March/ZCO/ etc…

[shooters]

Optics are often compared. I get it. People see things differently as well. Pretty subjective. I've owned about everything out there except for a few. (TT, ZCO,March, Premier ) One that's always interest me is the March. Especially the new wide angle. With most optics, there's always a downfall and with March it seems there's more negative than positive. It seems everything from the glass quality not being as good as what it should be for a $3500 optic, to having very touchy parallax, etc. So I guess my question is, spending $3500 on a March,… Is literally the only benefit to buying the March over say a $3500 ZCO, used TT, S&B, etc being solely for the sake of saving weight?

I've owned and or do own S&B's, Kahles, ATACR, Ziess LRP, AMG, and a few others. Just always felt the March is an optic I should try mainly for the purpose of saving 10 ounces on my carbon builds. But, I am willing to eat the extra weight on these lightweight guns to not sacrifice image quality.

 

[AlexV4RR]

Question, How did the Ziess LRP compare to those, and say a ziess v6 or leupold vx6hd? I have also been looking at the march because of the range. But I will probably just do to scopes, One for target and one for hunting.

 

[BoomFlop]

I'd say one of the few that I know of on LRH that could honestly answer your questions is @lancetkenyon

He is a great guy and will be more than happy to help you with differences, and probably will even send you some pictures if you ask nicely.

Good luck Sir,
Steve

 

[shooters]

The LRP to me it's quite honestly as close to the Swarovski X5i as you can get. Feel, optically, etc. I spent a few hours in different light conditions and I couldn't see a difference between the two. Maybe the Swaro had a little better edge clarity but that was it. Mechanically they feel identical. The turret on the Zeiss wasn't quite as gritty as the X5i if that makes sense. Compared to the others above mentioned, I would say the LRP is again similar to the ATACR to my eyes.

 

[lancetkenyon]

If you want an honest comparison of the March FX 4.5-28×52WA to the big dogs (ZCO, TT, S&B)....they're in a different ballpark.

While I do not own a March FX 4.5-28×52WA, I have shot behind three of them. I owned a March F 3-24×52 for a few years, until I sold it and bought another TT315M.

Here is my take on them:

The biggest let down is the old March F 3-24×52 was 24oz. The new FX is 30oz. Losing one of the main attractions of being so lightweight. Makes another 2-6oz not nearly as much of a difference to go top tier at 32-38oz.

The WA is very nice. I really like it.

Nice and short overall length at 12.5".

Parallax is still a bit touchy, but better than the old March F 3-24×52.

Diopter is touchier than the old F model. I didn't have a problem getting reticle and image both clear, but two of the guys that own them hate it. One guy even pulled it from his rifle.

Good magnification range, and the WA makes the 4.5x low FOV seem like a 3x, not a 5x, and 28X is great. But it does get darker above 22x, like the F does at 20x.

Glass: I don't think it compares to TT or ZCO personally. More like a Vortex Razor Gen II/AMG type of image. Not where a $3500+ image should be. Clarity especially, but depth of field and edge are definitely lacking. Now, for 98% of people, it is still very good. But not when you compare to TT or ZCO.

Tracking seemed spot on, but I only had them for a few weeks each. I did shoot each one from 100 to 1400 yards during the times I had them in hand. They tracked like they should, and RTZ was spot on. That is huge.

I was pretty set to get one until I shot behind a few. Now, I am still looking. If you can get one used for $2500-2800, might make it a lot more appealing. If you really want the 24oz range, I would just go ahead and get a March F 3-24×52. But, I would take a Tangent Theta TT315M 3-15×50 @ 27oz over either of the March all day long. Even for shooting out past 1400 yards. I have four of them for a reason.

 

[shooters]

If you want an honest comparison of the March FX 4.5-28×52WA to the big dogs (ZCO, TT, S&B)....they're in a different ballpark.

While I do not own a March FX 4.5-28×52WA, I have shot behind three of them. I owned a March F 3-24×52 for a few years, until I sold it and bought another TT315M.

Here is my take on them:

The biggest let down is the old March F 3-24×52 was 24oz. The new FX is 30oz. Losing one of the main attractions of being so lightweight. Makes another 2-6oz not nearly as much of a difference to go top tier at 32-38oz.

The WA is very nice. I really like it.

Nice and short overall length at 12.5".

Parallax is still a bit touchy, but better than the old March F 3-24×52.

Diopter is touchier than the old F model. I didn't have a problem getting reticle and image both clear, but two of the guys that own them hate it. One guy even pulled it from his rifle.

Good magnification range, and the WA makes the 4.5x low FOV seem like a 3x, not a 5x, and 28X is great. But it does get darker above 22x, like the F does at 20x.

Glass: I don't think it compares to TT or ZCO personally. More like a Vortex Razor Gen II/AMG type of image. Not where a $3500+ image should be. Clarity especially, but depth of field and edge are definitely lacking. Now, for 98% of people, it is still very good. But not when you compare to TT or ZCO.

Tracking seemed spot on, but I only had them for a few weeks each. I did shoot each one from 100 to 1400 yards during the times I had them in hand. They tracked like they should, and RTZ was spot on. That is huge.

I was pretty set to get one until I shot behind a few. Now, I am still looking. If you can get one used for $2500-2800, might make it a lot more appealing. If you really want the 24oz range, I would just go ahead and get a March F 3-24×52. But, I would take a Tangent Theta TT315M 3-15×50 @ 27oz over either of the March all day long. Even for shooting out past 1400 yards. I have four of them for a reason.

Excellent. Thank you for the long detailed explanation. I'd have been pretty disappointed to have spent the money for something not on par with other $3500 plus scopes. I'll take the extra weight. Much appreciated.

 

[Greyfox]

I own the March 5x25x52 and ZCO420. For LRH, I personally prefer the ZCO420 to the March, as well the other premium scopes I own or have used, by a pretty wide margin, For my particular requirements it has the perfect balance of optical quality, reticle design, size, power range, controls/ergonomics, and workmanship…The half pound weight difference is not a factor for me. It seems my quest for the perfect LRH scope has ended..At least for now.

 

[WeiserBucks]

I'm in the ZCO 420 boat 100%. I've owned or used everything available except the newest Hensoldt and the ZCO is the best all around package for what I want out of a scope. It's not the very best in every single category, but neither is anything else.

 

[7.62 Gunner]

I've owned the FX 4.5-28 since it was released and I totally disagree about the glass being on par with the AMG (which I also own).

The March has by far the best glass I've ever used, better than an ATACR for sure, I've never used a TT so can't comment on that.
The clarity is ridiculous, I often engage targets to 1300 yards on 15x cuz its so clear that any more magnification isn't necessary.
Also the huge FOV is really a game changer for spotting my shots on suppressed magnums.

The things I don't like about the scope are
1. The parallax is still kinda fussy but nothing like the NX8.
2. The eye relief is pretty short and I can't quite get the scope as far back as I'd like given the tube length.

If a 3-15 TT has glass that's as good or better than the fx 4.5-28 then it's all the magnification a guy would ever need to 1500 yards or so

 

[2buffalo]

Like on any subject about glass you need to look through it yourself. I tried Swarovski and Leica many times based on reviews but the Zeiss has always been significantly clearer with my eyes. I have no ides why. With that being said it's difficult to look through all the good glass out there before you buy at least I have never had that option. I own many scopes but the last one I bought was a March F 3-24x52 without trying it first. I can say for my eyes I don't know if it could get any clearer to where I would even notice. I personally like the parallax adjustment. The weight is what originally brought me to the scope and I don't regret it at all. Just my .02 from someone who has no brand loyalty. If I find something better I will switch but until then I am a satisfied customer.

 

[Euler]

I haven't bought a March due to the tight eyebox and finicky parallax reputation. AND, resell seems a bit lower and harder to move than other $3k+ optics. The recent March sale was pretty tempting though, and the field of view of the new wide angle March 4.5-28 does look appealing.

I own/have owned Tangent, ZCOs, Kahles, ATACRs, AMG, Gen 2 Razors, Mark 5, & some others, and I've used, but didn't own, some other models. I've shot all of them to 1,000+ yards, and have put almost all in a fixture to test tracking against a calibrated chart. TT and ZCO occupy the top spot from my experience. I agree with above that the ZCO420 is the best all around optic, and I prefer it to my 5-27. I also agree that if weight is a large concern, the Tangent Theta 3-15 is where you should look. With Tenebraex caps, my Tangent is 27.8oz, so it would be around +/- 26oz without caps. If you can only afford one, get the ZCO420 IMO. If you can afford multiple, get the Tangent for a dedicated hunting rifle and ZCO for multi purpose/comp/range/etc rifle.

Although reticles are somewhat personal, I think Tangents biggest detraction is their reticle selection, especially for cross-over use. The Gen 2 Mildot or LRH reticles are great hunting specific reticles, and the Gen3XR is a great 'target' reticle, but the 0.025 mil thickness of the Gen3XR is too fine for a 3-15 hunting optic IMO. The 0.035 mil thick MPCT 1/2, SKMR 1/3, EBR variants, etc. are good enough on low power IMO, and the 0.04 mil thick mil-c is good on low power as well. If Tangent bumped up the reticle thickness in the Gen3XR to 0.04 mils in the 3-15, I'd have a couple more. OR if ZCO could drop 8oz on their 4-20, I'd have several of them. But variety isn't the worst thing in the world.

Kahles generally doesn't seem to get a ton of love on a few different forums. Although I would agree that optically the Kahles is a step down from Tangent or ZCO, the overall package of the Kahles k-series is good, and they really shine on the secondary market for +/- $2,500. The Kahles K525i is one of the very few that I regret selling.

One other thing to note on the March 4.5-28 as well as the ZCO420, if mounting on a long action, obtaining optimized eye relief could be a challenge on a long action without an adjustable cheek piece and relatively tall rings.

 

[shooters]

Kahles generally doesn't seem to get a ton of love on a few different forums. Although I would agree that optically the Kahles is a step down from Tangent or ZCO, the overall package of the Kahles k-series is good, and they really shine on the secondary market for +/- $2,500. The Kahles K525i is one of the very few that I regret selling.

I've often wondered why this is. I have 2 K525i's and to this point, I'd have to say they are without question my favorite optic. With that said, I do not own a TT or ZCO, but compared to my, Swaro X5i, S&B EXOS, NF ATACR, Mark5HD, AMG and ZEISS LRP, in my honest opinion there's no comparison optically. Mainly in low light and how well it resolves. And mechanically I love everything about it. Baffles me why there are a few that want nothing to do with the Kahles.

 

[Euler]

I've often wondered why this is. I have 2 K525i's and to this point, I'd have to say they are without question my favorite optic. With that said, I do not own a TT or ZCO, but compared to my, Swaro X5i, S&B EXOS, NF ATACR, Mark5HD, AMG and ZEISS LRP, in my honest opinion there's no comparison optically. Mainly in low light and how well it resolves. And mechanically I love everything about it. Baffles me why there are a few that want nothing to do with the Kahles.

I agree. Kahles is without a doubt better than AMG, ATACR, MK5, etc. Interesting that you think it's better than the Zeiss - not much out there on the Zeiss either. In terms of pure performance, I do think the Kahles I had is a small step down from my Tangent and ZCOs, but the Kahles is still an excellent scope. Mine was mechanically sound, I loved the LSW, top parallax, turret tool & ease of zero'ing the turret, and the optics are quite good.

In the current market, I do think Kahles is a bit over priced if you're looking at brand new. My recollection is that there were some issues with the earlier generation, but I didn't own any of the early gens. I had a Gen 3 K525i, and it was/is a great optic. Used K525i's pop up pretty regularly, but I'm holding out for a DLR that's priced right. Increased FoV and 10 mil/rev turrets address the couple of small gripes I had.

 

[Greyfox]

When "excellent" glass is cited, it is generally one's reaction to the clarity and and non-existent CA. I have keyed into two key attributes that seem to be a function of not only the glass but the associated geometry/design of the scope components that can 1) Minimize low sun and glare often encountered during prime time deer hunting, and, 2) The ability for the scope to manage mirage, frequently encountered during the early deer/antelope season. These two conditions, particularly at the longer ranges have cost me several opportunities on good animals over the years. My March 2.5x25x52 has traditionally been one my best performers for reducing low sun glare(reflection), and my first choice when hunting areas/times where this condition is prevalent. I understand that this capability is a function of not only the glass/coating, but the scopes interior geometry and surface coating as well. As to heavy mirage, while some scopes may be a bit better then others, it has always been problematic until I acquired my ZCO420. This scope not only equals/exceeds the March in reducing low sun glare, but it's ability to cut through/negate mirage, and creating a clear sight picture, goes well beyond other scopes I have used to date. How this is achieved is beyond me. Additionally, with judicious use of the focus knob, the mirage can be focused on with high resolution to determine precise angle/direction…Quite valuable for wind calls at LR. Considering these attributes amongst the other attractive features of the ZCO420, over time I intend to replace the scopes on all my LR hunters.