March FX 1.5-15x42mm Q&A

[Formidilosus]

See-

March FX 1.5-15x42mm Field Evaluation

This is a field evaluation on the March FX 1.5-15x42mm, mil/mil scope. It was sent to Ryan for the eval by a forum member. The scope and weight: Turrets: 10 mil per rev, zero stop, revolution indicated, and locking- Shuriken lock on elevation and windage- rotate the top part and...

rokslide.com

 

[JCMCUBIC]

Excellent on the reliability. The dual focal plane reticle is very interesting to me.

They have their niche, I understand that. I do wish they'd depart from it a bit and make a lower zoom ratio.

Did you try adjusting focus at the higher powers? With the NX8 1-8, I need to adjust the focus at 7x an 8x from where my 1-6 focus setting is. It's not a big adjustment, and the scope is still usable without doing it, but it does make a noticeable difference for me.

 

[Formidilosus]

Did you try adjusting focus at the higher powers?

Absolutely.

 

[JollyRoger]

My first time seeing a dual focal plane scope was on a Schmidt & Bender last year. Honestly it’s a pretty cool idea… I don’t know the inner workings or how well it is in application but it seems like it meets the needs of viability at all powers and using the reticle as designed at the powers you’re likely to need it at

 

[tredell17]

@Formidilosus, how did you notice the ocular changed? I didn't think March scopes had markings on the ocular adjustment.

 

[DJL2]

It's good to see the initial results on reliability/durability. That really is the first consideration at any price point, but especially this level. I love that March pushes the envelope on zoom range and optical design, but it is important to call out the IQ compromises this entails. I'm interested to see what the "answer" is for the ocular and if either IQ or ocular design is a showstopper for field use.

ETA: did I have a reading comprehension failure? I didn't see which rings you mounted it in. Should I assume UM?

 

[Formidilosus]

It's good to see the initial results on reliability/durability. That really is the first consideration at any price point, but especially this level. I love that March pushes the envelope on zoom range and optical design, but it is important to call out the IQ compromises this entails. I'm interested to see what the "answer" is for the ocular and if either IQ or ocular design is a showstopper for field use.

Me too.

ETA: did I have a reading comprehension failure? I didn't see which rings you mounted it in. Should I assume UM?

No sir. NF UL.

 

[Formidilosus]

Update.

 

[Formidilosus]

Update

 

[Formidilosus]

Updated.

 

[MidGAHunter]

Sounds like if they'd make this scope in a much less compromising magnification range, it'd be a winner.

 

[Formidilosus]

Updated.

 

[wind gypsy]

Sounds like if they'd make this scope in a much less compromising magnification range, it'd be a winner.

The real dumb thing to me or maybe just the hunters use case, why would you need 1.5x on the low end? Compared to a 2.5x bottom end they take it from a 6x erector to 10x erector and all the compromises for no good reason. That’s just guessing though. Maybe if they made a 5 or 6x erector scope it would still have a garbage depth of focus and be a cun+ to get parallax free, focused, and a clean reticle at the same time.

 

[Shortschaf]

The real dumb thing to me or maybe just the hunters use case, why would you need 1.5x on the low end? Compared to a 2.5x bottom end they take it from a 6x erector to 10x erector and all the compromises for no good reason

Couldnt agree more on this.
Its like the entire goal was to have something with a 10x erector, with zero regard for the other specs or actual performance.

Happens all the time with cheap optics, but for $2500 Id like to have my cake and eat it too

 

[Formidilosus]

The real dumb thing to me or maybe just the hunters use case, why would you need 1.5x on the low end?

There really isn’t much of a use for 1.5 on the low end. If I need 1.5x, I need 1x.

Compared to a 2.5x bottom end they take it from a 6x erector to 10x erector and all the compromises for no good reason. That’s just guessing though.

Nah, it’s their schtick. Even people that admit the severe optical compromises inherent with this scope, just love the 10x erector as a feature just for features sake.

Maybe if they made a 5 or 6x erector scope it would still have a garbage depth of focus and be a cun+ to get parallax free, focused, and a clean reticle at the same time.

Nah, it would be a really good scope.

 

[slowelk]

Are the optical issues potentially a one of one issue, or is it really the 10x erector? You've said in the past that your Minox THLR seems to be better optically than others of the same model. Could this be the opposite issue, and you just got a bad one?

 

[Formidilosus]

Are the optical issues potentially a one of one issue, or is it really the 10x erector? You've said in the past that your Minox THLR seems to be better optically than others of the same model. Could this be the opposite issue, and you just got a bad one?

No. This is well understood with this scope- all 10x magnification ratio scopes. They aren’t good optically, they are “good for a 10x ratio scope”.


As for the ZP5, all the 5-25’s that I have looked have been excellent in optical qualities. When I got the THLR Minox I didn’t remember them being as good as they are- I have used several more since, and all have been optically exceptional.

 

[Luke S]

I sort of like the idea of 1.5x. Maybe not for room clearing but for bears up close I suspect it would be better then iron sites and better then 2.5x. But I wonder how much difference it makes. Shoot a bear at 100 and it charges... you aren't really handicapped that much until he's basically on top of you.

For actual hunting I can't see how 1.5x is needed. I never had a problem finding animals at 3x or 4x.

 

[SDHNTR]

No March makes sense for hunting. I tried, and it was a $2500 mistake. Really well made scopes, just not user friendly in the field. March doesn’t care. Big zoom is their jam and they’re sticking to it. I’ve communicated directly with their marketing lady. Expressed my desire for a 4-5x erector hunting scope. She essentially told me to kick rocks in an Uber polite and Japanese kind of way. They must get enough biz out of the bench crowd alone.

 

[JCMCUBIC]

No March makes sense for hunting. I tried, and it was a $2500 mistake. Really well made scopes, just not user friendly in the field. March doesn’t care. Big zoom is their jam and they’re sticking to it. I’ve communicated directly with their marketing lady. Expressed my desire for a 4-5x erector hunting scope. She essentially told me to kick rocks in an Uber polite and Japanese kind of way. They must get enough biz out of the bench crowd alone.

The massive room range is their niche.

I think there was a desire from some hunters to be able to use the higher powered 24x (and higher x) versions in quick use as a spotting scope to avoid the need to carry another optic. This would mainly be for zooming to evaluate rather than finding game. If the optics suffer at those powers, it isn't of much use.