Rifle Scopes New March in Exhibitions 2018.
- Thread starter kristian55
- Start date
Actually, we are looking for input and constructive criticism. This is what allows the engineers to do a better job of giving the consumer the product that will make them happy for years to come. You can bet that all the good and logical comments made here and at the show in Europe will be taken into account and the Genesis that will eventually be delivered to customers will have several of those enhancements incorporated.
I am a "fan boy", actually bought 13 March scopes over the years from Kelbly's before I was offered the March distributorship. I tried every high end brand out there as I was a consumer, just like anyone else out there, and wanted the best performance out of a scope. The only reason I took on the March distributorship was because I believed in the product and had first hand experience with its tracking as well as the fact that I liked the feel of the knobs of the March. I am still shooting the scope that I shot at the 2009 World Championship for Team USA. You are right, just because World Championships and many long range national championship matches have been won by shooters using March scopes does not automatically mean that every March scope that is introduced is an automatic "gold medal winner", or that gives a pass on lack of features that should be for that discipline of shooting. Each has to stand on its own merit. However, as a fan of March scopes, I don't disrespect any other brand on Forums and sometimes have to bite my tongue at what is lashed out at me personally. All brands have fan boys, but civility should always be paramount in Forum discussions.
This may be a bit out of character for me, but I do not think I have anything to argue with in this post (this does not happen much since I am sorta abrasive and argumentative by nature).
I suspect that you and I are using the word "fanboy" in different ways. In forum lingo, the word fanboy seems to have come to define people who are so obsessed with a particular product tor company that they are blind to its limitations. It goes quite beyond being a fan of the product or the company.
ILya
Again , I’ll ask you , in your ‘ expert ‘ opinion what zoom ratio do think is appropriate for
an ELR optic ? You are obviously not a car guy , so analagies referring to automotive
industry innovation will not be relevant . Max magnification is perhaps a better reference
to max horsepower .
Why do you think S & B put a 9x zoom ratio in the 5 - 45 FFP model ? Is that unnecessary
as well ? What would you suggest would have been better ? The LRR MIl reticle and good
elevation travel suggests this is an ELR friendly optic .
I’ll explain why I mentioned the NXS and the NF Competition scopes . The Competition
x 55 model is a step up in quality over the NXS . High Master lens system is a step up
compared to the ( already very good ) lens system used in previous March deigns . I
wasn’t sure if you had looked through both designs , and was attempting to give you
some terms of reference . Hope that clarifies things .
The Deon team are at Shot every year . Mr S always travels with an interpreter if you
want to chat with him . Thank you for your input here , your experience in optical
system design is no doubt valuable in assessing riflescopes . What type of devices
do you design / work on ?
10 yard minimum focus range will probably be extended to 25 or more . No doubt
as this is a prototype built from existing ( optical ) components , things will change
in the production version . Thanks for the suggestion with the eyepiece , most
March optics generally have good eye relief due to the eyepiece design . As I saw
in another thread on here , depth of field vs parallax / focus is in the eye of the
beholder ....
For the record , I’m more of a Hensoldt enthusiast , having spent a lot of time
using their products in previous employment . I still have something of an
emotional attachment to my old ZF 16 .
Putting "expert" in parenthesis is a nice touch, I suppose.
That having been said, I think I said very clearly that erector ratio, in my opinion, expert or otherwise, is not very important for a scope of this type. Since I do not consider it very important for an ELR scope, I obviously do not have any particular preferences on the magnification ratio. My interest is on the side of that: what was compromised to achieve that magnification ratio? For example, a common compromise is depth of field and feature resolution in the reticle (both stemming from short focal length objective systems). The way the Genesis is designed may work around that, but it is a valid question: what are we giving up to get that magnification ratio. There are no free lunches and there is a compromise somewhere in there.
I am familiar with NXS and Comp and a vast majority of all decent scopes made in the last twenty years (there is some very new stuff that I havn't looked yet, but I will eventually rectify that). However, I am not convinced these serve as a very relevant reference for the High Master scopes.
The erector ration for long range scopes seems to be largely driven my marketing more than by anything else. Still, there is a reasonable case to be made for a high erector ration if this is to be a general purpose precision scope. The S&B in question while suitable for ELR is clearly not intended for that market only. Having observed S&B a bit over the years, I think we can confidently assume that they do not give a gnat's ass about designing a scope specific for the ELR world. When they design a new optic, the specifications are usually driven by some upcoming military tender or, in rare cases, by a significant market demand that could give them large sales numbers, which ELR is not.
Talking through an interpreter is a reasonably torturous process, especially for the interpreter (I used to do that as a side job, albeit obviously not with Japanese), so given a choice, I avoid that.
Depth of field is a measurable qunatity and is not in the eye of the beholder. Same for parallax, etc.
The company I work for sells electro-optical test equipment for cameras, laser, riflescopes, binoculars, multi-sensor payloads, targeting systems, MTF testers, etc. If you are curious about specific products, here is our website: www.ci-systems.com
The factory is in Israel and there is a separate company in the US that is responsible for the North American market for the most part. Out of the US office, we primarily do sales, marketing, service and system integration for ITAR-sensitive projects.
ILya
Yes there are always compromises somewhere in optical design , something you
no doubt deal with on a daily basis . Thanks for the link to your employer , some
interesting equipment there .
Electrooptical integration in the civilian world is a long way behind military development .
As you mentioned above , that’s very much market and cost driven though . For quite
a few years I’ve wanted Flir capabilities and big elevation capabilities for ELR scenarios ,
in one unit , not as an add on . Maybe one day ....
no doubt deal with on a daily basis . Thanks for the link to your employer , some
interesting equipment there .
Electrooptical integration in the civilian world is a long way behind military development .
As you mentioned above , that’s very much market and cost driven though . For quite
a few years I’ve wanted Flir capabilities and big elevation capabilities for ELR scenarios ,
in one unit , not as an add on . Maybe one day ....
Electro-optic integration is a little tricky when you get to long range. If you are not going thermal, there are some tricks you can play with image sensors that really help (I used to develop image sensors for broadcast and cinema cameras some years ago).
However, once you add thermal to the equation, to get into the long range world, you just start adding zeros to the price tag. The basic problem is that if you go uncooled, you need ultrafast lenses made out of exotic (read expensive) materials and if you go cooled, while you can work with lower F-numbers your image sensor alone can get into six figures.
My first experience with electro-optics was when I switched from telecom into imaging right around we needed to get the last Hubble imager upgrade going. I was only peripherally involved with it, but the guy who turned out to be a friend and a mentor over many years was the lead designer for it (I finally got him into guns a couple of years ago). After that, I worked on a few space-based imagers, then fused NVGs, then it was into commercial world for movie cameras (our sensors were in Oscar wining cameras they used for Slumdog Millionare). Only after that I got involved with test equipment.
I run the US company, so I get peripheral involvement with all sorts of interesting projects as we work with different customers.
ILya
However, once you add thermal to the equation, to get into the long range world, you just start adding zeros to the price tag. The basic problem is that if you go uncooled, you need ultrafast lenses made out of exotic (read expensive) materials and if you go cooled, while you can work with lower F-numbers your image sensor alone can get into six figures.
My first experience with electro-optics was when I switched from telecom into imaging right around we needed to get the last Hubble imager upgrade going. I was only peripherally involved with it, but the guy who turned out to be a friend and a mentor over many years was the lead designer for it (I finally got him into guns a couple of years ago). After that, I worked on a few space-based imagers, then fused NVGs, then it was into commercial world for movie cameras (our sensors were in Oscar wining cameras they used for Slumdog Millionare). Only after that I got involved with test equipment.
I run the US company, so I get peripheral involvement with all sorts of interesting projects as we work with different customers.
ILya
As reported, the R&D phase is starting soon so killing more electrons just makes Dunning Kruger happy. The March FB site would be the best place for updates.
But the latest video will keep people happy I reckon.
But the latest video will keep people happy I reckon.
Ok, perhaps I'm just seeing this wrong... but I can't see how there's any way that dude can see full sight picture with his head in that position in the video shown.
When he starts out, his eye is centered on the ocular... by the end of that, his eye seems significantly beneath the ocular center. Even in this shakycam vid, you can see the ocular being raised up... and at the very end of the video you can see his eye aligned with the ocular once again... and his face is well off the rifle.
It will be interesting to see the reports from users in the field as to whether cheek weld does indeed change... because it would seem that it would absolutely have to if the ocular is moving up and down physically. If the ocular were fixed, and only the objective end of the scope moved... then clearly it would work. ... but that's not how this scope is.
When he starts out, his eye is centered on the ocular... by the end of that, his eye seems significantly beneath the ocular center. Even in this shakycam vid, you can see the ocular being raised up... and at the very end of the video you can see his eye aligned with the ocular once again... and his face is well off the rifle.
It will be interesting to see the reports from users in the field as to whether cheek weld does indeed change... because it would seem that it would absolutely have to if the ocular is moving up and down physically. If the ocular were fixed, and only the objective end of the scope moved... then clearly it would work. ... but that's not how this scope is.
You are seeing it wrong. More details on the March FB page and stand by for the next round R&D to occur.
Ok, so you're saying the ocular end of the scope doesn't move upward when elevation is dialed?
‘ Dude ‘ in video is Doc Beech from AB . No doubt he will give us a more info down the track .
Ok, but I don't see this as being super complicated. Ocular goes up, you're face will need to go up. The ocular moved in that vid... quite obviously.
But the movement is minor, and I can still maintain good posture for shooting, without having to adjust the cheek piece of the rifle.
Denys is correct. It is easy to calculate.
For a little fun, if anyone here has been to IWA, S&B puts a target up outside across the parking lot. As marked here in this photo I took:
We decided to take the first prototype up to the second floor of the hall, and take a picture of the smallest (air rifle) target they had setup. If you look closely you can see people standing up next to the glass testing scopes. We are at about 3 times the distance the target was intended for. Shooting through tinted glass (you should notice a blue hue), in rainy weather. You can clearly see the center bullseye, given all the variables and using a cell phone camera. You could easily shoot this target, with this scope as is. I will note, the reticle you see here was a demo reticle, and not what will be available. The second prototype has a different reticle from number 1 (which this image was taken through), and Prototype 3 has even more updates. What you see at launch will look slightly different, with some improvements and upgrades having been made as well as reticle options.
You can see details and rivets that are holding the target board together, from a good distance away.
Last edited:
Yes, I have.Hi Ilya,
Just wondering if you have come to a verdict on the March shorty
Matt
Awesome - interested to hear what you have to say about it and see if the compromises to make it have created too many other issues.
Hoping it is as good as the new NX8 but with better glass
Well the March Genesis is getting close to having production models released. There are currently 3 prototypes floating around in various countries (1 each in the US, UK and Australia). I got to take a look at the one in Australia a couple of weeks ago. The scope was mounted up on a 6BRA, F-class gun and a few local shooters lined up to take a look at it at the 800m target. Conditions were sunny with moderate mirage, temperatures in the high 20's (Celsius). For those wondering about the elevation on this thing...At 800m on the 6BRA, the scope still had about 330 moa of elevation available...Glass was typical March, very clear and due to the lens design being a less complicated setup than a traditional long range scope, the clarity on this thing was noticeably better than anything else on the range (NF Comps, Vortex GE's, Sightrons, S&B 12-50x56 etc. Price tag in Australia will run about $8100 and it certainly won't be a huge seller here (we also don't have the luxury of running ELR comps here). Apparently there are quite a few pre-orders in the UK and US though.
Similar threads
