New March 2.5-25x52

[scf]

After a considerable wait for this new model I just received the March 2.5-25x52 tactical (serial number 008). For those not familiar here are some specs: 120 moa vertical adjustment with 25 moa per rotation and zero stop, 60 moa horizontal, 13.3 in. long, MTR-4 illuminated glass etched reticle and to me one of it's best features it weighs 24.5 ounces. I really like this feature for a hunting rifle especially when compared to my Nightforces. I can already tell the glass is superb. Will give updates when I get a chance to check tracking but I have little doubts about that since I already have a 2.5-25x42 model.

 

[jrsolocam]

I have a 42mm model too, and I have no doubt that if any scope is worth $3000+, the 52mm is it.

 

[scf]

Just got back from a quick range trip to sight in and check the new 52mm March. Shot 1 on paper was high and left. Set the scope to 20 power, measured the distance, turned down 10 minutes and right 6 minutes, next shot was in 1" paster I was using as aiming point. Two more shots at 250 and scope was zeroed. Moved back to 100 for a quick box check. 15 moa vertical by 10 moa horizontal box came back to beginning shot to make a one oblong hole (this was the biggest box I could make on the target available). Clicks were positive and felt very good. Scope is on Stiller TAC 338 with Brux 28" barrel chambered in 338 Lapua, 4 port Muscle brake, Jewell HVR, McRees precision stock. So far so good.

 

[sp6x6]

How do you like this scope compared to previous scope. I like the idea of the 42 as it is more compact. How was the 42 compared to some others like say a 6.5-20x50 Leo mark 4

 

[scf]

sp6x6'

I still have and use the 42mm version, it is currently on a 6.5x47 tactical rifle. It is 6 ounces lighter and about an inch shorter. The 52mm has ED glass. As to the Mark 4 comparison I've never had one. I did have a VX III 6.5-20x50. Was a pretty good scope but not in the same class as either March. Next time I get to the range I'll set up the 42 and 52 side by side and report any visible differences.

 

[sp6x6]

Thanks for input,look forward to hearing range report

 

[The Oregonian]

How does the glass compare to some of the European scopes?

 

[scf]

I've printed some eye charts to help compare the two March models. I will also take my Z5 for comparison. My initial thoughts are that the March glass is as good or better than the Swarovski but I will compare them side by side.

 

[The Oregonian]

Very interested to hear how it compares to the swaro. I am considering the Z6 3x18x50, the Leupold VX6 3x18x44, and the March 2.5x.25x42 hunter version.

 

[Parkerb14]

Very interested to hear how it compares to the swaro. I am considering the Z6 3x18x50, the Leupold VX6 3x18x44, and the March 2.5x.25x42 hunter version.

The hunter version does not have a zerostop I believe?!

 

[Timber338]

Sure look like amazing scopes... I'm also very interested in hearing side by side range report of the 42 vs 52 vs Z5. Thanks in advance!

 

[scf]

Finally got a chance to compare some scopes. Unfortunately the 52mm March was on a rifle that was at the smith having a Manners T2 fitted. I compared the March 2.5-25x42 tactical, Swarovski Z5 3.5-18x44 BT, and a Nightforce NXS 5.5-22x56. The scopes were all mounted on rifles and sat on a SEB NEO front rest with a large Edgewood rest bag (this is my F class setup). I used two different eye charts at 119 yards. The time was 7-8 AM. With all scopes set at 18X to match the max setting of the Z5 I observed the charts over an extended time period switching them as the light conditions changed. For me it was difficult to establish a clear difference in resolution between all 3. If I had to rank them I might give an ever so slight advantage to the March with the Z5 a very, very close second with the NXS right behind. The differences in line resolution between all three is minor at best and it took me about an hour to finally reach that decision. Moving the March on up to it's max setting of 25X did gain some resolution. All three of these are great scopes and they all have distinct features suitable for given applications. Overall I would choose the March because of it's 10x zoom range, illumination and weight. If I were building an ultra lite ounce counter mountain rifle that I did not intend to push beyond about 800 yards I'd pick the Z5 plus it is also the lowest priced. If I didn't have a hammer and needed something to drive nails I'd use the NXS. I also took a look through a Leupold VX III 4.4-14x50 and this scope didn't compare to the others at 14x but neither did the price. Finally I took a peek through my spotter. The Nikon Fieldscope 20-75x82 set at 20x put all of the fine scopes to shame but that wasn't really a fair comparison. Hopefully when I get the 52mm March back I will be able to do some low light testing.

 

[Timber338]

Finally got a chance to compare some scopes. Unfortunately the 52mm March was on a rifle that was at the smith having a Manners T2 fitted. I compared the March 2.5-25x42 tactical, Swarovski Z5 3.5-18x44 BT, and a Nightforce NXS 5.5-22x56. The scopes were all mounted on rifles and sat on a SEB NEO front rest with a large Edgewood rest bag (this is my F class setup). I used two different eye charts at 119 yards. The time was 7-8 AM. With all scopes set at 18X to match the max setting of the Z5 I observed the charts over an extended time period switching them as the light conditions changed. For me it was difficult to establish a clear difference in resolution between all 3. If I had to rank them I might give an ever so slight advantage to the March with the Z5 a very, very close second with the NXS right behind. The differences in line resolution between all three is minor at best and it took me about an hour to finally reach that decision. Moving the March on up to it's max setting of 25X did gain some resolution. All three of these are great scopes and they all have distinct features suitable for given applications. Overall I would choose the March because of it's 10x zoom range, illumination and weight. If I were building an ultra lite ounce counter mountain rifle that I did not intend to push beyond about 800 yards I'd pick the Z5 plus it is also the lowest priced. If I didn't have a hammer and needed something to drive nails I'd use the NXS. I also took a look through a Leupold VX III 4.4-14x50 and this scope didn't compare to the others at 14x but neither did the price. Finally I took a peek through my spotter. The Nikon Fieldscope 20-75x82 set at 20x put all of the fine scopes to shame but that wasn't really a fair comparison. Hopefully when I get the 52mm March back I will be able to do some low light testing.

Great info, thanks for the writeup!. What I take from this, is that the March scopes are in fact in the lead with the entire package. I don't think it will be any comparison with the 52mm tactical... I would guess that sucker is going to be the clear winner here based on overall performance and for one heck of a great weight for a Long Range rig. However, it also sounds like the Z5 and the NXS are very, very close in optical performance. Also interesting comparison to the VX III and how it does not compare.

Big problem I have with the March 52mm tactical, is the price! I am literally drooling over that scope, but I just don't think I can part with that kind of $$. I think once price comes into the equation, the 5.5-22x56 for $1980 ends up being the winner... but you pay for it with an extra 7.5 ounces of weight.

 

[The Oregonian]

I am starting to lean hard towards the March 52 tactical. The other options I am seriously considering are a Z6 swarovski and a VX6 3x18x44 or 50, but if I had to decide today it would be the March.