March- Why not?

[SDHNTR]

2 inches longer and 200+gm heavier, plus 50mm objective puts the SHV in a totally different class of size and weight to the x42 March F in my view

No argument. But it works better and is way less expensive so those are tradeoffs I’ll take.

 

[il_cop]

In asking why someone who had one got rid of it, you're assuming the criteria by which they measure a scope is the same as yours.

The first reply should've been - "What's your use case?"
As @streamerfish alluded to

My dad loves his leupolds. He leaves his rifle in his South Texas deer stand nearly the whole season and only picks it up if theres a nice buck under the corn feeder that morning. He's never heard of swfa, never dialed a turret, and can't comprehend why someone would intentionally drop their scope to see if it holds zero.

I'd say leupold is a perfectly fine option for him.

He's got a different use case then I do.

 

[Stocky]

Have a 3-24x52 March F wish I had the x42.
I really like it the only reason it gets less use is I have multiple RS1.2s and like consistenty between my rifles. I have way less use than @pathnz but no issues.

Pros are the FML 1 reticle is mint for hunting though I do like the new Reticle in the rokscope.
The weight is hard to beat.
Has dialled accurately and repeatably out to 860m on animals.

Cons are that I also agree that its best to ignore the upper end of the zoom except at the range due to the critical eyebox.
Id be just as happy if the zoom stopped at 15-18.

They also anodized them with a marker pen as the ano seems to just about wipe of them. Maybe makes the second hand market cheaper but doesnt seem to help much in NZ

Would prefer capped windage.

They are expensive and I cant warrant buying them except new.

Mine has roughly 10 full days in the field hunting plus a few odd day trips out to shoot goats on a 22 creed kimber without issue but thats not a major test of durability.

I like mine and cost is the biggest negative for me so far.

 

[Airohunter]

In asking why someone who had one got rid of it, you're assuming the criteria by which they measure a scope is the same as yours.

The first reply should've been - "What's your use case?"
As @streamerfish alluded to

The reason I framed the question the way I did was because when if you sat in a bar and asked everyone what's the best truck on the market it's always whatever they are driving. The most expensive will gloat it's the best for xyz and the guy driving the beater because it's all he can afford will tell you he likes old reliable.
But if you ask why you had a Toyota and went away from it, what did you get instead it's more revealing imo. I'll give you another example. I have a ZCO420, it's incredible but I might not buy another one because it's big and heavy. I don't need to detail my hunting style to or explain my use case to anyone its a big scope, its pretty obvious.

 

[SDHNTR]

The reason I framed the question the way I did was because when if you sat in a bar and asked everyone what's the best truck on the market it's always whatever they are driving. The most expensive will gloat it's the best for xyz and the guy driving the beater because it's all he can afford will tell you he likes old reliable.
But if you ask why you had a Toyota and went away from it, what did you get instead it's more revealing imo. I'll give you another example. I have a ZCO420, it's incredible but I might not buy another one because it's big and heavy. I don't need to detail my hunting style to or explain my use case to anyone its a big scope, its pretty obvious.

I just had a 2024 Toyota Tundra. Surprisingly, being it was a Toyota, it was a giant pile of poo with endless QC and major mechanical issues. Traded it in for a new F150 Tremor and the quality improvement is massive and immediately noticeable. Even Toyota isn’t Toyota anymore.

 

[cole96]

The reason I framed the question the way I did was because when if you sat in a bar and asked everyone what's the best truck on the market it's always whatever they are driving. The most expensive will gloat it's the best for xyz and the guy driving the beater because it's all he can afford will tell you he likes old reliable.
But if you ask why you had a Toyota and went away from it, what did you get instead it's more revealing imo. I'll give you another example. I have a ZCO420, it's incredible but I might not buy another one because it's big and heavy. I don't need to detail my hunting style to or explain my use case to anyone its a big scope, its pretty obvious.

You’re in luck haha. ZCO announced their 420 hunter yesterday. Supposed to be 8oz lighter

 

[Airohunter]

You’re in luck haha. ZCO announced their 420 hunter yesterday. Supposed to be 8oz lighter

Christmas comes twice a year!!!!!

 

[earrow]

Following as I’ve wondered the same. I’ve got a 420 and it’s been perfect. Lots of big bumps and no shift in zero. Not saying it won’t happen but great for me

Me too

 

[BBob]

I have one. Fine scope. I have not had any issues with mine although it hasn’t been used as much as some others. I don’t recall any issues with focus or reticle clarity. A little back and forth but no issue there. 24x is great to have but I’d be fine with 18. It’s an early first gen. FWIW the early March scopes used NATO 6400 mil for which you need to enter a compensation value to your solver to get a correct output. When they first came out there was a lot of talk that they didn’t dial correctly (tall target tests) but it was the mil format that was different and nothing was wrong with the scopes. March changed it fairly quickly so all the current scopes should dial the same as everyone else.

 

[cuerro viejo]

2 inches longer and 200+gm heavier, plus 50mm objective puts the SHV in a totally different class of size and weight to the x42 March F in my view

My 2 cents 3x-24x42mm FFP in MIL. It’s most frustrating scope I’ve shot. It’s almost like the erector spring gets stuck from travel and first shots always a flier and the recoil knocks it back to zero for second shot, and it’s fine the rest of the range session. This is also carried over to hunting. It Seems like first shots always off, second is the killer. It’s not my set up or it would be gone. I’ve been right next to it on two sheep hunts and I’ve shot it to 1000. It wonder on my one first shot at range right out of the case. Second shots always money. I always dismissed it as shooter error but I pretty sure it’s scope, as I witnessed it this year at range check and then 5 days later on sheep. Did same thing on both of those sessions

On paper it’s a great scope, in person glass and reticle is great, when the rubber meets the road, lots of smoke.

 

[pathnz]

My 2 cents 3x-24x42mm FFP in MIL. It’s most frustrating scope I’ve shot. It’s almost like the erector spring gets stuck from travel and first shots always a flier and the recoil knocks it back to zero for second shot, and it’s fine the rest of the range session. This is also carried over to hunting. It Seems like first shots always off, second is the killer. It’s not my set up or it would be gone. I’ve been right next to it on two sheep hunts and I’ve shot it to 1000. It wonder on my one first shot at range right out of the case. Second shots always money. I always dismissed it as shooter error but I pretty sure it’s scope, as I witnessed it this year at range check and then 5 days later on sheep. Did same thing on both of those sessions

On paper it’s a great scope, in person glass and reticle is great, when the rubber meets the road, lots of smoke.

Something in that system is not right - scope, mounting, rifle or shooter. Diagnose and fix


7 first shots of the day through one of mine on 7 different days - dot is 0.8 moa

 

[cuerro viejo]

Something in that system is not right - scope, mounting, rifle or shooter. Diagnose and fix


7 first shots of the day through one of mine on 7 different days - dot is 0.8 moa

View attachment 1008544

I’ve re-torqued every thing. We are going to pull and send to March

 

[il_cop]

The reason I framed the question the way I did was because when if you sat in a bar and asked everyone what's the best truck on the market it's always whatever they are driving. The most expensive will gloat it's the best for xyz and the guy driving the beater because it's all he can afford will tell you he likes old reliable.
But if you ask why you had a Toyota and went away from it, what did you get instead it's more revealing imo. I'll give you another example. I have a ZCO420, it's incredible but I might not buy another one because it's big and heavy. I don't need to detail my hunting style to or explain my use case to anyone its a big scope, its pretty obvious.

Hey, rereading my post, I realized it read like I was blaming you for how you asked the question. Not my intent at all. Apologies.

 

[Airohunter]

Hey, rereading my post, I realized it read like I was blaming you for how you asked the question. Not my intent at all. Apologies.

all good, I didn't take it that way. Gotta have thick skin if your going to play on the innerweb.

 

[omicron1792]

I’ve had 3. Moved away because the eye box was tight and it was hard to get a clear picture with the parallax adjustment. I now use Steiner h6xi exclusively.

My friend @wind gypsy has had a March scope also and has moved on from it. He would have some good info also

 

[kipper09]

You’re in luck haha. ZCO announced their 420 hunter yesterday. Supposed to be 8oz lighter

Where did you see this?? I would like to know a little more if you could share.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wind gypsy]

I had a 3-24x52. Lots of nice aspects but it sucked at doing the basics. Getting it parallax free, focused image, and a sharp reticle at the same time took an act of congress. Very shallow depth of focus and finicky parallax adjustment. Id much rather use a LRHS or maven rs1.2 regardless of cost. Some extra zoom, nice turrets, and a few ounces lighter don’t mean dick when you have to fight it for a clear image and sharp reticle. It also wasn’t great with tracking. Consistent click value but adjust increments were a bit off.

I will say that I have a bit goofy eyes. Every scope I have requires the diopter to be screwed all the way in to get a sharp reticle image. That may have played a part in my issues with the march.

This was mine.

 

[SDHNTR]

I had a 3-24x52. Lots of nice aspects but it sucked at doing the basics. Getting it parallax free, focused image, and a sharp reticle at the same time took an act of congress. Very shallow depth of focus and finicky parallax adjustment. Id much rather use a LRHS or maven rs1.2 regardless of cost. Some extra zoom, nice turrets, and a few ounces lighter don’t mean dick when you have to fight it for a clear image and sharp reticle. It also wasn’t great with tracking. Consistent click value but adjust increments were a bit off.

I will say that I have a bit goofy eyes. Every scope I have requires the diopter to be screwed all the way in to get a sharp reticle image. That may have played a part in my issues with the march.

This was mine.

I could have written these exact words, word for word. My experience exactly. And I’m the same with the diopter on every other scope too.

 

[Stocky]

I could have written these exact words, word for word. My experience exactly. And I’m the same with the diopter on every other scope too.

Are you short sighted by any chance? I have the same issue with most scopes too. The march works for me only place it hasn't been is at the range late at night under artifical light.

 

[BBob]

Consistent click value but adjust increments were a bit off.

How old was it? The first gen were NATO mil so lots of people thought they were off but they were made that way. They required a correction factor (~.97) in the solver to correct for it. As I said earlier in the thread March changed that down the road.