Talk me out of a March F 3-24x52

[DJL2]

I’ve had my eye on one for a while. I put together a rifle that deserves some nice glass and weight is a factor. 24-25 ounces for this, it’s FFP, mil/mil, 3x on the low end, illum if I want it, knobs that are not stupidly large, no eye test where the reticle should be... the D24V52FML ticks a lot of boxes for me...

So, why shouldn’t I get one? My only caveat: say “nay” and thou must offer an alternative.

 

[dirthead1]

I had one. It’s really small and light. Turrets are fantastic. Depth of field is extremely short. Over 20x the image darkens a bit and becomes somewhat distorted. Eyebox was really finicky.

if it would have been a 5x zoom instead of 8x, and if the depth of field wasn’t so finicky at 100 yards and beyond, I would have loved it.

I went to a Leupold MK5 3.6-18, which has some issues of its own, but I would pick it over the March just because it’s much easier to get behind and is more user friendly. Now I have a ZCO 4-20 on my hunting rifle. It’s heavier, but superior in every way.

Honestly, it was really the finicky parallax that turned me off. It is obscenely finicky past 100 yards compared to other scopes. The build quality seemed great, just not user friendly for me. Just my .02.

 

[Just Macca]

Tangent Theta M or H series seems to be the best there is at the moment, save the two extra ounces somewhere else I guess.

 

[Denys]

The March-F 3-24 comes in two sizes of objective lens, 42mm and 52mm. You mention that you are considering the 52mm model. There are reasons why there are two sizes; trade-offs. The 3-24X42 is smaller, of course, but it will also have a better depth of field and maybe a little easier to get behind than the 52mm. I do not understand what dirthead1 was talking about with parallax, perhaps he just meant the side focus on his 52mm model. As I explained the 42mm will have better depth of field.

The 52mm will have better IQ especially at higher magnifications. Here's the lowdown from my point of view. If you are going to spend more time at the higher magnifications, especially for something like target shooting, I would choose the 52mm. On the other hand, if you are going to hunt with this scope and stay lower in the magnification range, but still want the capability to go to 24X, then get the 42mm objective. The build on both is abolutely top notch and the turrets are the same and so on.

 

[79steeler]

I run a March on my hunting rifle, 6.5 Saum. I like the scope it's light, has good glass and can be used for long range shooting as well as hunting. What's not to like?

 

[ucsfl05]

I have one. I'm all about the hand-built, boutique quality March offers however, after mounting it and shooting it it IS hard to get behind, and very finicky parallax wise. This is a huge turn off for me- I went from a Nikon Fx100 with generous eye box - i know, i know its not gucci glass but considering it was $400 on Amazon and man, the $/value is awesome. Yes, the glass quality on the March is better, but it is NOT 5X the cost better.
Keep in mind, ethical shots are going to be inside 600 yards for north american game with most cartridges. You dont need a lot of scope for those distances.

 

[DJL2]

Something to chew on, anyway. "Eye box" or ease of use matters to me. I rarely use my SIG Tango6 4-24 above 18-20x simply because it's a challenge to use past that point. I don't know how the March compares, but it would at least be a pound lighter ;-). I was intrigued to see the GAP release of the LRHS out at the moment...not sure 4.5-18x does it for me though...otherwise, looks solid. I don't know how I feel about the Mk5 HD - feels like the reviews are mixed, but lots of folks like them. I know nothing about it, but the Trijicon Tenmile 3-18 could be lumped in there too, I suppose, though as something of an odd ball. Significantly different optics and price points for ~24-25 ounces though.

Easy to beat that weight with a dedicated hunting optic...but, it's not a dedicated hunting rifle ;-).

 

[Denys]

I understand. I saw your price range in your other thread and I respected it. I was not going to propose a scope that was double your highest price, no matter how perfect it is for your application. However, when you posted here, my reticence evaporated.

 

[dirthead1]

Denys, yes I was referring to focus. From 100 yard to infinity, the range of motion on the knob is tiny. From 10 yards to 100 yards is approximately 1/4 of a revolution of the knob. I found that shooting anything over 100 yards required constant tweaking to bring the target in focus, and a tiny adjustment of the knob makes a huge change. I added a pic of the focus/parallax knob below for reference. It’s definitely a nice scope. If I was shooting from 10-100 yards regularly, I would have loved it. But focusing was just way too finicky for me.

 

[DJL2]

I understand. I saw your price range in your other thread and I respected it. I was not going to propose a scope that was double your highest price, no matter how perfect it is for your application. However, when you posted here, my reticence evaporated.

I am usually pretty frugal...a value optic shopper for sure. It just seems like reality is pressing in and that I'm not going to end up with what I want for anything like what I want to pay for it, heh. After the costs on the associated rifle project spiraled wildly out of control...it almost seems silly to try and save a "little" on the optic.

 

[GoingTheDistance]

I have the 42mm, bought it before the 52mm was available. I would like to have had the 52. I run my high mag scopes almost entirely on the high end and for this one it's usually between 20 and 24 for groundhogs and coyotes.

 

[DJL2]

I sometimes wonder how much I "need," mag wise. I guess if the scope can really deliver it well, it's moot and you want as much as you can get. I didn't necessarily feel like I needed more than 18x when shooting to 1000 yds...but, then, I'm not an objectively good or experienced long range shooter, either. Perhaps I totally misinterpreted it, but I spent some time tooling around on the Primal Rights website a while back. When shooting at 100 yds, I can tell you that when I dialed my magnification back my groups got smaller. Now, it could be that I'm also getting better as a shooter, so I'm not prepared to say unequivocally that it helped...but, I am pretty confident it didn't hurt.

In a general sense, 3-18 is my "happy" zone of magnification IF the scope can deliver at 18x. Based on what I've read here on the hide, it seems like a lot of optics struggle once you dial them past 75% of max. Again, that might be a bad read or confusion on my part, but in some sense I've been chasing 24x on the top just to get 18x that "work." I know that leaves me out of touch in a world where people are rocking 5-30, 7-35, etc. Perhaps I'll get into something that leaves me wanting for more magnification or it will just happen over time.

 

[Earnhardt]

Any more reviews on the March 3-24x FFP?
Thanks

 

[Glassaholic]

Any more reviews on the March 3-24x FFP?
Thanks

Soon