March durability? Zero retention? How bad is that eyebox?

[SDHNTR]

I just looked up the 4.5 - 28. I am seeing $3400.00. Did you see one for $2500.00? Or were you referring to the 2.5-25?

Yes, the 2.5-25.

 

[Bones]

The March 2.5-25 is second focal plane. They do make some 1st focal plane scopes. I think they have a 3-24?

EDIT:
Here it is. 22.57 oz.

March F Tactical 3-24x42mm FML-1 Reticle 0.1MIL Illuminated FFP Riflescope D24V42FIML-FML-1-800020

FREE SHIPPING on March F Tactical 3-24x42mm FML-1 Reticle 0.1MIL Illuminated FFP Riflescope D24V42FIML-FML-1-800020

www.eurooptic.com

You are correct, and the second focal plane doesn’t appeal to me. The FFP package is what is unique to me in the market.

The non-illuminated is lighter.

I know the OP was looking at the sfp, so sorry for focusing on the FFP, but it is the sole reason that I run it over a NXS.

 

[Dos XX]

You’re probably right about that cheaper end of the hunting scope market.

But are there more serious recreational tactical shooters out there than there are mountain hunters? At least ones willing to spend this kind of money? That’s hard for me to grasp, but expensive tactical scopes do sure seem to have plenty of buyers. Why are more people willing to spend $2k+ on a scope used to drive down the road and punch paper than on a hunting scope when years of preference points, hard work, travel, horses, bush planes, backpacks, boot leather and all kinds of higher stakes are on the line? That makes no sense to me. Hard for me to understand how there are more people interested in shooting at targets than actually mountain hunting. Sure, I shoot some targets too, to practice, but I spend my real time and resources on what’s more enjoyable and rewarding to me. And why do tactical shooters need lightweight? They aren’t hiking up mountains. If manufacturers are making lightweight scopes and marketing them as such, aren’t they marketing to mountain hunter types? Then why the 8-10x zoom stuff in lightweight packages instead of 4-6x zoom, which are inherently more useful? Doesn’t make much sense when you break it all down.

There are more of them. To really be a mountain hunter, you need to live in or near the mountains. If you don't, you can't spend a lot of time in the mountains scouting or just learning how to be in and navigate the mountains. Or, you go on a guided hunt once a year or every couple of years. There are far more people that don't live in or near the mountains than there are that do. I am one of them.

However, I know more than a few people that have high end tactical type rifles with high end scopes that sit in the safe most of the time. There is nothing wrong with that. It is what they want to do. I don't know how many actual PRS shooters there are, but the market for that scope is bigger than just the actual PRS shooters. I don't know if that is the case with mountain hunter type scopes.? Maybe it would be.

 

[SDHNTR]

There are more of them. To really be a mountain hunter, you need to live in or near the mountains. If you don't, you can't spend a lot of time in the mountains scouting or just learning how to be in and navigate the mountains. Or, you go on a guided hunt once a year or every couple of years. There are far more people that don't live in or near the mountains than there are that do. I am one of them.

However, I know more than a few people that have high end tactical type rifles with high end scopes that sit in the safe most of the time. There is nothing wrong with that. It is what they want to do. I don't know how many actual PRS shooters there are, but the market for that scope is bigger than just the actual PRS shooters. I don't know if that is the case with mountain hunter type scopes.? Maybe it would be.

Interesting. I live at the beach, but consider myself a mountain hunter. Yes, I have to travel some, to get to serious mountains (which I do regularly) but that all the more reinforces the need for an Alpha scope, at least in my mind. If I have to travel and invest time and resources in accessing mountain hunts, the last thing I want is a scope failure. So I’m willing to pay the money to stack the deck in my favor and reduce the odds of that happening.

 

[Dos XX]

Interesting. I live at the beach, but consider myself a mountain hunter. Yes, I have to travel some, to get to serious mountains (which I do regularly) but that all the more reinforces the need for an Alpha scope, at least in my mind. If I have to travel and invest time and resources in accessing mountain hunts, the last thing I want is a scope failure. So I’m willing to pay the money to stack the deck in my favor and reduce the odds of that happening.

Totally agree. When you are committing that kind of travel time and money to something, you don't want gear that doesn't work when the opportunity to use it presents itself.

Back to where I said someone on here reviewed that scope favorably but that it eventually lost zero. I think I was wrong about that. I actually think they reviewed the 2.5-25 favorably, real favorably, in fact. But I think they ended up wanting a first focal plane and bought the 3-24, and it was the scope that lost zero. I am going from memory, so kind of foggy in there.

 

[Balderdash]

Interesting. I live at the beach, but consider myself a mountain hunter. Yes, I have to travel some, to get to serious mountains (which I do regularly) but that all the more reinforces the need for an Alpha scope, at least in my mind. If I have to travel and invest time and resources in accessing mountain hunts, the last thing I want is a scope failure. So I’m willing to pay the money to stack the deck in my favor and reduce the odds of that happening.

SD:

I agree with you on the dynamics of equipment built for mountain hunting. You don't have to live proximal to mountains to want or need gear well suited to mountain style hunting. Even if you only go every few years, when you're there, you want yo make the most of the opportunity.

Another consideration is that you don't have to hunt mountains at all to make good use of gear designed for mountainous terrain. In addition to trips to the mountains to hunt elk and deer, I do a lot of deer hunting on large expanses of public forest in the upper great lakes states. Walking all day is frequent, as is walking long distances to stand sites. Generally the cover is heavy and shots are close, but I also hunt beaver meadows, bog swamps, clear cuts, lake edges, river crossings, etc wherein the shots can be long and dialing is the quickest and most precise way to get the job done. Additionally, because the cover is generally thick and the chance exists to jump an animal just about anywhere you walk, few hunters in these areas sling their rifles; instead they are often carried like a bird gun ready to make the most of an opportunity on close game.

 

[SDHNTR]

SD:

I agree with you on the dynamics of equipment built for mountain hunting. You don't have to live proximal to mountains to want or need gear well suited to mountain style hunting. Even if you only go every few years, when you're there, you want yo make the most of the opportunity.

Another consideration is that you don't have to hunt mountains at all to make good use of gear designed for mountainous terrain. In addition to trips to the mountains to hunt elk and deer, I do a lot of deer hunting on large expanses of public forest in the upper great lakes states. Walking all day is frequent, as is walking long distances to stand sites. Generally the cover is heavy and shots are close, but I also hunt beaver meadows, bog swamps, clear cuts, lake edges, river crossings, etc wherein the shots can be long and dialing is the quickest and most precise way to get the job done. Additionally, because the cover is generally thick and the chance exists to jump an animal just about anywhere you walk, few hunters in these areas sling their rifles; instead they are often carried like a bird gun ready to make the most of an opportunity on close game.

I get it. We need versatility!

 

[Theringworm]

I need to see one of those 4.5-28's. I am not familiar with it. Is it a new model?

March released this scope in mid to late 2020. I just bought one a couple of months ago after I was left not being wowed by the NF NX8 I own. IMO, it is beats the NX8 in every category possible except maybe being indestructible (Haven’t and hope to not test that). Glass is far superior, eye box relief is better (main downfall of the NX8), much better parallax (another big weakness for the NX8). I haven’t found anything I don’t like about it, yet. Yes, it’s pricey but I wanted something I felt was better than the NX8. From everything I have seen firsthand and the reviews online it is.

 

[SDHNTR]

March released this scope in mid to late 2020. I just bought one a couple of months ago after I was left not being wowed by the NF NX8 I own. IMO, it is beats the NX8 in every category possible except maybe being indestructible (Haven’t and hope to not test that). Glass is far superior, eye box relief is better (main downfall of the NX8), much better parallax (another big weakness for the NX8). I haven’t found anything I don’t like about it, yet. Yes, it’s pricey but I wanted something I felt was better than the NX8. From everything I have seen firsthand and the reviews online it is.

Good info. Any one compared to a Zeiss V6 or Swaro Z6 in 3-18X50? Are they markedly better or more durable/reliable? They weigh about the same. 20 oz on the Swaro and 23 for the Zeiss, compared to 23oz for the March. The extra magnification on the March is of no incremental value to me (actually a detractor).

 

[BBob]

I personally treated the Swaro Z5’s and Z6’s with kid gloves. They’ll do fine if you treat them nice but tend to not do well bumping them around. I never had issues but many have so I was very careful in the field with them. Sold them in the end.

 

[Turkeygetpwnd38]

Good info. Any one compared to a Zeiss V6 or Swaro Z6 in 3-18X50? Are they markedly better or more durable/reliable? They weigh about the same. 20 oz on the Swaro and 23 for the Zeiss, compared to 23oz for the March. The extra magnification on the March is of no incremental value to me (actually a detractor).

I was just going to suggest looking at the V6, seems to be exactly what you are asking for. I’ve had the 3-18x50 on my rifle for 3 years. Great scope, plenty out there on its ability to take a beating, better glass than the NXS. Mine has taking a beating and still functions perfectly. I also travel from the beach if that matters? I have no experience with the March but do with the nxs.

 

[SDHNTR]

I was just going to suggest looking at the V6, seems to be exactly what you are asking for. I’ve had the 3-18x50 on my rifle for 3 years. Great scope, plenty out there on its ability to take a beating, better glass than the NXS. Mine has taking a beating and still functions perfectly. I also travel from the beach if that matters? I have no experience with the March but do with the nxs.

I've got V6's and Z6's, and a NXS. I have likes and dislikes about them all for various reasons, still looking for perfect.

 

[SDHNTR]

I personally treated the Swaro Z5’s and Z6’s with kid gloves. They’ll do fine if you treat them nice but tend to not do well bumping them around. I never had issues but many have so I was very careful in the field with them. Sold them in the end.

My take exactly.

 

[762 ULTRAMAGA]

Good info. Any one compared to a Zeiss V6 or Swaro Z6 in 3-18X50? Are they markedly better or more durable/reliable? They weigh about the same. 20 oz on the Swaro and 23 for the Zeiss, compared to 23oz for the March. The extra magnification on the March is of no incremental value to me (actually a detractor).

Not to be contrary but I owned a v6 3-18 and had some issues with it.
From the get go I was unhappy with the finicky eye box and tunneling.
After a few months of use it wouldn't track

 

[Theringworm]

Good info. Any one compared to a Zeiss V6 or Swaro Z6 in 3-18X50? Are they markedly better or more durable/reliable? They weigh about the same. 20 oz on the Swaro and 23 for the Zeiss, compared to 23oz for the March. The extra magnification on the March is of no incremental value to me (actually a detractor).

I can’t speak to durability. I am not overly rough on any of my gear. However, if you are dialing turrets………not a chance I am using a Swaro nor Zeiss to do so.

There is a very well known scope guy on Snipershide that ran the March against a TT. Obviously the TT cleared the field in almost every category however the March didn’t lag behind as much as one would think. It’s an excellent scope. All depends on what your purpose for it is.

 

[SDHNTR]

Not to be contrary but I owned a v6 3-18 and had some issues with it.
From the get go I was unhappy with the finicky eye box and tunneling.
After a few months of use it wouldn't track

Wow. I think that scope has a good eyebox. Sorry to hear.

 

[SDHNTR]

I can’t speak to durability. I am not overly rough on any of my gear. However, if you are dialing turrets………not a chance I am using a Swaro nor Zeiss to do so.

There is a very well known scope guy on Snipershide that ran the March against a TT. Obviously the TT cleared the field in almost every category however the March didn’t lag behind as much as one would think. It’s an excellent scope. All depends on what your purpose for it is.

Interesting. There’s a TT review on here somewhere that failed significantly from what I recall.

 

[DangerRanger]

March has been making high zoom ratios for a long time, that kind of stuff is what they do, push the boundaries and do it in a boutique way. The concept of why are the making a 8x zoom and not a 4x zoom is going to be kind of foreign to their case because it’s just not what they do. They push boundaries and seem to be quite good at it. They play to the best of their drum in a way.

If I saw a 4-16 March I would be concerned they lost the soul of their company tbh

 

[aman]

March plans to release a lower magnification scope in a year or so. My guess would be something closer to 3-15x.

 

[DangerRanger]

Speak of the devil and he shall appear