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

Discussion in 'Long Range Scopes and Other Optics' started by Litehiker, Oct 7, 2018.

  1. Litehiker

    Litehiker Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,443
    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2012
    Yesterday a member here suggested I look at MARCH scopes for my new 6.5 CM Browning X-Bolt Pro.
    It was very eye-opening. (no pun intended)

    I've head of the excellence of MARCH glass for F Class competition scopes but had no idea they made other scopes.
    Their 3 - 24 x 42 scopes in FFP and mil or MOA are very nice. But the prices are in the Schmidt & "Bendover" range as well.
    Don't like FFP? They have 2nd focal plane scopes in 2.5 - 25 x 42 as well.

    MARCH 3 - 24 x 42 FFP Scope
    Length-> 12.28 inches
    Weight-> 22.5 oz. or 21.5 oz. depending if illuminated or not
    Glass-> ED glass (better be for their prices!)

    As you can see it's short and light with a great magnification range. Perfect for your custom sheep rifle.

    So yeah, I'm starting to save my shekels for this scope. Worth the wait.
    Meanwhile I'll use the scope I had on my former 6.5 CM Ruger American Predator. It's a SWFA 3- 15 x 42, FFP, mil/mil, side focus (but no locking turrets). Very good glass for the price but of course the MARCH glass is world class.

    Eric B.
     
    joseph singleton likes this.
  2. dok7mm

    dok7mm Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,000
    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2015
    I really like my March scopes. I would make one suggestion though, go with the 52mm objective over the 42mm. There is only 2 oz difference.
     
    Greyfox, lancetkenyon and rfurman24 like this.
  3. Mach 1

    Mach 1 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    240
    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2018
    I've got 2 60 power March scopes on my bench guns. They are great. I don't think there is a better scope for benchrest shooting. They are expensive but worth the money. Of course you can't go wrong with a nightforce, bender, or kahles either. The only problem i have with a March for hunting is the field of view. They lack a little in that area.
     
  4. phorwath

    phorwath Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,259
    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2005
    Everything I've read about March scopes has been good. Except their warranty and the cost.
     
  5. lancetkenyon

    lancetkenyon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,018
    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2013
    I would also suggest going to the 3-24×52 over the 42mm objective version. Eye box and parallax are much easier with the 52mm objective.

    I have several top tier scopes.
    S&B PMII 3-20×50
    S&B PMII 5-25×56
    Premier Heritage 5-25×56
    Premier Heritage Light Tactical 3-15×50
    Kahles K624i Gen 3 6-24×56
    Tangent Theta TT315M 3-15×50 (x2 now)
    March F 3-24×52
    SWFA SS 3-15×42 (x2 on rimfires)

    I have also had (or shot behind*) most other high end scopes at one time or another. Vortex AMG*, Razor, Razor Gen 2, Steiner T5Xi, SWFA SS HD, NF NXS* ATACR* & ATACR F1, Swarovski X5i & Z5*, Zeiss, Burris XTRII*, Bushnell Elites*, etc.

    Here is my take on the March compared to the others in my perosnal stable of optics.

    Weight: this is the main reason I bought mine. It was for a build I am currently working on. I mistakenly put the March on my lightweight .280AI just to try it out......and now it permanently resides there.

    Length: More compact than most other scopes in the upper mag range except maybe the S&B Ultrashort. A good fit on a compact rifle, but still looks well proportioned on a full length LR gun.

    Optical: While not a S&B, Premier or TT, it is still a very clear scope with great color, no CA, good contrast, and probably the best scope at cutting glare I have used. Above 22x, it starts to darken just a touch. But still plenty bright for any legal shooting light.

    Reticle: I have the FML-1. While I would love a .2MIL hash, the .5 MIL is acceptable. The center dot is fine for hunting. The outer stadia really draws your eyes into the center on low magnification. I was shooting at 600+ on 8x for a wide FOV. Hold off subtensions were very visible.

    Illumination: OK, but only has 4 settings I think.

    Parallax: While a bit touchy, it is not annoying. It is sensitive from 100 to 1200+. But still usable. I was expecting worse from some of the reciews.

    Eye box/Eye relief: Easy to get behind. Good relief for even a lightweight magnum's recoil.

    Tracking: Mine has returned to zero everytime. Tracked out to 1100+. Click adjustment seems perfect to me.

    Erector: 8x erector is awesome. 3-24x is great for hunting. Great low magnification for still hunting in close for wide FOV, but dial it up to 24x for the long shots at small targets. I rarely ever use over 16-18x for hunting big game, even on long shots on varmints. But nice to have the added magnification if you want it.

    Comes with a sunshade.
    Lens caps are OK.

    Price: For the $3000+/-, it is way up there with some of the top tier big boys. But the weight and mag range, in my opinion, makes that price tag worth it.
     
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2018
  6. hunterdan

    hunterdan Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    56
    Joined:
    May 7, 2011
    Lance gave a perfect review of the March scope. I have the 2.5-25x52 MTR3 March Scope in second focal plane. My experience has only been behind Nightforce, leupold, sightron S111 & Ziess Scopes. The march is in a class of its own. some of the things that frustrated me about each of the scopes I have found to be great in the March. For me it is the perfect Hunting/shooting scope. Weight, compact, crisp turrets and low profile, perfect tracking, great magnification range and great glass are the pros to this scope.

    I only have about 50 rds down the barrel with mine but the only minor con I see,as Lance stated, the parallax is sensitive. You have to hit the spot just right. there is no valley so to speak. But that is to be expected I guess with a large magnification like this scope. I am use to it and so far no problem for me. The other con is Price. Wish I could afford to sell some of my other scopes and buy 2-3 more of these!!:(
     
  7. hunterdan

    hunterdan Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    56
    Joined:
    May 7, 2011
    duplicate.
     
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2018
  8. nmbarta

    nmbarta Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    243
    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2014
    I have a 3-24x42 ffp and like it a lot,
    the only problem I have is the size of the reticle, I never use it over 18x, the reticle is too much after that, but on 3x it's way too fine. It would be nearly worthless for quick target acquisition.
    Knowing what I know now, I just don't think that a 8x zoom ration in a ffp makes any sense. Too thin and too thick, it's just the math. That's until someone figures out how to get the reticle thickness to change with the zoom!!! They'll figure it out somehow I'm sure.
     
  9. jmcmath

    jmcmath Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    262
    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2017
    It’s fall 2018 and we don’t have a 3-18 AMG yet.... unacceptable!

    Anyway. Zeiss v6 might be a more reasonably priced option a tier below the March. Though I haven’t seen all that many personal reviews on it
     
  10. Lee D

    Lee D Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    53
    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2018
    a 3-18 or even 4-20 amg would be the cats rear end
     
  11. lancetkenyon

    lancetkenyon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,018
    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2013
    Ummm…..the reticle does not cover any more of the target at 24x than it does at 18x or 10x or 3x.
     
    Hand Skills and dok7mm like this.
  12. lancetkenyon

    lancetkenyon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,018
    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2013
    FML1 (no way representative of actual scope clarity)

    3X (.1MIL center dot covers .36" @ 100 yards, covers .72" @ 200 yards as seen here)
    [​IMG]

    10X
    [​IMG]

    15X
    [​IMG]

    24X (still covers .72" @ 200 yards)
    [​IMG]
     
  13. lancetkenyon

    lancetkenyon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,018
    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2013
    Remember, the AMG is only a 4X erector. So you are looking at a 3-12 or 4-16, or 5-20. The 4-16 would be awesome though.
     
  14. Lee D

    Lee D Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    53
    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2018
    right, a 4-16 would be a fantastic hunting rig. I have a 4-16 PST gen 1, and it fits the capabilities of my grendel really well.

    I've heard that the glass is so good on the 6-24AMG that you aren't really sacrificing as much as you normally would with having a lower powered minimum mag, I certainly wouldn't kick one out of bed if I were able to find a way to procure one. Be interesting to see what is new at SHOT this year regardless.