I'd like to better understand what compromises must be made for scopes to have a high erector ratio. I understand 4-16 may be all a PRS/tactical shooter needs, but for the rest of us a larger zoom ratio has some real advantages. Using myself as an example, I prefer a scope with a 3x or 4x lower mag for hunting purposes and it would be great to have the option to zoom in to 20x, 25x, or even 30x for shooting long distance at the range. Many, or at least a fair number, of alpha class scopes don't have this range (i.e. ATACR, AMG, etc). March and S&B are two of the more notable exceptions.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes New March in Exhibitions 2018.
- Thread starter kristian55
- Start date
FOV is one spec that can suffer from high zoom ratios . As you mentioned ,
March and S & B are the only manufacturers to have overcome the engineering
problems involved . Adding a wide angle eyepiece goes some way to fixing this ,
but that can introduce edge distortion problems , not ideal . It can also introduce
issues getting large elevation travel : having to bend the light path significantly ,
in a longer tube required for high zoom , is less than ideal for a clean image .
The finicky parallax issue that some people’s fingers can’t seem to overcome is
really , really simple . Just change the gear ratios in the system that operates the
parallax mechanism in the optic . I’m surprised I’ve never seen this mentioned
before with so many ‘ experts’ ( cough ) on this site . Race cars have very fast
steering ratios , like March optics . Buses and trucks have very slow steering
ratios , mostly due to the weight , but a lot of cars ( particularly the more pedestrian
models ) have slow ratio steering so Nana doesn’t stack it on the way to the bridge
club , and it’s ‘ easier ‘ to drive .
As you mentioned , having a low number on the bottom end is great for hunting ,
or close steel/paper targets . A lot of folks use their rifles for multiple tasks . I’ve been
known or shoot ( and win ) paper target range comps with a rifle , then go shoot steel at
2000 + the next day with the same rifle . High zoom ratio = high versatility for me . I buy
my own gear , I don’t have to answer to anybody because I use their product ......
Reticle manufacture ( laser etching ) is another difficult issue to overcome ,
I’m wondering if that is why the 45x MIL reticle from S & B was delayed . Look
at the fine detail , and imagine trying to laser etch that : an FFP reticle lens
would comfortably sit on you finger nail with space to spare . They are really
tiny .
Horses for courses , but I really like high zoom scopes . Back in the day when
we ran 3-12 scopes on work rifles , spotter is calling details of partially concealed
target looking through a high mag spotter . I can’t see what he’s seeing , because
I’m maxed out at 12x : very frustrating and an operational problem ...
I’ve had friends DQ stages in comps , because they got a late afternoon draw, and
are trying to find small greyed out ( from impacts ) targets in the shadows . Very hard
to see on 12 or even 16x sometimes , much easier on 30 or 40x then zoom down to
shoot . Manufacturers are making high mag optics , partially , because we are shooting
way further than we were 20 years ago . We need high mag , and big elevation travel .
Without hinky adjustable bases that don’t hold zero , and or clumsy add ons . Sooner rather
than later would be nice .
This would seem to be an excellent opportunity for you to design , and offer the Hide
the ‘ Lowlight ‘ reticle . We know what you don’t like , perhaps it’s time to join the
Hodnetts of the world and sketch your thoughts ? Sounds like Shiraz is open to
the idea of new reticles . NF seems content with what they have so maybe no go
there . S & B will have a team of Otto Wurstbangers in white coats designing reticles ,
so that might be difficult too . Bushnell have the GAP reticle .
If that doesn’t suit , may we hear your preferences in reticle , for PRS and also ELR ?
Frank, I going to take a calculated guess in regards to your time in service. Enlisted, correct?
I may be wrong but word around the campfire is you sip coffee with your pinky extended.
I just realized something. Is there any chance the phrase " i'm going to be very Frank on this subject" correlates to HMFIC.
I may be wrong but word around the campfire is you sip coffee with your pinky extended.
I just realized something. Is there any chance the phrase " i'm going to be very Frank on this subject" correlates to HMFIC.
I was speaking about the 3-24 in regard to parallax, not how it can go to 10y but how finicky it is. From about 200 to infinity is a very short distance and you have to be precise, it's not horrible but its not as good as many other scopes in its class. I assume this is a sacrifice of the 10y design but even Vortex's AMG with 25y minimum has a more forgiving parallax setup. I understand a huge ugly wheel can be purchased for finer parallax adjustments but I don't want to have to use that wheel on a hunting/tactical scope. Regarding the turrets, would prefer tighter clicks, the 3-24 has pretty mushy clicks, again, something I can live with but I think they can improve. Also, offer a mil hash reticle that has .2 mil hash marks and is thinner than the current FML-1 and FML-T1 offerings by about .02 mil in thickness. I have never had a 5-40 so if these scopes have already improved upon these features over the 3-24 then fantastic. Waiting for High Master glass and better reticles in the FFP line is what I'm hoping to see soon.
I find it hard to believe that you have never encountered a scope with a more forgiving eyebox than another scope? Even with proper setup of mounting to ensure proper eye relief is obtained at max magnification, cheekpiece setup properly and consistent and proper cheek weld I have still noticed a difference between scopes. I have owned two March scopes, a 3-24x42 and a 3-24x52 and I was able to get a good sight picture from both with proper setup as mentioned, but compared to the Schmidt Ultra Short 5-20x50 there was no competition in regard to forgiving eyebox. Maybe we're using the wrong term, but the way I define eyebox is the ability to easily and quickly get a good sight picture and with the Schmidt it's practically immediate, same with my Minox and close with the AMG, but the March is more finicky for sure. Is it something I can live with if they offer a better reticle in the future, probably, as the 3-24x52 I never thought was horrible, but I also wish the parallax was a bit more forgiving as well. I think these are all features of the optical formula and the amazing design Deon was able to obtain within such a small package, unfortunately, as a result of the design other features had to suffer somewhat. What if March came out with a FFP 4.5-27x56 that was less than 14", less than 30oz but had better eyebox and parallax (than the 3-24x52) and offered a .2 mil hash reticle, I would gladly give up 8x for 6x if the ingredients were right. Again, it's pretty amazing what March was able to do with the 3-24 and I assume with the 5-40 as well, but these scopes have been out a while now and I feel its time March updated some of their design to improve upon these areas where they struggle.
Seriously?!? Not that Frank needs anyone to defend him, but I thought you've been around long enough to know a little more about the man behind the curtain... Frank is an accomplished Marine Sniper who brings his expertise to the community in a way few others do or can. Does he have his bias', absolutely (we all do), but I don't think anyone can deny his experience. The number of rifles and scopes he's gotten behind and owns (and uses or has used) is probably more than most of us will experience in our lifetime, there is knowledge gained from that alone. He keeps up on new equipment and gear and provides thorough reviews with more than just a weekend with the item, he spends weeks if not months with the gear.
In fact, he gave a pretty positive review of the March 3-24x52 when it first came out a few years ago, does he think Schmidt is better, absolutely but I don't think it's because he's in Schmidt's pocket, I think it comes from experience and knowing what the tactical community needs in an optic... I don't always agree with him, but I don't have his experience either and I have different needs for my rifles because I'm not a purely tactical shooter.
Yeah there’s really no need to sling insults in these information style threads .
The Bear Pit and Maggie’s Drawers sections are more useful for that .
Despite the ( occasionally justified ) crap I’ve copped over the years here ,
this site has more than its fair share of excellent info and industry people
contributing . And first release information , which is what I think this thread
started out as ..... See unbiased review in post above this . No one else did
a more useful review of that optic , particularly in explaining the 6400 Mil issue .
The Bear Pit and Maggie’s Drawers sections are more useful for that .
Despite the ( occasionally justified ) crap I’ve copped over the years here ,
this site has more than its fair share of excellent info and industry people
contributing . And first release information , which is what I think this thread
started out as ..... See unbiased review in post above this . No one else did
a more useful review of that optic , particularly in explaining the 6400 Mil issue .
I have helped designed reticles in the past,
The very first US Optics MOA reticle was designed by me, the Upside down "T" for Ranging, I might have had a hand in that...
There have been other submissions that have been used, not used, etc. this is not a new idea to draw up a design.
I find it highly doubtful any submission from me would be accepted
The very first US Optics MOA reticle was designed by me, the Upside down "T" for Ranging, I might have had a hand in that...
There have been other submissions that have been used, not used, etc. this is not a new idea to draw up a design.
I find it highly doubtful any submission from me would be accepted
You are mistaken, Frank. I have always valued your opinion on field expertise and scopes!
I'm not Frank but I have a reticle I'd like March to consider
I have the full specs if you're interested and can provide high resolution CAD file.
If March are interested in reticles they could do a lot worse than study the following: Minox MR4, Kahles SKMR 3, Vortex EBR-7B, Horus H59
Last edited:
Why follow, when you can lead. Looking forward to next Friday!
I have specs on illumination in the greater design but I also understand there are challenges in semi-conductor photo-lithography processes and especially with illuminating those tiny etchings without bleed. It is my hope that the .2 mil circle could be illuminated but it is not absolutely necessary, the outer large 3 mil quartered circle would not have to be illuminated because I believe it would be too distracting in low light situations. The idea came from the realization that our eyes are naturally drawn to concentric circles. The sight picture being the largest outer circle, then you you have the 3 mil circle, then the .2 mil circle and then of course the center dot, everything is leading toward quick acquisition at all magnification settings in a high magnification scope, but it's not too messy to distract from holding wind or elevation if necessary. One of the greatest impediments of FFP reticles in high magnification optics (5x and above) is that the reticle tends to get lost at low magnifications, this design was an attempt to have a reticle that could function well in all magnifications.
I hope I'm not assuming too much but the ability to swap reticles would be a quantum leap in the world of precision optics. Probably wishful thinking on my part but a girl can dream
I'm not Frank but I have a reticle I'd like March to consider
View attachment 6879477
The centre circle could be illuminated if line thickness is increased . I saw this reticle posted
in an Athlon thread as well , it reminds me of the reticle in the LRHS Bushnell , except
with more subtensions . Good for point and squirt , but the outer circle distracts me on
higher powers for longer shots . I keep wanting to look away from the centre detail .
You are spot on about getting reticles to work at high zoom ratios , it’s quite tricky
which is why most manufacturers won’t even attempt to do it .
I remember another difficulty in illumnating reticles in high zoom optics , the line thickness
and colour bleed in the laser etching . The more complex the design , more difficult to etch
without edge errors , and a high rejection reticle component rejection rate .
I hope I'm not assuming too much but the ability to swap reticles would be a quantum leap in the world of precision optics. Probably wishful thinking on my part but a girl can dream
Most top tier optic manufacturers will swap out reticles for you at
a cost . Sticking your own reticle in there might be pricey though ,
I’d think $ 10 k and upwards from start to finish depending on how
many prototypes and redesigns were required .
I'm referring to the ability to run multiple reticles from the same scope - i.e. reticles interchangeable by the end user
^^^ Ok , the electro optical tech exists , but it would require a constant
power supply , and maybe more suited to urban situations than LR .
power supply , and maybe more suited to urban situations than LR .
That would be the ultimate dream. If anyone here is old enough to remember the old slide show machines where you went to the theatre and the still ad slides were manually inserted into the projector by the guy running the movie tapes before the movie began. That would be neat, a slide reticle changer.
Then........................................................PING, the reticle slide flies off the scope in the middle of a string. Back to the drawing board
.Seriously, though - this would be very tough to achieve due to the fact that the reticle is sealed inside the gas filled tube. However, the way technology is moving nowadays, your idea is not far fetched and could happen during our/your lifetime. A compact, and bullet-proof, external digital screen where the reticle inside the scope is digitally converted to a multitude of reticles and you choose the one for that target or yard line etc.. Doable.
Very interested to see what they've actually come up with for this scope. Never known March to really hype a new offering up like this, they usually show up with buggerall pre-marketing. From memory Gary Costello was the only one who dropped a couple of half images when the Highmaster models were launched last year.
That's really great for a one and done crossover scope that can be used for nearly anything - but for tactical/practical shooting that excludes ELR the extra mag really is redundant since scopes will spend nearly the entire match between 12-18 magnification. I love that March are pushing the boundaries though - very interested in the reticle they have chosen - it's difficult to create something usable across the entire mag range.
I don’t think it’s targeted at practical / PRS matches , that market is already
over saturated with choice . I’d suggest the top end of mag range will be very
useful for target ID and observation , and the low to mid range suitable
for shooting .
over saturated with choice . I’d suggest the top end of mag range will be very
useful for target ID and observation , and the low to mid range suitable
for shooting .
That is crazy, I wonder what the groundbreaking tech is with it. It’ll be curious how the ELR crowd will receive it especially if it has the high master glass and offers superb resolution throughout the range and possibly > 35 mil of elevation. We’ll find out more in a few days
I suspect the flat earth crew will come running with pitchforks and burning torches.
If there is an Xmas tree option then I can see a flexible piece of gear that will cross disciplines once people start playing. And if they can keep the weight low with rings (like other models) it will give NF pause for thought.
If there is an Xmas tree option then I can see a flexible piece of gear that will cross disciplines once people start playing. And if they can keep the weight low with rings (like other models) it will give NF pause for thought.
Interesting. I am very curious to see what they will do with the reticle.
ILya
ILya
That magnification in a FFP scope is really very difficult to achieve, but it is not the main feature of this amazing scope. Just a couple more days............
Are you saying there is going to be a plethora of socks hitting the floor at random in a few days?
After fiddling with 22lr Tactical in recent months (years??), I think the missing element in scope design is elevation. With 22lr being an ELR testbed I would love to have something that could give enough elevation to hit the target beyond 200m. That would throw open competitions and make 22lr a more useful Tactical training option.
There are scopes with enough adjustment to play with 22LR at distance. If I remember correctly last time I played with 22LR at long(ish) distances it was CCI 22 Velocitor and drop at 200 yards was around 5 mrad, at 300 yards around 10 mrad and at 400 yards around 16 mrad. I have not shot further. The SWFA SS 3-15x42 I was using had enough elevation adjustment when on a sloped base to get me to 400.
I still have a some amount of 60gr Aguill SSS ammo. I need to get a fast twist barrel and try to shoot a little further with that. That should have a lot more drop, but should be more stable in the wind.
ILya
Ok, so it's a 6-60 FFP scope with what I assume will be the new High Master glass recipe in it...It sounds like the main feature will be more than simply a high amount of elevation adjustment attached to it.
I don’t have a horse in this race but why not wait until all details of this release are given before downplaying it?
The 6-60 does nothing for me either but am interested to see what else they have up their sleeve...
I love coming to The Hide for unbiased reviews opinions of products that haven't been released yet.
So the fx series will stay as the main tactical line. Ok. It is only half an hour from now...I can survive the wait
400moa/110mil internal adjustment
150moa windage throughout elevation range
50moa/turn. 1/4 click
Highnaster lense
Integral mount
No optical compromise - you are always looking they the ‘centre’ of the optics
6-60 x 56. FFP
3.5# weight
Pretty neat for ELR, scope that seems to have caught up?
Brgds T
150moa windage throughout elevation range
50moa/turn. 1/4 click
Highnaster lense
Integral mount
No optical compromise - you are always looking they the ‘centre’ of the optics
6-60 x 56. FFP
3.5# weight
Pretty neat for ELR, scope that seems to have caught up?
Brgds T
