Rifle Scopes Torn between the Atacr 7-35 and the March 5-40

[Mclovinguns]

I did buy the March 5-40 with the illuminated fml-1 reticle for $3059. I'm stuck in the field for work for 2 more weeks but when I get it mounted and send some lead I will let you know what I think. I'm no expert by any means but I have shot the 5-25 Atacr a lot also.

 

[Hairy Biker]

I did buy the March 5-40 with the illuminated fml-1 reticle for $3059. I'm stuck in the field for work for 2 more weeks but when I get it mounted and send some lead I will let you know what I think. I'm no expert by any means but I have shot the 5-25 Atacr a lot also.

Well done. PM me if you have any questions. Remember to read the instructions about setting up the scope properly for you eye and focussing the ocular to infinity.

 

[phillip61]

I read this whole thread and learned nothing about either of the 2 scopes. Just that Lowlight doesn't like Shiraz.

And that March is just as bad as IOR? That seems like a low blow considering March has a good reputation for tracking accurately?

In the precision rifle blog test done a few years ago the IOR Recon was the "only" scope to score perfectly in the Mechanical testing part of the test........just sayin'

 

[Lowlight]

In the precision rifle blog test done a few years ago the IOR Recon was the "only" scope to score perfectly in the Mechanical testing part of the test........just sayin'

You are honestly not gonna cite that much debunked "test" are you ...

You know they screwed that up royally and many of the scopes that "failed' were sent to Vortex and put on their machines to electronically test them... guess what they found ? Just saying, You Douche !

 

[Covertnoob5]

In the precision rifle blog test done a few years ago the IOR Recon was the "only" scope to score perfectly in the Mechanical testing part of the test........just sayin'

Not sure what that has to do with this thread seeing as how neither of the 2 scopes asked about was included or even invented at the time of the arrival. And if you're going to take that article as gospel, then you must agree with the writer that the Schmidt Bender 5-25 and NF Beast are the top scopes out there.


Better to have it and not need it, than to not have it and say oh shit.....

 

[Baner]

Had my March-FX 5-40x56 FML1 for some time now, and used it in a PRS match.

It's a great scope for range days and maybe some competition with low stress factor, and also great for a long range hunting rifle, due to the weight and size.

The reticle is pretty much outdated(probably already was 5 years ago), the 0.05mil clicks i had didn't work well for me combined with the 5mil per turn, the revolution indicator isn't very useful either as it can be hard to see well due to the scope mount.

Got lost a few times during the PRS match, had problems with my rifle so the added stress from that combined with a gazillion clicks on the damn turrets was to much.
Would probably have been fine with the 0.1mil/10mil turrets tho.

See if the new high masters series comes out in FFP, with a better reticle and larger turrets.
Then i probably get a March again.

As it is now, i sold my March and found a used Nightforce Beast Mil-R + Spuhr mount for the right cash(the same as i sold my march for), liked the looks of the reticle so wasn't a hard decision. Never used a Nightforce before so it's going to be interesting.

Might go for the Atacr 7-35 for another rifle if the Beast is to my liking.

 

[Hairy Biker]

I do not really understand what an "outdated" reticle is. The FML-1 draws the eye to the centre dot and wind/elevation aim offs are pretty obvious. The trick is to know your gear and shoot it regularly.

 

[Baner]

Just compare it to Minox MR4 reticle for an example, 0.2 hashes for wind and hold over.
Easier to mil targets with, open top half and so on.

I don't say it's a shitty reticle but there is a lot better ones out there today.

Would have kept the March if it had the 0.1 clicks and 10mil turrets tho, because i did like it otherwise.

/Baner

 

[lash]

http://i1079.photobucket.com/albums/w507/HairyBiker8/Picture 030_zpsq0p2q37h.jpg
I do not really understand what an "outdated" reticle is. The FML-1 draws the eye to the centre dot and wind/elevation aim offs are pretty obvious. The trick is to know your gear and shoot it regularly.

Hairy, you should know when to defend your favorite scope and when it's best to leave well enough alone so as to not come across as full retard rabid fanboy. I imagine that you're very aware that reticle choices are one of the most personal of the things that make people choose and like a scope. Jumping on someone because they chose a different scope with a reticle they wanted instead of "getting used to it" after spending well over $3k is over the top, don't you think?

 

[st1650]

March also offers the FML-T1 which seems like a licensed AMR with holdovers, center dot and 0.2 mil wind hold. It's fairly modern by today's standards.

 

[Baner]

March also offers the FML-T1 which seems like a licensed AMR with holdovers, center dot and 0.2 mil wind hold. It's fairly modern by today's standards.

Only Mil reticle they have for the 5-40x56 is the FML1.

/Baner

 

[kristian55]

March also offers the FML-T1 which seems like a licensed AMR with holdovers, center dot and 0.2 mil wind hold. It's fairly modern by today's standards.

FML-T1 reticle only for March 3-24x52

 

[steve123]

It's those """huge""" numbers approx where you'd aim in a left to right wind when holding over and off that have always pissed me off. Same with other Co's that commit the same reticle crime, lol

And I have the FML1 BTW in a FX 5-40, saving grace was the 10 mil knobs vs 5 mil .05 clicks. Wishing for the FMLT1 in the 5-40.

 

[Hairy Biker]

Hairy, you should know when to defend your favorite scope and when it's best to leave well enough alone so as to not come across as full retard rabid fanboy. I imagine that you're very aware that reticle choices are one of the most personal of the things that make people choose and like a scope. Jumping on someone because they chose a different scope with a reticle they wanted instead of "getting used to it" after spending well over $3k is over the top, don't you think?

There is so much BS going on here from people whose only view of a product, any product, is through the keyboard that I thought a picture would draw 1000 words. Bauer has explained his decision and, while not the path I would have gone, I have no issue with it, especially if it gets him out shooting.

First time a March user has been called a "full retard rabid fanboy". Thanks - I will get the t-shirt made up now!

 

[lash]

Lol. I stopped barely short of actually calling you that. Though that would make a good t-shirt that I'm sure many of us could wear at one time or another.

I actually like a nice clean reticle like that in many of my scopes, but it's not for everyone, nor really just right for every shooting discipline out there.

 

[hk dave]

Dunno if this is of any help, but on a 30moa base, I'm getting around 25 mils or so of elevation out of my NF 7-35. That's pretty damn good.

Anyone know what the March can do?

 

[Hairy Biker]

Fascinating question. I just checked my March 40x FFP, and note that you will need to supply a bit more information before we can compare oranges.

But on my 6.5 x 47mm shooting Berger 130s at 2950fps, with a zero at 100m and on a 20 MOA base... I have 18 MIL.

Now 30 MOA is 8.73 MIL and 20 MOA is 5.82 MIL so the difference of 2.91 MIL would make my March top out at a bit over 20 MIL and yours at bit over 22 MIL.

So, with that 18 MIL I can top range wise at 1400m (1530 yards) with this load. That is transonic for this round.

With my 7mm Boo Boo (180 Bergers at 3050fps), 18 MIL takes me to 1600m (1750 yards) but is supersonic.

Does that help?

 

[Baner]

I had 17.4mil available after zero at 100 meters, that's with a 20moa base.
300 wsm, shooting 178 gr A-max at 890 ms(2900fps or so).

The internal adjustment is pretty damn good for such a high magnification.

Earlier this year...

 

[hk dave]

338 lapua, 100 yard zero, 300gr prime at 2671 fps, 30 Moa base, getting around 25 mils elevation. Was pretty surprised by it considering nightforce states 100moa internal elevation. They're obviously understating.

Its why why I got curious about the March and other manufacturers and whether they understate.

 

[Covertnoob5]

They definitely understate. As I mentioned in my earlier post, I'm getting 28.5 mils in my "16 .308 shooting 168 gr fgmm factory ammo with a 100 yard zero on a 40 moa base.


Better to have it and not need it, than to not have it and say oh shit.....

 

[Hairy Biker]

The March site states 24 MIL or 66 MOA internal elevation.

However, for all scopes regardless of manufacturer, your zero point for shooting will (and should) never be at the extreme bottom of the elevation travel because that will induce errors due to a combination of mechanical forces on the scope during firing.

So doing the maths again with my scope, the zero position has 18 usable MILs above and 6 below with a 20 MOA rail.

I've used the long MOA elevation of the NXS on my 22 trainer to get the zeros I need with the rimfire without topping out at 100m.