Nightforce NX8 2.5-20x50 vs March 3-24x52 vs Schmidt 3-27x56 - battle of midrange magnification juggernauts
Back in 2019 I did a review of the newly released Nightforce NX8 2.5-20x50 scope and it was not a very favorable review as the scope suffered from some of the worst edge distortion I have seen in a high end scope. Being such a short design with an 8x erector I knew it would likely be finicky and it did not disappoint with finicky eyebox, parallax and DOF. In hindsight, I should have sent the scope back to NF with my findings and given their CS an opportunity to make things right. Whether or not that initial release scope was an abomination that passed through QC or if NF actually thought these scopes wouldn’t be scrutinized the way they were and ultimately “fixed” new production models I’m not sure, but without giving too much away, this “new” version has corrected many of the issues that the initial release version had. It has been a few years since I owned a March 3-24x52 scope and I really wanted to check out another copy of this scope with the newly released FML-TR1H reticle and I happened to have on hand the venerable Schmidt & Bender 3-27x56 for my alpha scope review and thought it’d be a great time to put all three together and see how well each unique design holds up.THE SCOPES
Nightforce NX8 2.5-20x50, March 3-24x52, Schmidt 3-27x56The reason I chose these three is because they represent the most common high magnification mid-range optics on the market today that start at 3x or less and extend to 20x and beyond. With Schmidt’s latest US pricing, the 3-27x56 is at near unobtanium levels while the March has been out a number of years and can be had for just under $3k price and the NF NX8 represents the “budget” class at just under $2k. The Schmidt has a 34mm tube while the March and Nightforce come in with the skinnier 30mm tube.
Disclaimer: Keep in mind this evaluation is based on my own personal observations based on what my eyes “see” when looking through the scope. I pay meticulous attention when setting up my diopters for each scope making sure to fine tune them to my eye. My eyes are very sensitive to CA while some people cannot or have difficulty seeing CA when looking through the same scope. Everyone’s eyes are different, and my observations will undoubtedly be different from others. That being said, I try to be as objective as possible but, like all of us, do have my bias’, though I try my best to inform you of my own personal preferences so you can make judgement calls based on your own preference. It should also be noted that I am not paid by anyone to do these reviews, I do have some relationships with dealers and some manufacturers that help out some, but by no means am beholden to any particular manufacturer and those that I do work with are well aware of this. Special thanks go out to @wigmamitus who provided the NX8 after convincing me the newer 2.5-20’s don’t suffer from many of the issues I had with the early version.
SPECS
The below specs are provided by the manufacturers which provides a good baseline for what these scopes offer. Highlighted in red is a potential drawback and in green is a potential benefit.TURRETS
This review does not cover the accuracy of each scope but covers the functionality – since any manufacturer is capable of producing a lemon it’s always a good idea to test your scope to ensure its mechanical accuracy.Nightforce NX8 2.5-20
I wrote the following in my previous review and will repeat it here because turret feel and functionality appears to be mostly the same between new and old: Compared to Minox ZP5, Kahles, Schmidt, Leupold Mark 5 and others, the NX8 turrets don’t have the snap I was expecting. Where other turrets have a distinct click or clunk between each .1 mil mark, the NX8 has a more muted sound and oddly enough, the windage turret has that more distinct click that I wish the elevation turret had. With most other scopes it’s the other way around, usually the elevation turret feels the best and the windage is lacking. But, “man does not live on clicks alone”, and while muted the NX8 turrets are precise with very little play and easy to dial elevation, in the end I do not think I would have a problem accurately dialing and the spacing of the 10 mil per rev turret is nicer compared to the tight spacing of the 15 mil per turn and greater variety found in other scopes. The windage is capped which is a very nice feature for those who don’t tend to dial wind and don’t want that turret getting bumped while moving around in the field. Turrets are translating which means the turret rises and lowers when spinning through the different revolutions.March FFP 3-24x52
Having reviewed the March 3-24x52 many years ago and now having this one in hand the turret feel and experience is similar to what I remember with the new turrets being a bit more distinct. March appears to have improved their turret feel over the years with incremental releases and I really like these new turrets, they are not Shuriken lock good but they are still very good with positive clicks and little play, my only criticism may come with the zero stop function – it is not toolless but it can be adjusted with a coin (instead of hex screws) but as such it is set by pressure which means if you really manhandle your elevation when returning to zero you could go over your set mark. Turrets are translating which means the turret rises and lowers when spinning through the different revolutions.Schmidt PM II 3-27 DT II+ turrets
These turrets are completely different from the traditional design Schmidt has offered in the past, they are somewhat lower profiled and a bit larger in diameter, but the main difference is in how they function. These turrets have a very solid and distinct click value with minimal play between clicks – Schmidt engineers did their homework on this one. Turrets are non-translating which means the turret does not rise or fall when spinning through the different revolutions. The added benefit of the DT II+ system is you have a lever for both elevation and windage that allows 3 settings: Locked, Unlocked with MTC and Unlocked without MTC (for those who may not know, MTC stands for More Tactile Clicks which means every full mrad value the click is stiffer than the rest providing a “more tactile” response). When in the locked position there is no play or movement in the turret. It should be noted that I had issue with previous generation MTC turrets, the full mil stronger click was so strong it would cause me to inadvertently overtravel by .1-.2 clicks coming out or going back (for example: if I had a solution of 5.1 mils I would overtravel to 5.2 or 5.3 and would then have to dial back causing delay) the DT II+ MTC has rectified that and feels like the ideal resistance without having to jump forward to get out of the full mrad value. The Schmidt turrets are non-translating which means the turret does not rise or fall when spinning through the different revolutions. I would rate these turrets as the best yet from Schmidt and Bender and arguably close to Tangent Theta in quality.Turret Mechanical Assessment criteria (ratings: = (equals) > (greater than) ranked highest to lowest):
Turret Click Spacing Ranking:
March 3-24x52 >= SB DT II+ > Nightforce NX8My rankings for turret click spacing have to do with both the distance between clicks and the resistance between those clicks. This is more or less a personal preference, but my hand feels better with wider spacing and good resistance but not too much. While the NX8 had better spacing, the mushy feel brought the rank down.
Turret Click Feel Ranking:
SB DT II+ > March 3-24x52 > Nightforce NX8This can be very subjective, but I am drawn to more distinct click feel and audible feedback with very little play between marks.
Turret Alignment Ranking:
SB DT II+ > March 3-24x52 = Nightforce NX8I define turret alignment by the ability for the turret hash marks to fall directly on the indicator mark and not being offset while running the turret out to the extreme and back. Because of the nature of translating designs, they do rise pretty high above the center mark which gives a slight perception you are off mark if your eye is not perfectly centered. I much prefer the non-translating designs that do not rise and fall so preference is given for these designs.
Turret Reset Zero and Zero Stop Ranking:
SB DT II+ > March 3-24x52 > Nightforce NX8In order to reset zero on the March, Schmidt and Nightforce scopes you have to loosen the side hex bolts on the turret housing, then spin the turret to align zero and re-tighten, this is typical of most long range scopes today (zero stop on S&B is around 0.6 mrad below, March allows you to set where you want it with a coin, NF has a rather lengthy but somewhat easy process to set using external and internal hex nuts).
Total Travel Adjustment (Elevation) Ranking:
March 3-24x52 34 mrad > Nightforce NX8 32 mrad > SB DT II+ 30.5 mradPretty self explanatory. There is variation of windage adjustment but as I almost exclusively hold wind with the reticle, this does not play a factor for me and therefore is not evaluated (however, the spec sheet above shows the exact amount for each scope for those who are interested).
Turret Locking Mechanism Ranking:
Schmidt DT II+ > Nightforce NX8 – NA = March 3-24x52 - NAThe Schmidt DT II+ locking mechanism is one of the best I’ve seen as it allows you to turn the locking feature on or off with a mechanical lever separate from the turret housing itself; whereas, neither the March 3-24 or the Nightforce NX8 offer a locking feature, although the NX8 does have a capped windage turret which gives it a slightly higher rank.
Overall Turret Mechanical Assessment Ranking:
Schmidt DT II+ > March 3-24x52 > Nightforce NX8I’d like to reiterate that my rankings are biased towards features, feel and functionality that I prefer so please keep this in mind – where I prefer more distinct sounding clicks you may prefer more muted clicks and would therefore rank other scopes in almost the opposite order in which I have.
MECHANICAL ASSESSMENT OF MOVING PARTS
Besides the turrets you have other moving parts on a scope: the magnification ring, the parallax adjustment and an illumination module, which all require some type of adjustment. Sometimes manufacturers make the resistance too hard or too light. These parts are evaluated based on “resistance” which allows them to turn freely with two fingers, but not so loose that they could get bumped out of position accidentally. In addition, if resistance is so high that turning a dial would cause POA to shift - this would be considered a negative.Mag Ring, Parallax, Diopter and Illumination Mechanical Assessment criteria (ratings: = (equals) > (greater than) ranked highest to lowest):
Magnification Ring Movement Ranking:
Schmidt 3-27 >= March 3-24x52 = Nightforce NX8The ideal magnification ring resistance (IMHO) is one that can easily be turned with two fingers – not so hard to turn as it may now affect your POA and not so light that a brush of your hand (or light bump into a barricade, branch, etc.) is going to change the setting. The S&B 3-27 exhibited excellent resistance and smoothness. The March and Nightforce NX8 had really good resistance and sufficiently smooth.
Parallax knob Movement Ranking:
Nightforce NX8 = March 3-24x52 = Schmidt 3-27The parallax on the March, Nightforce and Schmidt scopes were all outstanding offering what I’d consider the right amount of resistance while being very smooth.
Parallax Adjustment Forgiveness:
Schmidt 3-27 >= March 3-24x52 = Nightforce NX8What exactly is parallax “forgiveness”? I define this as how finicky it is to adjust the parallax dial in order to get parallax properly set for the distance to target from the scope, keep in mind that the parallax dial is doing two things: 1) focus the image and 2) correct for parallax misalignment which can cause you to miss a target at distance, keep in mind that with some scopes the two are not always the same, meaning that when you adjust the dial to ideal focus you may still notice some parallax misalignment and vice versa if you adjust for perfect parallax correction the image may be slightly out of focus (sometimes finetuning the parallax can assist). These are all high magnification scopes with the Nightforce NX8 and March boasting an 8x erector and being relatively finicky throughout the range while the Schmidt 3-27 with it’s 9x erector appeared to be more finicky above 10x. Due to the nature of the design of these scopes you are going to have to fiddle with the parallax knob more than you would 4x, 5x and even 6x erector designs.
Diopter Adjustment Rankings:
Schmidt 3-27 >= March 3-24x52 > Nightforce NX8The Schmidt and March offer a “fast focus” diopter allowing for quick adjustments with a lock ring to help against slippage but it’s wise to use some kind of semi-permanent marker to mark the ideal setting for your eye. If you have not seen my PSA on setting up your diopter, it is attached (though I’d also recommend you check out ILya’s video which goes into greater detail), so you can look at the process to better set your diopter for your eyes (if you are used to the blank wall or blue sky method only you may be missing out on maximum performance of your scope).
Illumination Dial Performance Rankings:
Nightforce NX8 > Schmidt 3-27 >= March 3-24x52There is no question that Nightforce offers the widest range of features with illumination – you have the ability to select between red and, the only downside is the push button feature instead of a dial and no auto-shutoff. There seems to be a love or hate relationship with Schmidt and Bender’s illumination tumor, but the rheostat function is very smooth – no auto-shutoff. March is using a rubber cover over a push button for on/off functionality with presses between settings similar to NF. March has an automatic shutoff after one hour from being turned on which will help save battery (I have often left illumination on and forgot to turn off only to find my next outing there is a dead battery).
Illumination Daylight Bright, Coverage and Bleed:
Nightforce NX8 >> March 3-24x52 > Schmidt 3-27Nightforce DigIllum has one of the brightest reticles on the market and is what I consider to be daylight bright (keep in mind I’m not talking Aimpoint or other RDS bright) for a long-range scope which is to say it can be seen in bright midday sun, the entire reticle lights up and there is no discernable bleed even at highest brightness in low light (the only other reticles I know of that come this close are the ZCO and Zeiss LRP S5, maybe the new Vortex G3 6-36). The Schmidt 3-27 and March 3-24 comes in at a very distant second and was ever so faint in daylight and barely visible in shadow, only center cross lit up on the Schmidt while March lights up center and the quadrant, bleed was minimal on both.
Overall Mag Ring, Parallax, Diopter and Illumination Mechanical Assessment Rankings:
Schmidt 3-27 > Nightforce NX8 > March 3-24x52When including everything above, it’s pretty close between them all as they all have some features that are slightly better than others, if illumination is your game the NF NX8 is clearly head and shoulders above while the overall features of the Schmidt seem to be more refined than the others while the March does most things well. Again, take my rankings with a grain of salt because they are based on “my” preferences for the most part.
OPTICAL QUALITY
I’m going to reiterate what I’ve written in past reviews as a reminder: One of the most difficult areas to assess with any manufacturer is the quality of glass they use in a given scope model, or rather, how the image looks to the shooters eye when viewing the sight picture through the scope. Traditionally when it comes to optics one generally “gets what they pay for” and hence the higher end optics tend to have the higher end prices; however, with new design technologies we have seen some scopes punch above their weight class. It is impossible to take images through the scope to show the quality of the image to the shooters eye, this is because any image capturing device (e.g. camera) also has its own lens system which introduces its own optical aberrations and if the system is better aligned on one scope verses another it may throw off performance; therefore, you will not see any through the scope images because I do not want to skew opinion based on IQ of one image over another. So, for this evaluation I took meticulous notes based on my naked eye observations under as best controlled conditions I could get outdoors. Scopes were tested at multiple magnification points: 2.5/3x, 5x, 10x, 15x, 20x, 24x and 27x and a weighted average was obtained for the ratings below. Finally, I have separated out my evaluations on Pop and Edge to Edge sharpness with two separate criteria – close range using a test target and long range (> 500 yards), the reason being is that close range allows me to evaluate how well the scope can resolve a resolution target, contrast targets and color chart with as minimal effects from atmospherics while the long range testing gives more “real world” results – example, at close range edge to edge sharpness may look fairly poor when looking at letters, numbers and lines, at distance this effect may be diminished or appear less intrusive.Optical Assessment criteria (rating lower numbers are worse and higher numbers are best):
Pop (Combination of Color, Contrast and Clarity) on resolution chart
Pop is the ability for the image to really stand out and come alive. This is the overall impression your brain receives when first looking through the scope for given magnifications, keep in mind that some scopes have a better “sweet spot” than others, this sweet spot or the Goldilocks zone is where a scope performs best within its magnification range. A detailed chart is attachedPop (Combination of Color, Contrast and Clarity) at distance >500y
How well does the overall image look when viewing objects at distance.Contrast (High)
My high contrast target has very bright white paper with very black lines, the numbers represent the smallest value I was able to discern.Contrast (Low)
My low contrast target has a gray background with darker gray lines, the numbers represent the smallest value I was able to discern.Chromatic Aberration (CA) Center
A hotly debated topic – CA, which is typically seen at the edges between high and low contrast objects in what is termed as fringing and usually comes in a band of color along the green/yellow and magenta/purple spectrum, some are greatly annoyed by this optical anomaly while others insist they cannot see it, one thing to know is it has little to do with your ability to hit a target, but can affect the clarity of the target (especially in lower light situations). I tested for both center CA and edge CA. One other area is CA sensitivity with lateral movement off the center of the scope, you can quickly induce CA in these situations which are often rectified by proper cheekweld/eye placement behind the center of the scope.Chromatic Aberration (CA) Periphery/Edge
Many scopes may have really good performance in the center of the image, but quickly fall apart as you move toward the edge of the image.Color Accuracy
If you’ve ever heard the term “it’s all in the eye of the beholder” that in large part describes the experience of color for each of us. It seems our eyes have different sensitivity to different parts of the spectrum and while I tend to prefer “warmer” images and am somewhat put off by “cooler” ones, others see colors differently. For some reason, most Japanese manufactured optics tend to be on the cooler side while many European optics tend to be more neutral to warm. For this reason I have always gravitated towards European optics; however, I am happy to say that March optics in general (not just this scope) have a color contrast that is much more in alignment with their European counterparts; likewise, the Vortex G3 had a neutral to slightly warm look that I like. There are quite a few new scopes introduced this year from Japan and I’m hoping the Vortex represents a growing trend of neutral to warm glass.Resolution (Center)
This is different from my line resolution testing, this is how “sharp” the image appears, I’m looking for details and the scopes ability to resolve those details.Resolution (Edge)
Same thing as center resolution but now I’m focusing my eye at the extreme edge of the sight picture and determining if there is any image degradation that occurs toward the edges. A scope can have very sharp center resolution but poor edge sharpness and it will give the user the impression that the overall quality is not very good.Resolution (Edge) at distance >500y
I added in this test because I was beginning to notice that some scopes did not perform so well in the close testing but seemed to do better at distance, maybe it’s because I’m not using the edge of the scope as my POA but instead using it to pick up my target within the FOV, I still prefer a scope that has superb edge to edge sharpness, but found that some scopes did not bother me as much as I thought they would at distance.Eyebox Forgiveness
I have seen varied definitions of eyebox in the community, so to be clear, here is my definition which will help you understand what I am looking for – put simply, eyebox is the ability to be able to quickly obtain a clear sight picture when getting behind a scope. Yes, there is some relationship with exit pupil and eye relief, but there is more than that going on that allows a scope to have a forgiving eyebox. One thing to note with all these scopes, as magnification increases so does the finickyness of the eyebox.Depth of Field (DOF) Forgiveness
DOF forgiveness is the ability to have both near objects as well as far away objects appear “in focus” in your sight picture. An example would be to set your parallax at 500 yards and you notice that both an object at 200 yards as well as one at 1000 yards look relatively in focus. Something to keep in mind is that some scopes may have perfect focus but parallax is off and vice versa, if this happens to you try fine tuning your diopter a bit more, if still wonky send it back to the manufacturer and ask them to calibrate.Parallax Forgiveness
Similar to DOF forgiveness, you set your parallax at 500 yards and notice a target at 200 yards is parallax free, and a target at 1000 yards is also parallax free.Focus Forgiveness
How much, or rather how little, do you have to play with the parallax dial in order to get an object in focus as you change magnification.Mirage (effect)
This is another one of those terms that requires a definition. Mirage occurs because light bends to move through warmer, less dense air, this “bending” of light is the effect we see when our target appears to dance or wobble in the distance, we know the target is stationary but as the heat waves rise from the ground, the light is bent and gives the perception that the image is distorted. What I am looking for here is the ability of the scope to tame or limit the effect of mirage, within the community this is often referred to as “cutting through mirage” and some scopes handle this situation better than others. Keep in mind that my results were based on what I saw on the particular day I was testing; however, different atmospheric conditions can either decrease or increase the effect of mirage by quite a large margin.Optical quality Test Results (higher numbers are better)
Testing at comparable magnification is tricky since the way magnification rings are marked is not reliable.
Resolution Line Chart (LPI)
It’s one thing for me to look through a scope and judge resolution based on a 1-10 ranking, but it’s quite another to look at line charts and determine how many lines I’m able to resolve at a given magnification, my resolution testing above is a good “first impression” but the line chart does not lie and provides a more quantitative result. For most results you’ll see a range – it is hard to resolve exact values with your eye and I would try to narrow it down as best I could but sometimes eye strain, perfect alignment, etc. would get in the way.
Overall Optical Assessment Results:
Nightforce NX8 > March 3-24x52 > Schmidt 3-27If this was based on the first Nightforce NX8 2.5-20x50 I received right after release of the model I can just about guarantee the NF would have come in last in almost every category, but NF has done a lot in the years since initial release to rectify a lot of the optical issues, so much so that I now recommend this scope to those looking for a well rounded 8x scope. I was as surprised as I imagine some of you are with my results, how can the $5500 Schmidt 3-27x56 rank last in this category and the reason is that Schmidt tried to do “too much” with the design; however, in their defense they designed this scope for a military customer that required the extreme mag range and given the huge range it covers the overall quality of the scope is impressive. The March 3-24x52 really struggles above 18x, so much so that I typically tell potential buyers that it makes for a really nice 3-20 option, but there is so much optical distortion and CA above 20x that I really don’t feel it is very usable, some may disagree but I’ve had several copies of the 3-24x52 now and they all exhibit similar characteristics. I would love to see March give this design a fresh upgrade and see if they can’t improve upon optical performance along with a wide angle eyepiece like the 4.5-28x52; where the March excels is in the lower magnification range and combined with the FML-TR1H reticle, if that’s where you intend to spend most of your time then March comes out #1.
ERGONOMICS
Overall Ergonomic Assessment Results:Schmidt 3-27 > Nightforce NX8 >= March 3-24x52
The overall ergonomic assessment is based on the features of the scope, how intuitive are they to use, how easy are they to manipulate. Location and function play a factor along with how smooth dials are to turn, etc. One of the biggest reasons for the S&B ranking is due to the spectacular DT II+ turret design – whoever came up with this turret should be promoted to chief engineer because they exude quality in every way, yes, we can argue till the cows come home about the illumination tumor, but everything else on this scope helps it earn its position. The March scope would rank higher if they had a better illumination module, it is hard to manipulate with the center button adjust, outside of that these scopes are designed very well, the short design is beneficial and everything is laid out well. The Nightforce NX8 is an interesting design ergonomically as there is not much real estate between the erector housing and the front objective bell which could limit some mount options, but it is the shortest scope of the bunch with the lowest magnification (and widest FOV) which can be ideal for clip-ons; however, if turret feel is your game you may prefer the March’s turrets over NF NX8.
FIT & FINISH
Overall Fit & Finish Assessment Results:Schmidt 3-27 > March 3-24x52 > Nightforce NX8
Schmidt & Bender is fairly synonymous with “Alpha Class” quality and it shows in every PMII scope I’ve handled, there is not much to criticize with any Schmidt. March is a boutique manufacturer that hand assembles each and every scope and hangs in there pretty well with Schmidt, I do think the March 4.5-28x52 with Shuriken locks represents one of the best crafted scopes from March but the legacy design of the 3-24x52 is not far behind. The Nightforce NX8 is a good design but it is not an ATACR and as such this scope falls to the bottom, that being said the NF is also the lowest cost of the three and offers excellent fit and finish for its price point.
AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT
Schmidt and Bender 3-27x56Get rid of that illumination tumor – oh wait, someone at Schmidt finally listened and a couple new models now offer illumination in line with parallax – left-handed shooters rejoice! Needs brighter illumination. Schmidt could use a PM III re-design for the 3-27x56 as I’m confident if they did this scope today it would perform much better optically.
March 3-24x52
The first item that comes to mind is for March to design non-translating turrets, that is - turrets that do not rise and fall as you spin them up or down, almost every manufacture not named Nightforce does that these days. Get a brighter illumination module like so many other new scopes that have excellent low light quality with no bleed but also bright enough to be used when the sun is out, and a different design (illumination) for easier manipulation of settings especially if wearing gloves. Improve the glass for better performance above 18x. Offer Shuriken lock turrets.
Nightforce NX8 2.5-20x50
Fix those turrets, too mushy, they feel more like a $1k scope than a $2k scope. Would like to see non-translating turrets. Would prefer an illumination dial instead of push button feature.
FINAL THOUGHTS
While I am not reviewing reticles here, it is worth mentioning that the March now offers the FML-TR1H reticle in the 3-24x52, this is essentially the same FML-TR1 used in the 4.5-28x52 and 5-42x56 scopes but with an aiming enhancement quadrant (similar to an LPVO) for use at low magnification. Neither the Schmidt nor the Nightforce offer anything like this. IMO, this innovative reticle really makes the March worth considering if you feel you are going to have close range opportunities with this scope.Do not use these images to judge optical quality, they are for reticle reference only. Here are the Schmidt and Nightforce reticles at 3x, neither of which were usable at 3x as they quickly got obscured by almost any background:
Here is the March FML-TR1H at 3x, even without illumination this reticle is easy to pickup even on busy backgrounds, I would like more manufacturers to adopt this idea from the LPVO market into the MPVO market, while I do not consider these scopes as true MPVO the NF NX8 does come close at 2.5x on the bottom.
Here is the March FML-TR1H at 15x which is what I consider the sweet spot for this scope. Ignore the distortion you see in the reticle below 4 mils, that was my inability to perfectly align my camera with the focal plan of the scope.
Finally, reiterating what I mention at the very beginning, I am biased (we all are) and I have my own preferences and this review has opinions that are influenced from that, hopefully I’ve done an adequate job throughout the review to share where my personal preference comes into play in order to help you better evaluate a particular feature. I might rank a feature as a 10 but you would rank the same at a 7. A couple years ago I tried out a new scoring system but ultimately was not satisfied, I do not like giving numbers to any scope because there are so many factors that could affect outcomes at any given time, so any numbers I do provide are meant to be for that day and against those scopes I could test side by side. Give me the same scope on another day and it might fair a little better or a little worse due to any number of variables not the least of which is atmospherics which are constantly changing.
So here is my personal opinion on each of these scopes
- Nightforce NX8 2.5-20x50: If you need a short-bodied scope that has class leading FOV with impressive IQ then this scope is a very compelling option I just wish they offered a better reticle – I would love to see the FC-DMx reticle for this scope. DOF and Parallax can be somewhat finicky and edge to edge sharpness is dependent on eye position indicating that eyebox is a bit finicky as well, but this newest scope faired better in this department than the early release model had.
- March 3-24x52: Decent optical performance with really good turrets but have a hard time recommending it for anyone wishing to use above 20x. 3x and 15x seem to be this scopes sweet spot. But where the March lacks in optical performance it makes up with one of the lightest scopes in its class and with the FML-TR1H reticle makes for a very compelling DMR and crossover/hunter platform. Similar to the NF NX8 this scope is somewhat finicky with DOF and parallax but not too bad, eyebox gets really tight above 18x and CA and optical distortion are a hindrance beyond 18x as well.
- Schmidt & Bender PMII 3-27x56: A high price to pay for a massive magnification range, one must ask yourself if you really need 3x at bottom do you really need 27x at top? This scope is a good example of trying to do too much so don’t expect it to compete optically with the best of the best (like TT, ZCO or even Schmidt's 5-25), that said, if you need the huge range you’ll appreciate all this scope has to offer. But the scope is a beast and if you’re limited with rail for clip-ons you may find the two other scopes in this review to be more enticing. This Schmidt has a very thick periphery which can be somewhat distracting but the sight picture is excellent. There was slight focus shift at 20x and parallax forgiveness quickly fell off above 10x. IQ distortion at periphery from 3-9x is a bit distracting, this scope seems designed for performance above 20x where it excels. This particular scope struggled more with flare than the others.
What's next: March has released 4 new scopes since last year but the one that piqued my interest most was a super short FFP 1.5-15x42 so I'm putting that up against a couple other 42mm optics to see how it compares, stay tuned.
Last edited:
. Lens is usually around 28-30ish mm as that provides the most forgiving FOV through the scope, I try to set to manual to account for the differing light through scope at different magnifications, the scope acts as an aperture of sorts so that by top mag it’s usually pretty dark. Using camera/lens behind NF scope also gives a pretty good idea how forgiving a scopes eyebox is as some scopes take forever to get a clear sight picture.
