Rich Coyle
Well-Known Member
Anyone compare the March hunting scope 2 1/2-25X42 to a Leupold VX-6 4-24X52 in low light? What did you come away with?
-
If you are being asked to change your password, and unsure how to do it, follow these instructions. Click here
March & Leupold
- Thread starter Rich Coyle
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
The Oregonian
Well-Known Member
I have not, but I had a VX-6 2x12x42 and now have a March 2.5x25x52 tactical and the difference is night and day. I am very happy and will likely never go back to Leupold unless things change significantly.
Rich Coyle
Well-Known Member
Would you say your VX-6 was as good or better than a Swarovski?
I have two March scopes, but don't have a VX-6. I have read that the VX6 glass is good, but I would imagine that's its not even close... Leupold had the American market for years, and quit making great scopes for a long time. Nikon Monarchs were better back in the '90's...now...take your pick, Bushnell Elite, IOR, NF, March, Zeiss, hell even Minox are better scopes. For the money, you will do much better elsewhere...
They stopped innovating and kept charging...while other companies moved ahead of them
They stopped innovating and kept charging...while other companies moved ahead of them
Mikecr
Well-Known Member
There is a lot more to scopes than glass.
But considering glass only, you need to know there is just nothing special about Leupold or Nightforce glass. It's not bad, but nothing close to Swarovski either.
However, combining other attributes, I would take a Leupold(Mk4s) over Swarovski every time.
As far as March,, well I can't walk into a store and look through one. I have no way to look through one. Nor can I find any real information about other/field functioning attributes.
For instance; Flip-up scope covers are a must for my varmint hunting. I learned a long time ago that I cannot clean glass without ruining coatings, so the best plan is to simply mitigate the issue with covers, and flip-ups are the only field practical covers.
March is offering 'tactical' scopes yet I see no plan for lens covers in their lineup.
If they knew anything about field use, they would have recognized that Leupold Alumina flip-ups are by far the best available. So they should have produced a March version of these, or at least threaded their scopes to accept them(or Alumina or std camera filters).
And I wonder if the eyepiece turns with power change(like NF). If so, rear flip-ups for sure need to be Aluminas, as these can be immediately countered turned. The plastic Butlers suck.
And while many suggest March glass is good, few mention contrast or field resolution. I've read a couple complaints from users implying they couldn't tell a rabbit from a dog at distance -but targets looked great.. With a Mk4, I can certainly tell a rabbit from a dog at ~1kyd.
The March reticles look awfully fine to me for field use. I don't understand why they're not offering a medium-fine crosshair(instead of target-fine). If their scopes do provide good contrast, the reticles offered could disappear amidst a field background.
I would also like to know if anyone has tested March's adjustment increments. I assume repeatability as that was March's beginning purpose(target). But are they actually adjusting in MOA, or some generalization of it(like NF). So far the Mk4 is the only scope I've tested and read testing at true MOA.
These are some of the other considerations aside from glass only. There are more.
But considering glass only, you need to know there is just nothing special about Leupold or Nightforce glass. It's not bad, but nothing close to Swarovski either.
However, combining other attributes, I would take a Leupold(Mk4s) over Swarovski every time.
As far as March,, well I can't walk into a store and look through one. I have no way to look through one. Nor can I find any real information about other/field functioning attributes.
For instance; Flip-up scope covers are a must for my varmint hunting. I learned a long time ago that I cannot clean glass without ruining coatings, so the best plan is to simply mitigate the issue with covers, and flip-ups are the only field practical covers.
March is offering 'tactical' scopes yet I see no plan for lens covers in their lineup.
If they knew anything about field use, they would have recognized that Leupold Alumina flip-ups are by far the best available. So they should have produced a March version of these, or at least threaded their scopes to accept them(or Alumina or std camera filters).
And I wonder if the eyepiece turns with power change(like NF). If so, rear flip-ups for sure need to be Aluminas, as these can be immediately countered turned. The plastic Butlers suck.
And while many suggest March glass is good, few mention contrast or field resolution. I've read a couple complaints from users implying they couldn't tell a rabbit from a dog at distance -but targets looked great.. With a Mk4, I can certainly tell a rabbit from a dog at ~1kyd.
The March reticles look awfully fine to me for field use. I don't understand why they're not offering a medium-fine crosshair(instead of target-fine). If their scopes do provide good contrast, the reticles offered could disappear amidst a field background.
I would also like to know if anyone has tested March's adjustment increments. I assume repeatability as that was March's beginning purpose(target). But are they actually adjusting in MOA, or some generalization of it(like NF). So far the Mk4 is the only scope I've tested and read testing at true MOA.
These are some of the other considerations aside from glass only. There are more.
Nice strawman argument.
March has way better resolution. If you can resolve a rabbit with a Mark4 at 1000 yards you'll resolve a rabbit turd with a March. To say the difference in contrast is such that you can't distinguish a rabbit from a dog indicates gross incompetence and mechanical inability. That person should really stay away from complex mechanisms or they will hurt themselves. As far as the MOA value goes, it doesn't matter if it's whatever you want it to be. What matters is that it matches the reticle.
Rich Coyle
Well-Known Member
Mikecr,
Your post shows you have not compared Swarovski side by side with other scopes. You, like I used to think, believed Swarovski was better than it is. Consider the following side by side comparison. I returned that Swarovski and purchased another. It was not as good as the first. I did that again and again it was no better than the second one. I bought a fourth and it was barely better than the first but still not up to the resolving ability of the 6500. But the z5 blew it away in low light, but the z5 did not compare with the Nightforce.
The sky was totally overcast with an occasional sprinkle. That takes care of the weather. Now the glass.
I purchased my first Bushnell 6500 in 2009. I sent it back for warrantee work because it was blurry above 25X. When it was returned it was great on the top end but the lower magnifications were blurry. I returned it to Bushnell for a refund. After a few months I purchased another, the present one, which is better than any other scope I compared it to for daylight hunting; except my NightForce.
At the range I have compared this Bushnell with many Leupolds, Burrises, Nikons, a Swarovski, and others. None so far are as sharp or bright as this Bushnell except a Minox 62 spotting scope. With both set on 30X the Minox produced a barely sharper image. Since none were as good as the Bushnell and none were as variable as the Bushnell I decided to purchase a more competitive Swarovski to compare with. I already owned the 12-42X56 NightForce in the following comparison.
I compared a Swarovski Z5 5-25X52 ($1,675) with my Bushnell 6500 4 ½-30X50 ($620) and my NightForce NP-R2 12-42X56 ($1,440). It took about two hours to complete the comparison. I made an "eye" chart with five lines on an 8 1/2X11 copy sheet, laminated it to keep it dry, and taped it to a cardboard box. The lines are 9/32" wide with 9/32" spaces between the lines. After setting the box out I drove down the road a ways.
The test idea was to see at what range I could no longer see lines, but a grey rectangle and then turn the scopes up and focus them and record the magnification setting. After reading the following and think about the cost, which would you keep? After this comparison I returned the Swarovski for a full refund.
Here are the yardages and magnification results:
202 - Swaro: 5 1/2, Bush: 4 ½ with ease
236 – Swaro: 6 Bush: 5 ½
309 – Swaro: 8 ¼ Bush: 7 ½
393 – Swaro: 10 Bush: 10 ½
470 – Swaro: 14 Bush: 15
521 – Swaro: 16 ½ Bush: 15 ½ NightForce: 12
572 – Swaro: 17 ½ Bush: 17 Night: 12 ¼
690 – Swaro: 24 Bush: 24 Night: 18
706 – Swaro: 24 Bush 24 Night: 18
724 – Swaro: 25 Bush: 27 Night: 20
The day was quickly closing so I think the ability of the Swarovski's low light superiority over the Bushnell started to come into play at the 724 yard range. I am sorta impressed with the Leica 1200 reading the bush next to the box above 572 yards. But the biggest surprise came at 202 yards. If I didn't know they were lines, I couldn't make them out with the Swarovski on 5X and yet the Bushnell showed them with ease on 4 1/2X. Who would have guessed it
Your post shows you have not compared Swarovski side by side with other scopes. You, like I used to think, believed Swarovski was better than it is. Consider the following side by side comparison. I returned that Swarovski and purchased another. It was not as good as the first. I did that again and again it was no better than the second one. I bought a fourth and it was barely better than the first but still not up to the resolving ability of the 6500. But the z5 blew it away in low light, but the z5 did not compare with the Nightforce.
The sky was totally overcast with an occasional sprinkle. That takes care of the weather. Now the glass.
I purchased my first Bushnell 6500 in 2009. I sent it back for warrantee work because it was blurry above 25X. When it was returned it was great on the top end but the lower magnifications were blurry. I returned it to Bushnell for a refund. After a few months I purchased another, the present one, which is better than any other scope I compared it to for daylight hunting; except my NightForce.
At the range I have compared this Bushnell with many Leupolds, Burrises, Nikons, a Swarovski, and others. None so far are as sharp or bright as this Bushnell except a Minox 62 spotting scope. With both set on 30X the Minox produced a barely sharper image. Since none were as good as the Bushnell and none were as variable as the Bushnell I decided to purchase a more competitive Swarovski to compare with. I already owned the 12-42X56 NightForce in the following comparison.
I compared a Swarovski Z5 5-25X52 ($1,675) with my Bushnell 6500 4 ½-30X50 ($620) and my NightForce NP-R2 12-42X56 ($1,440). It took about two hours to complete the comparison. I made an "eye" chart with five lines on an 8 1/2X11 copy sheet, laminated it to keep it dry, and taped it to a cardboard box. The lines are 9/32" wide with 9/32" spaces between the lines. After setting the box out I drove down the road a ways.
The test idea was to see at what range I could no longer see lines, but a grey rectangle and then turn the scopes up and focus them and record the magnification setting. After reading the following and think about the cost, which would you keep? After this comparison I returned the Swarovski for a full refund.
Here are the yardages and magnification results:
202 - Swaro: 5 1/2, Bush: 4 ½ with ease
236 – Swaro: 6 Bush: 5 ½
309 – Swaro: 8 ¼ Bush: 7 ½
393 – Swaro: 10 Bush: 10 ½
470 – Swaro: 14 Bush: 15
521 – Swaro: 16 ½ Bush: 15 ½ NightForce: 12
572 – Swaro: 17 ½ Bush: 17 Night: 12 ¼
690 – Swaro: 24 Bush: 24 Night: 18
706 – Swaro: 24 Bush 24 Night: 18
724 – Swaro: 25 Bush: 27 Night: 20
The day was quickly closing so I think the ability of the Swarovski's low light superiority over the Bushnell started to come into play at the 724 yard range. I am sorta impressed with the Leica 1200 reading the bush next to the box above 572 yards. But the biggest surprise came at 202 yards. If I didn't know they were lines, I couldn't make them out with the Swarovski on 5X and yet the Bushnell showed them with ease on 4 1/2X. Who would have guessed it
Mikecr
Well-Known Member
Well you got me in that I haven't looked through a lot of Swarovskis, or recently. I'll believe you, while very surprised, as Swarovski is ALL about glass.
I on the other hand am not all about glass, and I would still keep my Mk4 scopes over any other mentioned here.
918v, adjustment values and repeatability do actually matter -to dialers.
My favorite reticle is a med-fine crosshair in a SFP scope (hate FFP).
I on the other hand am not all about glass, and I would still keep my Mk4 scopes over any other mentioned here.
918v, adjustment values and repeatability do actually matter -to dialers.
My favorite reticle is a med-fine crosshair in a SFP scope (hate FFP).
Now this is a great thread...keep it going. That's the kind of info I like reading!
I have two March, three NF, and one Leupold M4 (plus Bushnell LRHS, Minox, Nikon Monarch X, Leica, Zeiss etc). All really good, March slightly better. IOR Valdada 4.5-14x50 probably the best glass I have...
But if I could have only one scope it would be NF NXS, it just inspires confidence....
I have two March, three NF, and one Leupold M4 (plus Bushnell LRHS, Minox, Nikon Monarch X, Leica, Zeiss etc). All really good, March slightly better. IOR Valdada 4.5-14x50 probably the best glass I have...
But if I could have only one scope it would be NF NXS, it just inspires confidence....
Rich Coyle
Well-Known Member
Now this is a great thread...keep it going. That's the kind of info I like reading!
I have two March, three NF, and one Leupold M4 (plus Bushnell LRHS, Minox, Nikon Monarch X, Leica, Zeiss etc). All really good, March slightly better. IOR Valdada 4.5-14x50 probably the best glass I have...
But if I could have only one scope it would be NF NXS, it just inspires confidence....
I don't want to miss lead anyone. The very good Bushnell 6500 was the third one before I kept one. So with the Swarovski we have a sampling of four. With the 6500 we have a sampling of three. The beautiful thing about the VX-6 is it is a sample of one. But being a good American I want more. More better glass, more better clicks (the VX-6 is terrible) more better light weight.
A little more info about my z5: I borrowed a friend's Nightforce 5.5-25X56. When it was maxed at 22X the z5 needed to be maxed out at 25X for me to see the same detail. Not only that the Nightforce lasted a few minutes longer in low light. Nothing like side by side comparisons to knock prejudice on its butt.
Too bad Leupolds aren't repeatable. Their (according to you) perfect MOA value is useless.
Mikecr
Well-Known Member
I've fully tested (4) 8.5x25 mk4s in a row over the past 12yrs that have tested actual 1/4moa per click. They pass box tests, and have been repeatable for me with break-in.
None of the (3) NXS scopes I've tested provided actual MOA in adjustments. They were good in box & repeatability though.
Glass with both is absolutely identical at the same power(what I consider mid-quality).
Warranty/custom services have been superb from both.
Keep in mind the Mk4s are not like the rest of Leupold's lineup. But they are inline with prices of scopes discussed here.
March's beginning existence came about to solve zero hold and TARGET resolution for competitors. They wouldn't exist today if they didn't meet that objective. But there is still more to LR hunting scopes -given that our zeros change with every shot, and we're not shooting at targets. We have to use our scopes in the field, for single shots.
Now if March matches NF NXS and is nearly a pound lighter, March wins there.
March is not a pound lighter than Leupold though. So assuming March beats comparable Leupold(Mk4) in glass, then the question remains how the two score across the board(for hunting).
I already know Leupold's warranty is superior. Let's call it a wash so far. What about the rest in a hunting scope?
I think it's a fair to question because this is not a BR site, but a LR hunting site. Some of us are varmint hunters which could be considered somewhat of a cross-over.
As a GH hunter considering March -vs- Leupold, I already know the Mk4 works well in the field, and with certain advantages over other scopes in comparison(this use). What would have me risk March?
None of the (3) NXS scopes I've tested provided actual MOA in adjustments. They were good in box & repeatability though.
Glass with both is absolutely identical at the same power(what I consider mid-quality).
Warranty/custom services have been superb from both.
Keep in mind the Mk4s are not like the rest of Leupold's lineup. But they are inline with prices of scopes discussed here.
March's beginning existence came about to solve zero hold and TARGET resolution for competitors. They wouldn't exist today if they didn't meet that objective. But there is still more to LR hunting scopes -given that our zeros change with every shot, and we're not shooting at targets. We have to use our scopes in the field, for single shots.
Now if March matches NF NXS and is nearly a pound lighter, March wins there.
March is not a pound lighter than Leupold though. So assuming March beats comparable Leupold(Mk4) in glass, then the question remains how the two score across the board(for hunting).
I already know Leupold's warranty is superior. Let's call it a wash so far. What about the rest in a hunting scope?
I think it's a fair to question because this is not a BR site, but a LR hunting site. Some of us are varmint hunters which could be considered somewhat of a cross-over.
As a GH hunter considering March -vs- Leupold, I already know the Mk4 works well in the field, and with certain advantages over other scopes in comparison(this use). What would have me risk March?
What is the actual click value of a Leupold in inches? Nighforce? What is 1 MOA? I thought it was 1.047". And that each quarter minute click was .26". Are you saying that NF clicks are not .26"?
