Rifle Scopes S&B 3-20 PMII vs March 3-24
- Thread starter treillw
- Start date
I realise the photos are of the "normal" S&B so I ran the key dimensions:
Weight = March 24x FFP: 640g (22.6oz) D24V42FIML model versus S&B Short 20x FFP: 870g
Length = March FFP: 12.4 inches vs S&B Short: 11.7 inches
Found a seriously good You Tube review of the March scope. Explains a lot of the MIL issues that we have been discussing and puts to bed the whole myth and misinformation about "tracking issues". Some really good advice about DOPE and getting to know your scope.
Worth a look - ten minutes long but a really good review.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kig4NxSskQQ
Worth a look - ten minutes long but a really good review.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kig4NxSskQQ
I have the S&B 3-20 with the MTC Turrets and 59 reticle. IMO it's one of the best scopes I've ever owned. This coming from having owned the NF Beast, Kahles 6-24, S&B PM ll 5-25x.
Pros:
- Great eye box. Really easy to get behind when needing to take a shot from awkward positions.
- Glass is excellent. You will be hard pressed to find better glass although my TT315 is coming tomorrow so we'll see how it compares. That said, you can see such fine detail through this scope.
- Turrets have just the right detail included without overkill. Windage marks Left and right, elevation has second rev mil marking, parallax is accurate down to 25 meters
- construction of the scope itself feels like a true military grade optic with the fitness all Turrets and markings
- I really like the H59 reticle and the illumination on the ret it exactly what you need no more no less.
Cons:
- As someone mentioned earlier, the MTC Turrets do tend to go past .1 click adjustment where you have to dial back. That being said, the MTC really allows you to make adjustments in the dark since there will be no guessing which mill you are on.
- zoom lever is a bit stiff. Not a big deal, just stiffer than other scopes
in terms of value, I would say buy the optic right and you will keep your value. There are people on the the hide that has different circumstances that come up where they need to sell an optic. Be patient and buy right. Your trade value and resell value will be fine. In terms of March vs S&B, I feel there would be a more liquid market for the S&B since it's are well-known gold standard name and everyone strives to own one are some point in their shooting career. March is less so. There are less people aware of March and therefore your buyer universe is smaller.
So IMO go with the S&B. Onice it comes in, I can't imagine a scenario where you will look through it and feel underwhelmed
Pros:
- Great eye box. Really easy to get behind when needing to take a shot from awkward positions.
- Glass is excellent. You will be hard pressed to find better glass although my TT315 is coming tomorrow so we'll see how it compares. That said, you can see such fine detail through this scope.
- Turrets have just the right detail included without overkill. Windage marks Left and right, elevation has second rev mil marking, parallax is accurate down to 25 meters
- construction of the scope itself feels like a true military grade optic with the fitness all Turrets and markings
- I really like the H59 reticle and the illumination on the ret it exactly what you need no more no less.
Cons:
- As someone mentioned earlier, the MTC Turrets do tend to go past .1 click adjustment where you have to dial back. That being said, the MTC really allows you to make adjustments in the dark since there will be no guessing which mill you are on.
- zoom lever is a bit stiff. Not a big deal, just stiffer than other scopes
in terms of value, I would say buy the optic right and you will keep your value. There are people on the the hide that has different circumstances that come up where they need to sell an optic. Be patient and buy right. Your trade value and resell value will be fine. In terms of March vs S&B, I feel there would be a more liquid market for the S&B since it's are well-known gold standard name and everyone strives to own one are some point in their shooting career. March is less so. There are less people aware of March and therefore your buyer universe is smaller.
So IMO go with the S&B. Onice it comes in, I can't imagine a scenario where you will look through it and feel underwhelmed
Here is a S&B 3-20×50 (non-US) on a 7RM hunting rifle that finished at 9.5# total. I thought long and hard about the March, and ended up with the S&B non-US.
OP, I've read through the responses here and they've already given great advice. I don't think you'll go wrong with either honestly. A few things to point out, the S&B 3-20x50 (not the ultra short) gave me one of the most pleasing experiences behind a scope I've had, and I've tried a lot of scopes. A couple years ago I did a review that included the S&B 3-20x50 and the March 3-24x52, I've since also had the S&B US 5-20x50 but I've never had a Ultra Short 3-20 so cannot comment. The March 3-24x52 is an optical marvel, how those Japanese engineers figured out how to get such amazing optics into an 8x optical formula and such a compact size, well, there's nothing out there like it, the only scope that comes close is the S&B Ultra Short 3-20 but at 7.5oz heavier it is not the equal in weight; however, where it lacks in weight it does make up in other areas. The Schmidt's have amazing eye box's that are very quick and easy to get behind, they also have spot on parallax that is easy to adjust; I'm not saying the March has a bad eye box or parallax, it is definitely workable but the Schmidt is that much better. One other thing to note is the FOV, the Schmidt has a wider FOV throughout the entire magnification range allowing you to see more at any given magnification than the March. If weight were an absolute concern then I'd have no issue recommending the March to you, it's that good; however, if you don't mind lugging around an extra 8oz then I'd recommend the Schmidt 3-20 with a P4LF reticle. The only other scope I'd suggest is worth looking into would be the Tangent Theta TT315M, true it is limited to 15x but I had the Premier version and the glass was simply phenomenal, I hear TT is even better but have not yet had the pleasure of using one. You might ask, if I loved the March and Schmidt so much, why do I no longer have those scopes, and I would tell you it's because of the reticle. A few years ago I would have said the March FML-1 was the bomb (do people use that phrase anymore??? I guess I'm dating myself) with it's center dot and .5 mil hash marks; however, the reticle used in the 3-24x52 is very thick and the Schmidt H2CMR in the 3-20 was even worse I felt. Ever since the introduction of the SKMR and SCR I have come to really appreciate the benefits of a .2 mil hash reticle, it is personal preference really, but if I could get the Schmidt 3-20 with the Vortex AMG EBR-7 or the Minox MR4 reticle I would probably be all over that, yes Schmidt is coming out with the LRR-MIL reticle but who knows how long it will take for that to come to market...
.
.
.
Not sure if it helps but here's a pick showing some of the different sizes (the March looks like a toy compared to the others)
.
| Manufacturer: | Schmidt & Bender | Schmidt & Bender | Schmidt & Bender | March | Tangent Theta |
| Model: | PM II | PM II Ultra Short | PM II Ultra Short | F1 | TT315M |
| Glass: | Schott | Schott | Schott | Japanese HD | Schott |
| Magnification & Objective: | 3-20x50mm | 5-20x50mm | 3-20x50mm | 3-24x52mm | 3-15x50mm |
| Tube diameter: | 34mm | 34mm | 34mm | 30mm | 30mm |
| Reticle: | H2CMR | P4LF | MSR | FML-1 | Gen 2 XR |
| Illuminated: | Yes - dial | Yes - dial | Yes - dial | Yes - push button | Yes - dial |
| Daytime bright: | No | No | No | No | No |
| Focal Plane of Reticle: | FFP | FFP | FFP | FFP | FFP |
| Mil or MOA: | Mil | Mil | Mil | Mil | Mil |
| Turret Clicks -1 Turn | .1 clicks & 10 mil | .1 clicks & 17 mil | .1 clicks & 17 mil | .1 clicks & 10 mil | .1 clicks & 6 mil |
| Turrets Resettable to Zero: | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Turrets Low Profile: | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
| Turrets double turn: | Yes | Available | Available | Yes | Yes |
| Locking Turrets: | Available | Available | Available | No | No |
| Zero Stop: | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Elevation Total: | 26 mil / 88 moa | 34 mil / 115 moa | 12 mil / 40 moa | ||
| Windage Total: | 6 mil / 20 moa | 17 mil / 57 moa | 6 mil / 20 moa | ||
| Parallax Range: | 25m - ∞ | 25m - ∞ | 25m - ∞ | 10y - ∞ | 50m - ∞ |
| Eye Relief: | 3.54" | 3.54" | 3.54" | 3.35 - 3.94" | 3.54" |
| Field of View (100yds): | 39.0' @ 3x 6.3' @ 20x | 23.4'' @ 5x 6.0' @ 20x | 39.0' @ 3x 6.3' @ 20x | 35' @ 3x 4.3' @ 24x | 38.4' @ 3x 8.4' @ 15x |
| Weight: | 32.1 oz | 30.7 oz | 32.0 oz | 24.5 oz | 27.7 oz |
| Length: | 15.2" | 11.8" | 13.4" | 13.2" | 13.8" |
.
Not sure if it helps but here's a pick showing some of the different sizes (the March looks like a toy compared to the others)
Great write up as usual mate. How did you find the eyebox and depth of view on the 5-20US?
Hi Macca, I never had them side by side so it is unfair to say for certain that the 3-20 was "better"; however, based on memory I would say that I actually found the 5-20 Ultra Short to be slightly less than the 3-20, there was just something special about that 3-20 that caught me by surprise. Keep in mind the US 5-20 was also amazing and presents such a unique scope that it has its own surprises, it too is very easy to get behind and the ergonomics are very well thought out. The FOV is amazing on the 5-20 so much so that it felt more like a 5x magnification scope than a 4x and easily stood its ground (with regard to magnification) against the Burris XTRII 4-20 and Bushnell ET 3.5-21 giving up very little on the bottom end but providing superior glass and depth of field, better contrast, better parallax and to be honest I really liked the low profile 17mil turrets, the MTC takes some getting used to but like Frank already mentioned, you get used to running past and then backing down if you need that .1 or .2 mil beyond the heavy 1 mil clicks. Now, is it really fair to compare a scope that costs 3-4x more than the Burris/Bushnell, not really but my point is that while the Schmidt 5-20 is a 4x design it holds it's own against higher magnification scopes. I think the only scope that has given me a more pleasing experience is the Minox ZP5 5-25x56; however, I am still anxious to get my hands on another 3-20 with a better reticle. One final thought which you may already have taken into consideration, the Ultra Short 5-20 is a great option for a short barreled rifle like an AR or Covert style but looks out of place on longer barreled cousins, not that it won't work but if you're running a longer barrel then why not get a 5-25 or 3-20 that offers more than the 5-20. I had my 5-20 on my 26" barreled Chanlynn 7mm SAUM for a while and it looked awkward until I bought the pricey sunshade for it, which provided protection against flare and ghosting (which the Schmidt does very well at handling anyway) and added some length to make it look a little more normal with a longer barreled rifle.
Last edited:
I've enjoyed reading through this thread. Thank you.
Just got me that we all want our scopes to do everything. I think sometimes its the case of too much research off the net and losing the point. I'm as bad as anyone else, but I usually get there in the end.
Match the scale of scope to the rifle. There is such a thing as too much scope for the rifle. S&B are heavy scopes compared to many, and there are other big beasts out there too. Robust is good but heavy has to be taken into account. When I was young and fit then I could throw an AI around. Given a heavy duty platform then they can take big heavy scopes. All that weight ensures they are dead and an easy shoot. Just takes a battleship emplacement to set them up. I wouldn't want to carry one far now without a truck.
Put too huge a scope on a lighter rifle and all the balance goes. Add that to a livlier rifle and it makes shooting them tricky. Better results and easier to drive if the scope and rifle match each other. Doesn't matter how great the glass, turrets, reticule if you can't keep the darn thing steady.
Super fine reticules are fine in sunshine. I often shoot in pretty poor conditions. If you can't see the darm reticule even if lit up like a Christmas tree then its no good at all. Competition shooters look for advantage where ever they can find it and generally know the conditions in advance. The practice and fine tune and its pretty admirable the hits they are achieving. Stick the same kit in horrendous conditions then the system goes to pot; and you may as well stay in bed.
So what I'm really saying is match the scope to the rifle, and go as specialised as you want, but if its for general purpose use then take a step back. For competition have the kit to win, but for everyone else something more forgiving might well be better. Glass, repeatability and eyebox, and everything else can be worked through. Balance of the rifle combo and eyebox are to me the most important if I go practical.
Sorry, for the break from the stats on scopes.
Just got me that we all want our scopes to do everything. I think sometimes its the case of too much research off the net and losing the point. I'm as bad as anyone else, but I usually get there in the end.
Match the scale of scope to the rifle. There is such a thing as too much scope for the rifle. S&B are heavy scopes compared to many, and there are other big beasts out there too. Robust is good but heavy has to be taken into account. When I was young and fit then I could throw an AI around. Given a heavy duty platform then they can take big heavy scopes. All that weight ensures they are dead and an easy shoot. Just takes a battleship emplacement to set them up. I wouldn't want to carry one far now without a truck.
Put too huge a scope on a lighter rifle and all the balance goes. Add that to a livlier rifle and it makes shooting them tricky. Better results and easier to drive if the scope and rifle match each other. Doesn't matter how great the glass, turrets, reticule if you can't keep the darn thing steady.
Super fine reticules are fine in sunshine. I often shoot in pretty poor conditions. If you can't see the darm reticule even if lit up like a Christmas tree then its no good at all. Competition shooters look for advantage where ever they can find it and generally know the conditions in advance. The practice and fine tune and its pretty admirable the hits they are achieving. Stick the same kit in horrendous conditions then the system goes to pot; and you may as well stay in bed.
So what I'm really saying is match the scope to the rifle, and go as specialised as you want, but if its for general purpose use then take a step back. For competition have the kit to win, but for everyone else something more forgiving might well be better. Glass, repeatability and eyebox, and everything else can be worked through. Balance of the rifle combo and eyebox are to me the most important if I go practical.
Sorry, for the break from the stats on scopes.
Would you please elaborate on this post you made, I am currently considering a pm2 3-20 or 3-20 US , would like to know what you experienced between the two, size is not that important to me if I have to give up optical clarity/performance. Thanks for your time.
You revived a year old thread so you may not get an immediate response from the poster. I have had the PMII 3-20x50 (not the ultra short) and I have had the 5-20 ultra short so not exactly the comparison you were looking for but I can say this, both scopes are phenomenal optically. If you've never had a S&B before you will likely be blown away, the incredible clarity and resolution provide a pop to the image with a forgiving eyebox that makes them easy to get behind. If you look at my link in my signature it will take you to the review I did of these scopes and several more. The 3-20 was one of my favorite scopes and the only reason I got rid of it was because I didn't like the reticle; however, once the MSR2 comes available in the Ultra Short version I may be singing a happier tune as I hear the Ultra Short 3-20 holds its own against the non ultra short.
I have both, the 3-20x Ultra short and the larger 3-20x both with P4 fine reticles. Optically, I can't tell the difference between the two.
Maybe I had an off example of the March 3-24x42 because the glass in it wasn't all that good??? Anyway it was one tiny scope and that's where it excelled. I have a March FX 5-40 and the glass is good in it but it still falls behind my full size S&B 3-20x50.
Even so, for a light weight rifle, and providing other 3-24x42 March scopes have good glass- pretty sure they do, I'd take the March over the S&B 3-20 full size from purely a weight and size stand point.
I haven't done much handling of the March 3-24x52 or the S&B 3 or 5 - 20's except at SHOT a couple times. In general I'm going to lean on S&B having a very slight edge in feel and glass.
Man, that's a tough choice!?? Pick your favorite reticle and other features....
Even so, for a light weight rifle, and providing other 3-24x42 March scopes have good glass- pretty sure they do, I'd take the March over the S&B 3-20 full size from purely a weight and size stand point.
I haven't done much handling of the March 3-24x52 or the S&B 3 or 5 - 20's except at SHOT a couple times. In general I'm going to lean on S&B having a very slight edge in feel and glass.
Man, that's a tough choice!?? Pick your favorite reticle and other features....
It was from a size standpoint. I had a 3-20x50 full size and it was much bigger than the 3-24x42 March. Enough so that it was an apples to oranges comparison. That didn't stop me from comparing them however and I'd say pure resolution was pretty close between the two. All other optical elements (brightness, contrast, eyebox, etc) the S&B was better.
I actually hated the H2CMR reticle so I sold that scope. Still have the March and still using it on an AR-15.
I did not read all the post but I have purchased both S&B as well as March scopes.
I well recall when my first S&B scopes arrived. They were the first ones I had ever seen in person. Otherwise, I had just read about them. Admittely this was in the era of Leupold Mk 4's etc. I was simply overwhelmed. The beauty, the precision, Illumination, adjustments, and that glass... I have never gotten over the quality of the S&B scopes. I own over a dozen at any given time. I have owned more than 50 and possibly 100 in the last 25 years. Guess I am a fanboy. My current scopes of choice is the 5-20 non lit Ultra Short. I prefer non lit due to being shorter and lighter. I seldom if ever use the Illumination even night shooting. This is an excellent optic for even a small frame AR.
I have tried most every major high end scope never found anything I liked as well.
When March announced the new line of scopes the advertised features were so outstanding I ordered 5 of them. (My standard quantity for anything that sounds good.
)
I was among the first to actually have them in hand. IIRC they came through Kelby's. This was some time ago. When they arrived I opened them and was immediately disappointed. In glass, adjustments, finish, focus etc. They just were not right. I felt like I was looking through a long pipe. I listed and sold all of them as there was a long wait time so no harm done.
Comparing S&B to March is no contest to me. YMMV.
I well recall when my first S&B scopes arrived. They were the first ones I had ever seen in person. Otherwise, I had just read about them. Admittely this was in the era of Leupold Mk 4's etc. I was simply overwhelmed. The beauty, the precision, Illumination, adjustments, and that glass... I have never gotten over the quality of the S&B scopes. I own over a dozen at any given time. I have owned more than 50 and possibly 100 in the last 25 years. Guess I am a fanboy. My current scopes of choice is the 5-20 non lit Ultra Short. I prefer non lit due to being shorter and lighter. I seldom if ever use the Illumination even night shooting. This is an excellent optic for even a small frame AR.
I have tried most every major high end scope never found anything I liked as well.
When March announced the new line of scopes the advertised features were so outstanding I ordered 5 of them. (My standard quantity for anything that sounds good.
) I was among the first to actually have them in hand. IIRC they came through Kelby's. This was some time ago. When they arrived I opened them and was immediately disappointed. In glass, adjustments, finish, focus etc. They just were not right. I felt like I was looking through a long pipe. I listed and sold all of them as there was a long wait time so no harm done.
Comparing S&B to March is no contest to me. YMMV.
Lenny, your experience pretty much mimics mine. I had the full size S&B 3-20x50 and just did not like the H2CMR reticle in that scope. I am waiting for Schmidt to come out with the MSR2 reticle; however, if I were to find a full size 3-20 with MSR reticle at the right price I'd probably jump on that. Even though the full size Schmidt 3-20 was quite a bit bigger than the March 3-24x52 there was something magical about the view through the Schmidt and if I were to choose between the two, I would choose the Schmidt even though it only goes to 20x instead of 24x. If I truly needed to save the 7oz or absolutely had to have a short scope then the March is still a great performer, but even then I'd have to give serious consideration to the 3-20 Ultra Short even though it costs a bit more.
I am now leaning towards US with MSR, (I checked yesterday on ETA of MSR2 through S and B distributor, SB does not even have a timeline for this reticle yet.), My main concern was optic quality, I feel through your responses, your indicating the optical quality to be close to the same in both the US and the standard 3-20. Experience is not cheap. Thanks for sharing.
Good choice. I really disliked the H2CMR, especially when turned to lower magnification. I called S&B about swapping for the MSR but the $750 price wasn't worth it. I think you will be very happy with the US and MSR reticle.
Schmidt & Bender is notorious for announcing new products and then talking half side of forever to bring them to market, like you the distributor told me no timeline yet, not even for the LRR-Mil reticle. Someone just had an add in the classifieds for a 3-20 US with MSR for $2600, I tried to jump on that but it had already sold
Keep your eyes open and sometimes you can find some great deals, even brand new ones will often go on sale by the Hide vendors in the $3000-$3200 range, but usually in the more obscure reticles.
I should also mention that two new scopes have been introduced this year representing some new designs in the alpha class market for ultra short with arguably better reticles than what Schmidt offers (right now). These are the Kahles K318i and the ZCO ZC420, the Kahles is already available and getting some great reviews and the ZCO should hopefully be available by the end of summer, here's some specs to compare:
Thanks for all the info. When I was looking at nf 5 25 I was not concerned with tunneling at the low end. Then some UK guy video was comparing scope made nite that the recon didn't have it at 5x and the pmII did. Wow.
I am considering these exact same two options with the same reticle. My only concern is that I've heard some S&B scopes tunnel and, while some people don't mind this, I'm pretty OCD and it would really bother me. Do you see any tunneling at 3x or does it have a full field of view?
I didn't even realize it was an issue until I watched this video and went holy s
Similar threads
