March 2-25? 42mm vs 52

[snox801]

Ok so my new lightweight 30 Sherman is getting a March 2-25.
So what's everyone's thoughts on the 42mm vs 52mm
Is it really gonna make much of a difference?
It adds a bit of weight but not much. Also not sure if it will make any noticeable difference in those last little minutes of light.
Thoughts?

 

[Westernhuntr]

I'd go 52mm for sure, there will be a noticable improvement in clarity and low light performance going from 40 to 52mm.
I haven't looked through a March but every other 40-44mm optic I've used has had a fussy eyebox compared to 50mm and above.

 

[FTRshooter]

There are two schools of thoughts on the selection of the objective size.

One says keep the rifle small and handy and get the 42mm tube for hunting because you will rarely be at high magnification while hunting and the larger objective will not make much appreciable difference at magnifications less than say 8X or even 10X.

The other school of thought is that some people want all the light possible so they can use the higher magnification longer, or later in the day.

When I was at SHOT 2020, I talked to a bunch of folks on either side of that debate and the folks who hunted almost exclusively, liked the smaller objective. The all around shooters, those who liked to use higher magnification more often, liked the 52mm.

I would probably err on the side of larger objective, 10mm is not that much bigger and I would rather have and not need, then need and not have. So put me down for 52mm.

 

[Peddler 76]

Put me down for 42.

 

[FTRshooter]

Put me down for 42.

And there we go! Peddler 76 is as correct as Westernhuntr is.

 

[snox801]

Ya not sure I can go wrong. Just looking for opinions.

 

[sp6x6]

I have the 52,its for lr on a 338nm. it is basically same as a leo 50. I have it just clear barrel barely get the thin cap on. My rifle 26'', if shorter or want handier id go 42.I rarely use scope past 20,just,is picky and not as clear as I think it should be.If i look at wood lot behind my house 1/4 mile.Set up my there with mark 5,5-25.I can clear see the small cross barbs,cant with the March.That scope is then again much larger so may not be fair. In most of my hunting shots,I may look at trophy higher power,but dial down to shoot,if I might need follow up or mirage.Lot of my game shots are animal in brush or timber,hard to pickup fast on hi mag

 

[Ed AO]

I have the 52

 

[sp6x6]

I front carry had a mark4 6-20x50, first it was longer,bulkier with turrets,March low profile much better

 

[Backcountry sports]

I have the 52,its for lr on a 338nm. it is basically same as a leo 50. I have it just clear barrel barely get the thin cap on. My rifle 26'', if shorter or want handier id go 42.I rarely use scope past 20,just,is picky and not as clear as I think it should be.If i look at wood lot behind my house 1/4 mile.Set up my there with mark 5,5-25.I can clear see the small cross barbs,cant with the March.That scope is then again much larger so may not be fair. In most of my hunting shots,I may look at trophy higher power,but dial down to shoot,if I might need follow up or mirage.Lot of my game shots are animal in brush or timber,hard to pickup fast on hi mag

50 mm is the best for western hunting

 

[30BR]

Check both under low light conditions. My March 50X fixed is a GREAT scope, but very dark in low light. Both my NF 12-42BR and Weaver 48X are brighter in low light.

 

[Will Gray]

I should give credit to someone (don't have his name) who wrote recently about scope brightness vs power and objective size. The human eye has about a 7mm objective. If you have a 42mm objective scope and use more than six power 42mm/6power = 7mm (the effective objective), any higher power will reduce that value to less than the human eye objective and the image will be dimmer as the power goes up. It is not an issue in bright lighting but at twilight it is obvious: the higher the power the dimmer the image. Buy the best glass quality you can afford and keep the objective diameter divided by the power to seven for maximum perceived brightness. 56mm/8power=7 Just my two cents...

 

[snox801]

The money wasn't an issue looking. For the 2-25 range with good turrets as it will be a pack rifle so weight is key hence all the money spent on ti and carbon. The scope was hard. March seems to fit the bill as far as weight and still have the power range.

 

[highdrum]

I have a March 3-24x42 ffp. It works well. For it to be truly usable and good image quality above 18-19x, the conditions have to be very bright outside. I can use the scope, at say 24x however the picture is noticeably darker than say 18x. Everything else about the scope is top notch. Personally I'd spring for the 52mm as it's only 2oz heavier.