MARCH 3 - 24 x 42 The perfect mountain rifle scope?

The AMG 6-24 just lacks some FOV @ 6x that a 3x or 4x gives you. As for glass quality, they are good. But are outshined by a fair amount of others in the $2500-3000 range, including the March in my opinion.

I understand that, that's the whole point of ffp.
The point is that when your at 24x your covering way more of the target than you are with sfp. Trying to optimize the reticle with 8x zoom means compromising at your lowest and highest power. If you optimize the reticle in an 8x zoom ratio scope for it's highest/higher ratios, it would be almost completely useless at it's lower ranges.
That's why I made the point that in an 8x.
I don't want to cover .36" at 100, makes it hard to shoot .25 groups.

nmbarta said:

I don't want to cover .36" at 100, makes it hard to shoot .25 groups.

Click to expand...

Not really...

I have a FFP 3-24 and I definitely bought it thinking it is the best option for lightweight sheep hunting type rifle. I've been shooting with it all summer and I've finally got the parallax adjustment figured out. It's touchy because you travel through the entire range of adjustment in short order but after some time with it that no longer bothers me. I wish you could lock out the windage knob but other than that there is nothing I would change. I went non-illuminated, 42 mm. I mix it up a lot and sometimes end up taking game at close range and although the FFP reticle is pretty small on lowest power I don't think I'll have any problem centering up on something like a deer or elk.

Hmmm... sensitive parallax knob really means it is an optical problem that MARCH decided to sacrifice for other benefits. Having a long "sweet spot" in not needing parallax (say 4 x through 8 x ) takes a lot of work in design. A Leupold Mark 8 is perhaps the best example of a large parallax "sweet spot" but my God the price!

jmcmath, I'll look at that Zeiss. Hadn't thought to look at that brand.

BTW, the short length the MARCH 3 - 24 x 42 scope means they used a lot of lenses to bend the light that much. My SWFA 3- 15 x 42 is long (14.5 ") and that's B/C SWFA used length instead of lenses to do the same thing for less money, natch. I mean, c'mon, for a FFP, mil/mil, side focus knob and glass as good as my Bushnell Elite ERS 3.5 - 21 x 50 all at $699. they had to save money somewhere. Of course SWFA saved too with no locking knobs, no advertisement and direct sales W/no middlemen. But nobody come close to them in glass quality for that price.

Eric B.

Litehiker,

I'm not trying to offend anyone that just dropped 3k on a scope. It's a good scope, and like a said, I like it. If your not in a hurry, I'll make you one heck of a deal on one after hunting season. It's used, but functions just fine. I'm not trying to sell it (obviously), or I'd talk better about it. For the money, this scope is a bit overrated imo. I don't have anything to gain here and I'm not trying to defend a purchase I made. Just make sure you hold one before you buy one. I'd be ****ed if I paid over 2k for this, but for what I'm in it for, it's pretty nice.

It's a 6-18x42 as far as I'm concerned, it's pointless above and below those ranges.

I just put together a Browning X-Bolt with a March scope and here's my take. The X-Bolt is a Hell's Canyon LR with McMillan Carbon Ambush stock in 6.5 CM. The scope is the March 3-24x52 (non-illuminated) with FML-1 reticle. This was my first Browning rifle and March scope. I'll forgo the Browning review since this thread is about scopes, but I'm very happy with it. As far as the scope, I think Lancetkenyon's observations mirror mine. The scope is very small and light. It tracks perfectly. I have a S&B 5-20 Ultra Short and a Tangent Theta on my long range rifles. The March turrets are fantastic. Very low profile with very tactile clicks. The glass is very good. I don't think it's quite as good as the S&B or TT. From 20x-24x, the picture gets a little distorted and darkens a bit. Below 6x it's hard to see the reticle. Honestly, I'll never use it above 20x or below 6x. But from 6x to 20x, it's a **** fine scope. Parallax is bit finicky from 100 yds to infinity, but once you get used to the small amount of throw on the knob it's very usable. For the purpose of a light hunting scope, I think it's about perfect. For a tactical scope or long range target scope, I'll pick the TT or S&B, but I'm not going to mount one of those on my lw hunting rifle. I bought the non illuminated version just to save a few hundred $'s. Overall, the build quality is outstanding on the March scopes. I would probably rate the clarity of the glass with a NF ATACR. It's very good but just not quite as clear as the S&B or TT, to my eyes. There really isn't anything else that compares for size, weight, glass, turrets, and quality. If you can't shoot little bitty groups with the March (considering the reticle thickness), it's not the scopes fault. It really isn't that thick and hard to hold a very fine aiming point.

I looked at the Vortex AMG, NF SHV F1, and several others, but decided to try a March and am glad that I did. I think for the stated purpose of a light and small hunting scope, it's about perfect. They are very pricey, so that will weigh into most people's decision. I'm very happy that I bought one and would do it again.

I own a March 2.5x25x52 SFP, MTR3 reticle. The glass and mechanical performance is superb exceeding my AMG and NF ATACR.. IMO, the greatest attribute of the scope is its ability to reduce glare/:/haze from a low sun position. I this respect it out performs my other high end scopes. I personally like the fast ratio parallax control. While this control is sensitive, there is zero parallax when focused. If it's to sensitive for the shooters tastes, March offers a larger outer ring that fits over the knob that will reduce the ratio/sensitivity. I agree with prior posts that the OP should consider the 5x25x52, Tpo performance in a compact and lightweight package.

I can shoot little bitty groups with it, like I said, it just makes it more difficult.
It covers 3/8" at 100 yards, that's just not my preference, for targets or hunting. That's just me though, it doesn't mean others won't like it.
I'd keep it if it had the FMA-2, which is 1/3 as thick as the FML-1. I like everything else about it.
I'd also go with the 52mm, above 18x the 42mm gets dark pretty quick.
I want greyfox's scope.

nmbarta,
I want one too.

So those that have a MARCH 3 - 24 scope recommend the 52 mm objective lens for amore forgiving "eye box". But the 52 mm objective scope is an inch longer than the 42 mm objective scope. I'm looking for a more compact scope and the 42 mm objective version fills that bill better, for me at least.

Yeah, I realize the distance between my pupil and the ocular lens to get a 4 mm wide image is shorter (less forgiving "eye box") than with the 52 mm objective lens but I'm willing to set my scope up so that when I bring the rifle up that good sight picture is right "there", even at say 22x with very little head movement to get it at different magnifications. A natural cheek weld on 6x is how I set my scope distance from my eye. With my new Browning X-Bolt Pro the stock at the cheek weld area is nicely thick so I easily get the desired position.

I often forget to adjust the parallax knob when hunting but in competition I've trained myself to have a very slight dark "halo" evenly around the sight picture so I know my eye is centered and parallax will be **** near eliminated even if forget to adjust the parallax/target focus knob.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: I'm willing to deal with a shorter "eye box" and know how to do it.

Eric B.

I have run the scope now for several months on a Winchester Model 70 Extreme Stainless hunting rifle and Talley one piece rings. I have recently got back from an Alpine hunt engaging animals from 200-300 yards and angles approaching 45 degrees shooting off a pack and sling supported. I also managed to bounce the rifle down some screen when I took a tumble marking up the scope in the process as it contacted the rocks. I've also had the scope exposed to rain, hot, and cold conditions.

The scope has held zero perfectly and provides a very clear view through most of the magnification range. The 3X low-end I think is too distorted. They pushed the lower limits too much and it shows at the edges at the lowest power. It would be fine for snap shooting though. However I just bump the scope up to 4X and the distortion disappears. At 20-24X the scope is quite usable and we used it for glassing animals instead of a heavier spotter on occasion. Mid-range power of 6-15X is excellent and very good optically as well. Illumination is also good, but I still think it could be dimmer for really low light shooting. Yet, still plenty fine for lower light conditions on the dusk/dawn edges especially on busy wooded backgrounds.

The scope weight and compact turrets are great. The turrets did not move on their own despite being carried in very rough terrain for many hours either slung, in a Kifaru gun bearer, or lashed to the side of my pack. The turrets turn easily and provide completely repeatable settings when needed. Some people have complained about the parallax and exit pupil being touchy. I have not noticed this for my style of shooting. In the case of improvised positions off packs, high angle engagements, etc. the scope worked perfectly fine for me and provides very good eye relief as well.

So overall it's a keeper for sure. The build quality is excellent and it's a really nice compact lightweight package with a wide and usable magnification range...

Well that's a good, objective first hand report about the scope's strengths and limitations. I'm still liking this scope a lot.

I find it interesting that a small company like MARCH can come out with a scope so well suited for a mountain rifle. There are "similar" scopes but none with as great a magnification range, adjustability range, as compact and at such a light weight, particularly at this level of quality. And getting all this in FFP with a choice of mil or MOA is icing one the cake.

I'm wondering what it would sell for if it was sold through retail stores and had a nationwide ad campaign. Probably another $500. at the least.

Eric B.

My take is as others have stated.Mine rides on a 7.2 oz 338 NM last 2 seasons and it holding up so we'll see.I like it for how I hunt.I do favor the TMR reticle as it is open center.I have F1 and do like it.