-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes Two new March scopes
- Thread starter James A. Kelbly
- Start date
Had a look at these scopes at the SHOT yesterday. Wow!!! they are just fabulos and March managed to keep them very compact. Apart from that, same superb optics, same suberb clicks just more light transmission added. They will definitely be a blast.
I hear that! After buying my dta, scope, and 3 suppressors I need some time to recharge the fun account! Haha
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
These products look amazing. I really need to find a place to check them out before me next optics purchase.
And the new 52mm version even comes with Sunshade, plastic lens covers and also Tactical flip covers! Hurrah!
It's on the first floor to the left of the main entrance. When come into the show hall, you go first isle to the right. You pass the Garrett booth, go a little more and you will find the booth on the left. It's Kelbly that has the booth so you will see a bunch of Benchrest guns with March scopes on them.
Shortcut, was the eyebox more forgiving with 52mm objective ?
Jimmy
Not according to post #7 in this thread:
http://www.snipershide.com/shooting...rt-tangent-thetas-schmidt-kahles-steiner.html
Two new March scopes
I mounted up a March 3-24x42 and shot out to 1060 yards today. Great scope!
I mounted up a March 3-24x42 and shot out to 1060 yards today. Great scope!
Last edited:
Conversely, I read a post by the man himself (Frank), the new 52mm obj improved the eye box greatly, and he can now endorse its use on a tactical rifle.
Yep, it was impressive!
Hopefully I'll be getting a x52 as soon as they are available.
Last edited:
How can an increase in the diameter of the objective all of a sudden make the eyebox more generous? Unless the ocular was redesigned as well, but nothing supports that.
Because exit pupil, by definition (obj diameter in mm divided by magnification power = exit pupil diameter in mm), is larger now with the 52mm obj.
I'm not an optical engineer, and my understanding is there are also other factors impacting perceived "eye box", but I do know exit pupil diameter is a huge contributor.
I'm not an engineer either, but my understanding is the exit pupil controls eyebox brightness, not eyebox fussiness. Leupold Mark4 variable scopes have real fussy eyeboxes despite their 50mm objectives. In fact, a 50mm Mark4 is just as fussy as a 40mm. Germans have the market cornered. They know how to build an ocular.
Sent Ilya Koshkin a PM regarding the eye box on the new 52mm objective. According to him, it's a little more forgiving compared with the 42mm objective. He has had the opportunity to demo the scope. What does a little more forgiving mean exactly ? I guess it's somewhat subjective.
My test for eyebox usability is as follows:
You pick up the scope and put it on its highest magnification. Then you put it up in front your face and acquire the image. Then you look at shit. Because your hands are gonna shake, the image will as well. But where the German scopes have an advantage is that you'll maintain the image. You will not lose the image due to shaking. That's a forgiving eyebox- it allows you to maintain the image through challenging circumstances. I don't want an eyebox that is a little more forgiving. I want an eyebox that is very forgiving.
The 3-24 March also has a sensitive parallax knob. It goes from 100 to infinity in what, a tenth of a turn? I want a parallax control mechanism that is very forgiving. It's kinda like adjusting the sensitivity on your computer mouse. Too much makes is unusable. Too little makes it lazy. You want it just right.
Did they change the parallax as well? Or maybe neither can be changed because they stuffed a 15" scope into a 12" one?
You pick up the scope and put it on its highest magnification. Then you put it up in front your face and acquire the image. Then you look at shit. Because your hands are gonna shake, the image will as well. But where the German scopes have an advantage is that you'll maintain the image. You will not lose the image due to shaking. That's a forgiving eyebox- it allows you to maintain the image through challenging circumstances. I don't want an eyebox that is a little more forgiving. I want an eyebox that is very forgiving.
The 3-24 March also has a sensitive parallax knob. It goes from 100 to infinity in what, a tenth of a turn? I want a parallax control mechanism that is very forgiving. It's kinda like adjusting the sensitivity on your computer mouse. Too much makes is unusable. Too little makes it lazy. You want it just right.
Did they change the parallax as well? Or maybe neither can be changed because they stuffed a 15" scope into a 12" one?
the new 52mm is much better than the old version.
Looked at it SHOT and it was much more forgiving and much more manageable.
Looked at it SHOT and it was much more forgiving and much more manageable.
So what is it equivalent to at this point, eyebox wise? Cuz one guy above who looked through them was disappointed.
I can't say, this is why this shit is subjective... one man's narrow is another man's not so narrow.
I checked it from multiple angles and movements, as well as on the rifle he had there, and I felt it was a big improvement.
If someone else feels differently, so be it. You're not gonna please everyone, but I think it was a noticeable improvement over the 42mm version.
I checked it from multiple angles and movements, as well as on the rifle he had there, and I felt it was a big improvement.
If someone else feels differently, so be it. You're not gonna please everyone, but I think it was a noticeable improvement over the 42mm version.
So far from LL and others its sounding better. Any chance anyone heard if they are going to get some more/better reticles in the new models? I'd love to see a EBR or Mil Gap type reticle, it'd be hard pressed to be beat in that configuration and price point.
I got to look one over pretty good at Shot and was very impressed with the positive adjustment clicks. The scope was bright and clear. The MOA reticle was nice. I was impressed enough I ordered one on the spot. And you can't deal with a better person or company than Jim's. I'm looking forward to getting it in my hands and running it out in the field. From what I saw at the show I don't think I will have any regrets.
The 3-24x52 will have a place on multiple guns I own here soon. I have the 5-40x56, 3-24x42 and 1-8x24 currently mounted and cant wait until the 1/10 mil version comes out for the 5-40. I have no problem with the eye box on any of them and know the 52mm objective will help those who didn't like the 42mm objective version a good bit. For an optic to be so light, have less parts in them and good glass I don't see how it can be beat IMO. My S&B PMii that a buddy has somewhat taken over since he wont drop any coin on a good optic and it drives me crazy hasn't even crossed my mind since I have had the option to put the March optics on top of my setups. Ive done every type of tracking test that I can possibly do and they track perfectly, have great turrets and overall an awesome optic. If anyone is in the Bham Alabama area and want to look through the ones I listed above at the range just let me know and we will head out! Ill bring my Steiner, S&B if I can get it back from my buddy and an XRS to compare to and I think you will see March is the clear winner or maybe not. I think this is all subjective due to how each individuals eyes perceive certian things. I guess Hensoldt is one of the few that I can actually tell a difference in as far as glass quality, at least a substantial difference.
I checked the 3-24x52 out at shot show and i was quite impressed. I have not looked through the older ones but being aware of the eyebox issue i picked up the new ones and looked at many angles and never had an issue. The glass is superb, i would say on par with my S&B, and the clicks are very tactile. I am pissed cause i did not even pay attention to the parallax knob or if it is still short. But overall i was very impressed with the scope for $3250.
If it's like the 5-40x56 there is a large range of adjustability compared to the 3-24x42.
Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk
Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk
If they fixed the parallax issue (making it longer from 100 - infinity and maybe even gave marks at every 100) that would be ideal, but would not be a deal breaker for me, as long as I can get my target in focus, that is what matters most for my purposes. I can always use the reticle or a LR to get the range anyway and that method is typically more accurate that ranging with the parallax.
Tod
You just keep throwing a few "High Right" and I might just be able to beat you at one of these matches. I don't have time to practice so I have to just buy something that's going to make me shoot better. That does work doesn't it?
AJ
