March scopes for EDgun ????
Hi all,
I want new scopes, and I’m looking at the March range……
Especially the 3-24×42 which seems light weight but yet with some fantastic reviews…..
Anybody tried those ????
Cheers
Trygve 😀
All Replies
Except that the 35mm rings are a bit pricey.
I’d like to get a Sightron 10-50x with the 1/4″ moa clicks for field target, it’s the “poor man’s” March. 😆 For $1300. 😯
I like the idea of the bigger tube diameter, more light is always better for clarity.
If you’re already spending $2k+ on a scope it’s rather silly to complain about having to spend $125-150 for good 34mm rings. 😛
The March scopes from my experience are pretty darn good. They’re startlingly small & light for their power range. The turrets are great in terms of feel and they’re very low profile and difficult to snag. Glass is very good in quality/clarity but lacks some of the resolving power and contrast of the high end European competitors (Hensoldt, S&B, Kahles, Premier, etc.) The negatives from the ones I used were the picky eyebox (a result of the objective diameter vs magnification ratios, but that’s a tradeoff March picked to keep the size & weight down) and I wish they offered more and better reticles.
The 3-24 is a great scope IMO for hunting rifles or other uses where compactness & light weight are primary concerns. Are there better options in the same magnification class when it comes to glass quality & reticle choice? Yes, but they all come with a size & weight penalty compared to the March.
Also, a larger scope tube isn’t for more light gathering– while a larger tube can give them a few more options for lens placement the larger tube is to allow more erector movement for greater adjustment range. The larger tube also allows more room for larger zoom ratio mechanisms.
Light gathering ability has more to do with the size of the objective lens, the overall lens system, and the lens coatings than it does with the tube diameter.
If you want light gathering try sitting behind a 6-24 x 72mm Hensoldt. Sunglasses recommended. 😯
Try a Trijicon 5-20×50
Have yet to hear anything bad about March scopes…
Except that the 35mm rings are a bit pricey.
I’d like to get a Sightron 10-50x with the 1/4″ moa clicks for field target, it’s the “poor man’s” March. 😆 For $1300. 😯
I like the idea of the bigger tube diameter, more light is always better for clarity.
I was thinking the exact same thing but didn’t want to type all that up. 😀
I’ve spent some time behind a few March scopes that belong to a friend (the 3-24, 5-40, and 8-80.)
Very clear glass. Not quite as much contrast & resolution as some of the European competitors (Hensoldt, S&B, Premier, Kahles) but still very good. Excellent turrets. Turrets repeat & track very well. As you mentioned, the first thing about March scopes that stands out is that they’re quite compact and light given the power range.
To me their reticles leave a little to be desired compared to others in their price range; I find their competitors in the same price range have better reticle choices available. (disclaimer: I’m an FFP mil/mil guy as it’s great for practical shooting as you can make very rapid observations & corrections.) For the 3-24 my friend had the FML-1 reticle which was pretty good. One thing to keep in mind is depending on what size objects you’re shooting at the reticles are somewhat thick. Because the March scopes have a very large zoom ratio the FFP reticles are somewhat thick so they’re still visible on lower magnification. I believe the FML-1 is 0.08 mils thick (0.29 inches at 100Y.)
Also, the March scopes seem to have a relatively tight & picky eyebox because their magnification to objective size ratios leaves a somewhat small exit pupil– especially the higher magnification models. However the 3-24 is one of their more forgiving models when it comes to eye relief as it’s lower in magnification and thus has a larger exit pupil on maximum magnification compared to many of their other models like the 5-40 or 8-80. The 3-24 was easy to get behind and only started getting a little picky about head placement above 18X while the 5-40 was picky above about 24X unless your cheekweld was extremely repeatable. The 8-80 I got to use is a fantastic benchrest scope but the eyebox is *very* tight! Also, the FOV of their scopes can be a bit narrow compared to others but again, it’s a compromise to keep the overall size & weight down.
I believe all of the March scopes offer 10M parallax capability which is a big benefit for an air rifle.
I’ve considered a March 3-24 for my R3 .25 long but I’m not particularly fond of any of March’s reticles and the Bushnell 3-12 x 44 FFP G2DMR I have on top of it right now does a very good job and has a great reticle for a reasonable price. It’s one of the few mil/mil/FFP scopes with 10Y parallax capability for a decent price. Should March offer a reticle similar to the S&B H2CMR or the Bushnell G2DMR I may very well put one on my R3.
If you all want to shake your heads I can stick one of my S&B PMII H2CMR DT 5-25’s sitting in a Spuhr mount on top of my R3 .25 long and get a picture. I did try it for a day… bulky, heavy, and total overkill! 😀
No, i never tried any march scope but they all seem to agree… its a fantastic scope.
I like good optics but would not spend more then lets say a $1,000 on a scope for an air rifle 🙂
I just bought a new scope actually.. a Vortex PST 4-16×50 FFP which is just awesome. I have it mounted to my .25 matador and I cant wait for spring to come so I can go out and hunt with my combo.
ohh… we were talking about march scopes… if you can – why not!
Q
Yeah we all buy $2000 scopes for our Edguns and this one is as good as any other $2000 scope. I don’t think it’s necessary but then again neither is an Edgun so go for it. Let us all know how fantastic it is because the reviews are awesome.
I’ll stick to my Bushnells and Trijicons. Great scopes for the money and they work just fine.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
It was supposed to be somewhat of a joke. But hell for that much money the rings should be included. 😉
“light gathering” is correct, transmission through the scope is by the overall tube diameter. You could have a 100mm objective on a 10mm tube and it wouldn’t be making use of the large objective. I would bet a smaller tube diameter would make the eye box even more restricted.
They wouldn’t bump up the tube diameter if it didn’t make a real difference. 😉
edit: Did some “light” reading… 😆 and it is claimed it doesn’t gather or transmit more light but it does allow for a larger exit pupil size, which means you are looking at a larger reproduction of the image that is being gathered through the objective lens. While it may not be “brighter” i’d argue that because of the larger image at your eye you have more resolution and therefore a benefit over the smaller tube diameters.
Interesting stuff. Thanks for bringing it up Kiba!