Long range rifle scope- march vs razor vs Mk5hd

[fwafwow]

Maybe (!) a bit off topic, but I’m following multiple scope debates threads. The issue of weight comes up a bit and has me wondering about two things, which may have been addressed elsewhere (and which certainly demonstrate my ignorance):

1. If a scope (or other optic) is significantly lighter than another scope, yet of similar size, is a portion of the difference due to internal mechanisms, and if so, what are the differences in how companies manufacture their internal components? Plastic vs aluminum? Other? Do they typically share that level of info?
2. I have a Swaro Z5 (3.5-18x44) that is pretty light, and I have a set of Swaro binos (EL 8.5x42) that seem much “beefier”. The thickness (thinness) of scope tube vs the bino alone seems substantial. Is this an apples to oranges comparison because scopes and binos are built differently (due to glass or other components)? Or could Swaro build a scope a bit heavier tube and internals (roughly analogous to their binos) and have a sturdier product?

 

[Flyjunky]

A ton. Most days are 10 stages with sometimes as many as 5 targets per stage. Most guys dial each target unless they need to move fast, then they'll dial the first and hold over the remaining.

Appreciate the response, thank you.

 

[762 ULTRAMAGA]

FWIW I was squadded with 2 of the best shooters in the country at a match last year, both shooting mark 5's. Both of them were a little late the first morning and would not shoot the first stage without checking zero for fear of losing zero after driving a couple hundred miles. My comp gun has a mark 5 but my hunting guns are nightforce/trijicon.

This is not a fair assessment of why they wanted to check their zero, you're assuming it's because they use an inferior scope that they don't believe will hold zero. I would be shocked if any top level shooter with resources to buy any scope would purposefully chose one they knew wouldn't reliably hold zero..

There are many ways a rifle can lose zero after repeated use or enduring a long trip, 90% of which are mounting related. Checking zero before a match or hunt is just plain good sense with any optic.

I shot a match a few years ago (with a mk5 3.6-18 coincidentally), and witnessed a top 10 shooter totally fall apart and start missing wildly towards the end of the 2 day competition.
He was shooting a Vortex Gen 2 Razor, based on what people say about vortex on this forum it'd be easy to assume his scope lost zero.
Well technically it did, but it was his base that loosened up after months of shooting without checking the torque, and had nothing to do with his scope failing.

 

[SDHNTR]

Maybe (!) a bit off topic, but I’m following multiple scope debates threads. The issue of weight comes up a bit and has me wondering about two things, which may have been addressed elsewhere (and which certainly demonstrate my ignorance):

1. If a scope (or other optic) is significantly lighter than another scope, yet of similar size, is a portion of the difference due to internal mechanisms, and if so, what are the differences in how companies manufacture their internal components? Plastic vs aluminum? Other? Do they typically share that level of info?
2. I have a Swaro Z5 (3.5-18x44) that is pretty light, and I have a set of Swaro binos (EL 8.5x42) that seem much “beefier”. The thickness (thinness) of scope tube vs the bino alone seems substantial. Is this an apples to oranges comparison because scopes and binos are built differently (due to glass or other components)? Or could Swaro build a scope a bit heavier tube and internals (roughly analogous to their binos) and have a sturdier product?

Yea the binos to scope analogy is apples to oranges. But wrt to Swaro scopes, they cut weight on the Z series because they know that quantifiable weight (or lack thereof) sells and durability is not quantifiable, so consumers generally don’t consider it a factor (until recently anyway). The Z series tubes are super thin, which is why they suggest such light ring torque values (17 in lb), and their turret internals are plastic. I had an elevation turret shear clean off a Z6 tube. Those seem like wonderful scopes on paper, but durable they are not.

Now to your last question…. They do. It’s called an X5. And it weighs another 10 ish ounces. Compared to the Z series, it’s FAR more robust. Compared, however, to say a similar powered Nightforce, it still falls short, but has better glass.

 

[762 ULTRAMAGA]

Everyone is different, I can respect that. It might be more split in terms of those with issues and those without.

Talk about a scope that I really wanted to work; I was super excited about everything with the NX8 4-32.
Unfortunately there were too many optical compromises for me to keep it, I wish NF did a 5x zoom instead of cramming an 8x erector into a short scope tube..
Tracking and durability is very important but so is image quality, especially in tougher conditions like ultra bright or low light.

 

[SDHNTR]

Talk about a scope that I really wanted to work; I was super excited about everything with the NX8 4-32.
Unfortunately there were too many optical compromises for me to keep it, I wish NF did a 5x zoom instead of cramming an 8x erector into a short scope tube..
Tracking and durability is very important but so is image quality, especially in tougher conditions like ultra bright or low light.

I agree. They need an ATACR series in a 30mm tube. I’d love NF durability with better glass, but don’t need or want a 34mm tube.

Or NXS with upgraded glass.

 

[ID_Matt]

This is not a fair assessment of why they wanted to check their zero, you're assuming it's because they use an inferior scope that they don't believe will hold zero. I would be shocked if any top level shooter with resources to buy any scope would purposefully chose one they knew wouldn't reliably hold zero..

There are many ways a rifle can lose zero after repeated use or enduring a long trip, 90% of which are mounting related. Checking zero before a match or hunt is just plain good sense with any optic.

I shot a match a few years ago (with a mk5 3.6-18 coincidentally), and witnessed a top 10 shooter totally fall apart and start missing wildly towards the end of the 2 day competition.
He was shooting a Vortex Gen 2 Razor, based on what people say about vortex on this forum it'd be easy to assume his scope lost zero.
Well technically it did, but it was his base that loosened up after months of shooting without checking the torque, and had nothing to do with his scope failing.

I won't argue with that. Just pointing it out. Take it with a grain of salt. You are right, it would not be a fair assumption. Although I doubt the reason they choose the mark 5 is 100% because they think they are the best and does not have anything to do with money. I would imagine if ZCO and NF gave out scopes like candy, we would see a lot more of them.

 

[slowelk]

I wish NF did a 5x zoom instead of cramming an 8x erector into a short scope tube..

Yep. I'd do a 6x too. 3-18, 4-24.

 

[SDHNTR]

I won't argue with that. Just pointing it out. Take it with a grain of salt. You are right, it would not be a fair assumption. Although I doubt the reason they choose the mark 5 is 100% because they think they are the best and does not have anything to do with money. I would imagine if ZCO and NF gave out scopes like candy, we would see a lot more of them.

Shooting before a match or not is meaningless. Mounting failures are a result of improper preparation/procedures. I have had a handful scopes fail, but out of several dozen, I have never once had a mounting system failure. That is because I am absolutely meticulous and OCD about my mounting process.

I have no interest in, nor experience with, shooting competitions, but I would expect that zero check aside, a lot of guys will shoot a few times before a match starts just to work out the jitters and warm up. I shot competitive archery tournaments for a while, and I never once felt the need to verify my pins prior to a shoot, but I certainly did loose a few arrows to warm up. I shoot spot Hogg and trust the sight. Once set properly. They don’t move.

And to me, it makes perfect sense why you see more Leupold and vortex scopes at shooting competitions. They are sold everywhere. They are marketed to the masses. They offer discounted “pro” deals that any swinging dicc qualifies for. By rule of averages, you are going to see more of them. You don’t see them necessarily because guys have trust in them, you see them because guys don’t know not to trust them and they are sold at every gun store in America. And it’s a controlled setting. Not steep and slippery unstable footing. They don’t have to worry about slips and falls. And who cares if you miss a target, even in a competition! It’s just paper. So what. Who cares if it even means you lose the competition. It’s not like shooting competitions carry much weight to begin with outside the world of gun dorks. JMO. To me, what the hard core hunters use…. Those who travel, practice extensively and regularly year around, invest money and time, decades of points, apply in multiple states, defy long odds, intentionally draw tags that are rare and valuable, all for that ONE shot when it truly matters on a real target and all the stakes are high… to me those are the guys who need reliable scopes and other gear. Shooting competitions are child’s play. Again, just my opinion, don’t get your panties all in a twist.

 

[Flyjunky]

Yep. I'd do a 6x too. 3-18, 4-24.

I'd love an Atacr in 4-24 because the 5-25 has such a narrow fov compared to other 5-25's in that class at 5x.

 

[ID_Matt]

Shooting before a match or not is meaningless. Mounting failures are a result of improper preparation/procedures. I have had a handful scopes fail, but out of several dozen, I have never once had a mounting system failure. That is because I am absolutely meticulous and OCD about my mounting process.

I have no interest in, nor experience with, shooting competitions, but I would expect that zero check aside, a lot of guys will shoot a few times before a match starts just to work out the jitters and warm up. I shot competitive archery tournaments for a while, and I never once felt the need to verify my pins prior to a shoot, but I certainly did loose a few arrows to warm up.

And to me, it makes perfect sense why you see more Leupold and vortex scopes at shooting competitions. They are sold everywhere. They are marketed to the masses. By rule of averages, you are going to see more of them. You don’t see them because guys trust them, you see them because guys don’t know not to trust them and they are sold at every gun store in America. And it’s a controlled setting. Not steep and slippery unstable footing. They don’t have to worry about slips and falls. And who cares if you miss a target, even in a competition! It’s just paper. So what. Who cares if it even means you lose the competition. It’s not like shooting competitions carry much weight to begin with outside the world of gun dorks. JMO. To me, what the hard core hunters use…. Those who travel, practice extensively and regularly year around, invest money and time, decades of points, apply in multiple states, defy long odds, intentionally draw tags that are rare and valuable, all for that ONE shot when it truly matters on a real target and all the stakes are high… to me those are the guys who need reliable scopes and other gear. Shooting competitions are child’s play. Again, just my opinion, don’t get your panties all in a twist.

No twisted panties here.

 

[SDHNTR]

No twisted panties here.

Btw, my post wasn’t meant to be directed specifically at you. But I’m glad your panties are in order!

 

[Theringworm]

Of the 3 mentioned March for sure. I would never buy or consider the other two so maybe I am biased.

I have the March FX 4.5-28x52mm. It’s an excellent scope. IMO it is better than my Nightforce 4-32x50 in every category except durability…..maybe, which I cannot test (sorry I am not into purposefully dropping my scopes). That said I haven’t had an issue with the March at all. Nightforce is the only scope company you see beating the crap out of their scopes at SHOT Show, so the automatic assumption (which could be false) is no one else makes a durable scope.

I also have a S&B PMII, ZCO, Swaro Z8i, Nightforce NXS and a Bushnell Elite. I don’t own but have spent a lot of time behind a Tanget Theta and a Nightforce ATACR. Of those mentioned above however, only the NF NXS would be considered a lightweight scope. So disregard all of those.

Until, TT or ZCO (which in my opinion are the clear top two scopes brands made develop a lighter weight scope), March is the clear and obvious choice for me for a lightweight offering. Even then the March FX and NF NX8 I have aren’t really true lightweights scopes but more light-mid-weight scopes. A different March or the NF NXS would be lighter and sufficient. S&B has a few and would fall maybe third.

A tier down would be the Mark 5, Vortex, Swaro and others as these scopes may have some great features but enough poor or so-so features that they give up ground to the others above. There are also other really good scope brands but they don’t come in a lightweight offering. The market is trending towards lighter weight builds I feel so I would expect several other brands to start giving us more options.

Just my opinion from what I have and what I have been behind. And yes, the secondary market for March scopes is fairly insignificant. From what I have seen, most people don’t get rid of them.

 

[SDHNTR]

Of the 3 mentioned March for sure. I would never buy or consider the other two so maybe I am biased.

I have the March FX 4.5-28x52mm. It’s an excellent scope. IMO it is better than my Nightforce 4-32x50 in every category except durability…..maybe, which I cannot test (sorry I am not into purposefully dropping my scopes). That said I haven’t had an issue with the March at all. Nightforce is the only scope company you see beating the crap out of their scopes at SHOT Show, so the automatic assumption (which could be false) is no one else makes a durable scope.

I also have a S&B PMII, ZCO, Swaro Z8i, Nightforce NXS and a Bushnell Elite. I don’t own but have spent a lot of time behind a Tanget Theta and a Nightforce ATACR. Of those mentioned above however, only the NF NXS would be considered a lightweight scope. So disregard all of those.

Until, TT or ZCO (which in my opinion are the clear top two scopes brands made develop a lighter weight scope), March is the clear and obvious choice for me for a lightweight offering. Even then the March FX and NF NX8 I have aren’t really true lightweights scopes but more light-mid-weight scopes. A different March or the NF NXS would be lighter and sufficient. S&B has a few and would fall maybe third.

A tier down would be the Mark 5, Vortex, Swaro and others as these scopes may have some great features but enough poor or so-so features that they give up ground to the others above. There are also other really good scope brands but they don’t come in a lightweight offering. The market is trending towards lighter weight builds I feel so I would expect several other brands to start giving us more options.

Just my opinion from what I have and what I have been behind. And yes, the secondary market for March scopes is fairly insignificant. From what I have seen, most people don’t get rid of them.

March beats on their scopes. The extent of which I’m not totally sure, but they do do some impact testing of them. There’s a video somewhere showing a Japanese scientist looking fellow whacking the scope and testing on a collimator (like NF does) as part of the post manufacturing QC process. I also sent one back for customization and the paper I got back states that it was impact tested and passed. So they at least do something.

 

[Azhun]

I would go with the mark5. I think the quality is better in every aspect besides price, but that’s to be expected. Haven’t looked through mavens to be fair.

 

[wind gypsy]

I was happy to trade my 3-24x52 march for a LRHS. Worst money I ever spent (lost) on a scope.

 

[762 ULTRAMAGA]

Not to mention that people who actually chase zero do it for a ton of reasons not related at all to a scope: poor zero, shooter inconsistencies, inconsistent ammo, bad mounts, bad range, lighting conditions, etc etc etc. I'm sure some people are dealing with scope issues, but good grief most of these discussions are ridiculous. Shooters love a black box to point a finger at tho, LOL.

This is absolutely the truth, admittedly I've made that mistake chasing my tail with scope zero issues only to find my problem was with my mount, load inconsistencies, or poor shooting form.
This is why I put very little faith in some of the touted scope "Field testing" that goes on around here..

 

[SDHNTR]

I was happy to trade my 3-24x52 march for a LRHS. Worst money I ever spent (lost) on a scope.

Did it break or fail? Or you just didn’t like it?

 

[wind gypsy]

Did it break or fail? Or you just didn’t like it?

Getting the image in focus, parallax free, with a clean (not fuzzy) reticle, took an act of congress. I didn't like the reticle but could have gotten by just fine with it. It didn't adjust in true mil increments but that could be adjusted for in dope/app.

Video below is from a guy who ran it through tracking test for me before I was set up to do them. He agreed with all of my above findings without me telling him anything before he messed with it. Whoever was importing March at the time treated us like we were tards and it had to be us because they "have never seen a single one with issues". Bullshit.

I really liked everything about it other than that but if you have to work that hard to get a clean parallax free sight picture it's a shitty tool for the job.

 

[MTNHUNTER76]

The competition world is not demanding at all. I see shooters checking and correcting their zeros at matches all the time while telling their buddies how great their scope is.

I mentioned before that many of my friends who compete (some very elite) still swear by the Mark 5 and win a lot of matches with them. I'm not saying they won't work. I personally have more confidence that Nightforce scopes will hold zero, so I recommend them.

Remember that many shooters also shoot various Vortex scopes that don't hold zero. You still see a pile at every competition, though, because half the field of shooters can get a deal on them, and the other half thinks they are getting good advice from the first half...

Comp world is not demanding? That's pretty funny. My scopes have rash from getting slammed, propped, wedged against steel and wooden stage props.

I still own several nf scopes. I ran some of the very first nxs scopes that were released. Nf are great scopes.