to. I'm putting two tactical rifles together this year, I've already got an AMG Razor waiting to go on a Konohawk stock. The MPA chassis I'm waiting on may very well have a ZCO later in the year. It won't have a March because personally I don't think they offer anything that is the right tool for the job.
Wow, this is starting to look like some of the IOR and Leupold threads, I may be in the minority here but I am curious what they'll release next month. March is definitely geared toward the benchrest crowd and I believe that is their bread and butter with crazy 10x erectors and then someone convinced them to make a FFP line with 8x erectors which few have matched. Outside of the issues with the non-standard mil value in early versions, I think their biggest struggle as Frank has mentioned has been distribution. Even when Kelbly's had them they were the sole distributor, and now with bullets.com again - sole distributor??? I am unaware of the issues with Bullets.com so I'll leave that one alone, but why won't March work with other distributors in the US?
Is Doc still on the Hide, he works for Applied Ballistics (AB) and is a huge March proponent, maybe they've listened to him for the tactical/competition market. Many seem to rave about the High Master glass, I'd rather see that come to the 3-24/5-40 before BT connectivity along with an update to the reticles, I like their low profile turrets but they are a bit mushy and could be improved. What is still amazing about March is how they get an 8x optical formula packed into such a small package and maintain the level of clarity that they have. I think that is the appeal for many as they are some of the lightest scopes in their range.
I've been through so many scopes I can't count since I got caught in this pursuit of the perfect scope, but here's the thing, there is no perfect scope and certainly no perfect scope for everyone. Most of the time we argue about preferences with subjective reasoning. Look at the list of scope brands from the top 100 PRS shooters from last year
View attachment 6872553
Vortex is at the top, but I would venture to say that if any of the competitors were given one of the other scopes and they had time to train with it that they wouldn't have done just as well? Does running a Vortex mean you're guaranteed a victory even if you shoot like crap? Certainly not, so maybe a better survey would be not "what scope brand do you use" but "why do you use this scope"? Mechanics, reticle and glass are probably going to be what the consensus is: Mechanics - does it accurately track throughout the elevation range (and windage if you dial wind), Reticle - Does it allow me to to effectively get my bullet on target, and Glass - does it allow me to clearly see my target. Eyebox and parallax might come into the mix as well as some scopes are more forgiving than others which may be a competitive advantage. Here's the thing, we can argue all night about how my reticle is better than your reticle, or my glass is better than your glass or my turrets feel better than your turrets (let's try and not go there
So back to the subject of March, why does March not show up in this list? Is it because March scopes don't check all the boxes? Or is it for other reasons. For me, I am not a competitor and don't shoot nearly the number of rounds that many on the Hide have the opportunity to shoot. I am passionate about the sport and would love to compete if I had the time, but logistically it is just not possible for me right now. So I look at scopes not from a competitive standpoint (though I can appreciate the reasons why those scopes perform so well on the circuit), but from the perspective of how do I intend to use the scope. All my rifles can be used for hunting, therefore, weight is a big factor for me when making a decision about a scope and this is why March is always on the top of my mind, the weight factor alone appeals to me, so the next questions are, can it track, do I like the reticle and is the glass good. I think March has a pretty good history of tracking well (outside of aforementioned 1/6400 mil issues), they have great glass, but the reason I don't own one now is the reticle, again, personal preference, plenty of shooters are perfectly happy.
Most of the shooters at the PRS sharp end don’t pay for their optics . Vortex
and others are very good at throwing money and free product around .
I was asked to join a Vortex comp team here in Aus , but declined .
I would rather not downgrade , preferring to run something that might
make to the end of the day without failing . (I’ve had 3 Vortex products fail ).
Hensoldt , Tangent Theta , Flir and others don’t have much activity in
US PRS comps either same as March , but their products are in use by
men who shoot on the job throughout the world . Like many sports ,
the PRS rules define the equipment to a large degree . Running around
covered in pillows , and shooting a zero recoil 6mm is a by product
of that . I’d be way more impressed if they ran unbraked 308’s , didn’t
look like the Michelin man , and ran 155 bullets ....
Whatever this new product is , it’s probably not targeted at the PRS
crowd . Talented and excellent shooters as many of them are , it’s a
small part of the shooting world . Unusual to see it promoted too .
As many have said above , I’ve not actually seen March advertise like
this before , must be something groundbreaking .
I am beginning to see what you mean. I know Kelbly's guys pretty well, but havn't really had much interaction with Bullets.com before. I've got an e-mail exchange going with them right now, since I asked about the 1-8x Shorty scope.
I have been doing this for quite some time and I have had some interaction one way or the other with most scope manufacturers. This seems unlike any others I have seen to date. This is definitely a very different crowd than Kelbly's.
ILya
You pretty much nailed it as have many others commenting... why they don't run them on tactical rigs comments mirror my own.
The PRS guys are not getting as many free scopes as you think, Vortex only has like 4 actual guys who shoot them for, the rest with Vortex on their shirts pay full price. Believe me, Vortex laughs about this very loud, how guys want to be "part of the in crowd" so they use what they think is the top dog. Vortex gets a ton of free advertising
For the PRS it's all about the reticle more so than the scope, you don't see brands that are strictly military and the ones you mentioned will never be popular here in the US. Hensoldt is a pimple, and TT is too in the big picture of things. Reticles matter and none of these have them worth a damn. Nobody cares anymore what the military does. We stopped chasing that tail.
There are more than 50 Top PRS/ NRL style matches this year, and even more monthly and local matches copying a similar format. It's a lot bigger than you think. The Gun Industry in the US down right now, no political threat, but Precision Rifle is up on all levels. If you're not being seen in the Precision Rifle world right now as a viable option you are lost in the woods. We totally stopped following the military, 308s with 155 is a joke on so many levels I cannot list. Our Top military shooters are not using it either and they have been shooting 6.5s since 2015. Why, they attend PRS Style matches and see why we gravitate towards these calibers. Our military is actively hunting 6.5 options and soon it will be mainstream. They are back to following the competition circuit vs us following them. We know they are well behind the curve, and so do they. They just finished a big test on the 6.5s and it destroyed the .30 cal results. 308s are for privates in the big green, top guys are not wasting their time.
The pillows do work and they have since reduced the number replacing it with tripods and other options. The MPA Chassis replaces pillows, but look at any current International Sniper Competition photo from the Army and you will see guys with one pillow. You can mock it, I did, but once you figure out, that one air-filled pillowed properly used, it's a game changer for positional. The purist thing is dead, we play it in limited quantities but we have moved well beyond it. The speed in which these guys are hitting stuff has turned a lot of heads. I know the onlookers from afar don't like everything they do, and I don't either, but they are fast, and they are effective, on a lot of targets. Go cold with your friends and have them set up 1 stage, with multiple positions on 10 targets at varying distances and you'll see. 90 seconds goes by fast and these guys are cleaning this stuff. They are hitting small ass targets quickly and accurately.
Yep , I know a few of your specialists have been running 260’s
for a while . Secret Service used to run 7 Rem Mags for the
massive ballistic advantage , when Mil were stuck on 308 too .
A few elements around the world are running 375’s . The common
availability of 50 ammo ( of all flavours ) is a big deal in hot zones though ,
so the 50 still rules . Here’s hoping the innovations and new developments
in ELR , both rifles and tech find their way where they are needed . Some
things go the other way though , will we see wind reading Lidar in ELR and
PRS comps one day ?
for a while . Secret Service used to run 7 Rem Mags for the
massive ballistic advantage , when Mil were stuck on 308 too .
A few elements around the world are running 375’s . The common
availability of 50 ammo ( of all flavours ) is a big deal in hot zones though ,
so the 50 still rules . Here’s hoping the innovations and new developments
in ELR , both rifles and tech find their way where they are needed . Some
things go the other way though , will we see wind reading Lidar in ELR and
PRS comps one day ?
Last edited:
I think that is coming in the 10 year time frame. The firearms market is waking up to the fact they are selling to a generation raised on Call of Duty and gear that seeks to replicate the video game experience appears to be a driver. "I want instant success and immediate feedback" - factors missing from our traditional repetition based training experience.
