I actually work for a living and even though I am past retirement age, I seem to be working longer and harder now than ever before. Thankfully, it's not shoveling snow, manure, or coal; I shovel data.

I saw your non-disappeared post about the March-FX 5-40X56 Gen II and the link to some YouTube videos. I wanted to answer after doing some research because you asked a great question.

I watched the video to which you linked and then went on to watch all his videos on March riflescopes. He does a very good job, but he does make some mistakes, and he has some gaps in his knowledge. Now I realize he does not pass himself off as an expert in optics, he just says he knows the features that are important to him, and he tests for those.

One of the mistakes he makes in this video is when he talks about the diameter of the main tube. He says the reason some manufacturers go to a 34mm tube is to provide a wider range of adjustments and he says that's what March did. In fact, that's not the case; March went to a 34mm main tube because they made the wall of the tube thicker at 4mm, instead of 2mm. Much later in the video he mentions the thickness of the wall at 4mm, but he doesn't make the connection between that, the 34mm tube, and the adjustment range.

The next mistake that he makes is when he says he placed the target at 100 yards, and then went on to test the adjustments on the knobs. He actually should have placed the target at 100 METERS (109.36 yards). This mistake means that the reticle will increasingly be positioned below the line, which is exactly what happens in the video.

He also mentions that the other March scope he tested (at that time) was dead nuts on. That scope is the March 2.5-25X42with the MTR-4 reticle. That is an MOA-based reticle and since he places his target at 100 yards, it was dead nuts on. In his other videos, he tested the March-X 10-60X56 HM, with a 3/32-inch dot reticle. He discovered that the adjustments were also perfect. That is an MOA reticle also, so it works well at 100 yards.

I will be testing the March-FX 5-40X56 Gen II sometime next month and I invite you, sigfreund to communicate with me at my public email address in my profile. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have. I receive quite a bit of email from folks here and I strive to answer all of them and have struck up some virtual friendships with some of the folks who have reached out. This is a great community with great people.

All of this is so far over my head that I couldn't shoot it with a 12 gauge, but I will say that this is a perfect example as to why this forum is great.

Thanks for jumping in, NikonUser. I deleted that thread because I thought I’d found the answers to my questions, not because you didn’t respond immediately. I definitely appreciate your comments, though, and especially about his mistake in using the wrong distance for his tracking test. That’s obvious (now that it’s been pointed out ), and I’m surprised he didn’t realize it. I made a metric tracking chart myself, and if I ever get around to using it with my various scopes, I’ll be sure to remember: 100 meters, not 100 yards.

I also decided to delete the thread because I settled on a different scope: The 4.5-28×52mm with PDK reticle. I believe that will be better for my purposes. But as always, thanks for your very knowledgeable comments.

After I posted my answer above, I got a note back from Deon about the turrets and the adjustments. The chief engineer, (and president of Deon) told me that "our tracking is close to perfect." (Translated from the Japanese.)

He is the one who designed all the hardware of the March riflescopes; everything but the glass.

I think you will like the March-FX 4.5-28X52, its wide angle eyepiece provides for a nice big field of view, all in a smallish, light package.

On mine, I installed the big elevation knob overlay with the big-ash numbers and the side-focus middle wheel for easy and granular focusing. I also use the MD disk to provide for greater DOF so as to not need to focus so much when I did my PRS stunt last month. All these items are included in the box, with a few other goodies. I look forward to hearing about your impressions with the riflescope.

And the reticle is awesome.

quote:

Originally posted by Loswsmith:
All of this is so far over my head that I couldn't shoot it with a 12 gauge, but I will say that this is a perfect example as to why this forum is great.

Loswsmith, thank you for that note. I agree with you that this forum is a great place to be and in which to participate.

Thanks again, and I’ll be sure to let you know how it works on my Red Ryder. Now to find a mount.

And speaking of mistakes, when I first decided to look at the 4.5-28×, I went to the EuroOptic site. When I saw tube size “32mm,” I thought, “Where in the world will I find rings that size?” I went to the DEON site to make sure that it was really 34mm.

quote:

Originally posted by Loswsmith:
All of this is so far over my head that I couldn't shoot it with a 12 gauge, but I will say that this is a perfect example as to why this forum is great.

Exactly my sentiments! I don't post often but am a voracious Sig Forum reader, and this short thread is indeed a shining exmple of both the brotherhood here, and the deep knowledge. Thank you all.

sigfreund, tell me more about that Red Ryder of yours. Depending on purpose, you may want to start with a 20MOA cant. When I put my 4.5-28X52 HM on my AR-10, I used Burris XTR signature rings and started with a 15ish cant. I like my scope high and my AR-10 has a PRS stock with adjustable cheekpiece, so I went for the 1.5inch high rings.

I love how the Burris inserts do not mar the finish of the scope. And the March is a beautiful work of art with a superb finish. Extremely durable.

Brother, thank you for the nice comment.

I wasn’t going to discuss the rifle (22 LR, actually) the scope is intended for lest I be mocked, but it has a +20 MOA base and the Spuhr mount I intend to use is another 6 mils (20+ MOA), so I’m hoping the 40+ won’t be too much. I might need to not use one or the other, but I’ll see. I know that this scope with its intended purpose and “saving money” are a somewhat, “Huh: What? ” situation, but that’s what I hope to do at least in the short term.

Sigfreund, I think you are going to like the scope. I know I have so far enjoyed mine. The wide angle is something else and really has to be experienced. Can't speak to the reticle as I chose another one. . I too look forward to your experiences.

sigfreund Thank you for bringing up the video in your opening thread. I watched it on Tuesday evening and contacted Deon and told them what I had found. Yesterday, I started this thread to replace the missing one and pointed out the mix-up between yards and meters at least in this forum. At the same time, the Australian March dealer commented on the video about the mix-up between yards and meters and Michael Mahoney, the owner of the video responded and immediately posted an addendum to the video. You can now see it at the top of the comments when you pull up the video.

So again, thanks for bringing the video to my attention and I have a lot of respect for Michael Mahoney correcting the posting so quickly.

https://www.pyramydair.com/pro...o-scope-mount?a=7488



Air Venturi Lasso Scope Mount

Aluminum 3/8" dovetail mount
Fits Red Ryder, Lil Duke, and Lil Sure Shot rifles
Truly brilliant patented mount
Scope rings not included


Want my Burris XTR Signature Rings?

quote:

Originally posted by RichardC:
Air Venturi Lasso Scope Mount

Boy, now I am set!
Thank you, Al Gore, for inventing the Internet.

And thanks for the offer of the rings, but even though it is a little large for that rail, I believe I can fill in the necessary gaps with my Spuhr mount to make it work. Anything’s possible with duct tape, right?

NikonUser, good on you for following up re the video. It’s odd how a mistake like that can be overlooked for so long by so many people who viewed the video (not excepting me).

sigfreund, it's all your fault. If you had not had the integrity to come here and pose the question, this might have gone on for some time.

I caught the mistake when I saw the video because I have spent time understanding the dimensions built into the reticle and the relationship to the target. It was interesting working on the reticle for the 4.5-28X52, and now I am working on another reticle for another riflescope, this one MOA-based and a very different design from the prior one.

What I find amazing is the way the video simply dismisses the deviation of the reticle adjustment simply as one of those things that nobody gets right. He even stated that only two scopes that he had tested up to that point, had perfect tracking; a March and a SWFA. Those are both MOA scopes. When I watched the review of the March-X 10-60X56 HM, it also had perfect tracking, and it is an MOA scope

In one of the videos he makes a big deal about being MOA and MIL agnostic. He thinks they are the same and he treats them the same, and that's why it went off the rails.

I really like his videos even though I am not an air-gunner. He does a very good job as a fairly sophisticated riflescope amateur (that describes me also, BTW, I'm not using that as a pejorative.)

I'm disappointed that he just took his observations as gospel and did not try to dig further. His statements that virtually all scopes are off regardless of price, is just, well, shocking.

I have met Mr. Fumio many times and have had interesting technical discussions with him through an interpreter and doodles on napkins and I can just imagine his reaction if his creations (he designs all the hardware for the March scopes) were doing what the video shows them doing.

quote:

Originally posted by NikonUser:
And the reticle is awesome.

It was only when I went back to earlier threads that I realized that the reticles you and offgrid contributed to designing included the PDK, which was identified as “PRS-DK” in that post. I looked and looked and debated the various reticles available by different manufacturers, and the PDK was part of the reason I settled on the March 4.5-28.

I also realized that low8option had posted a nice review of his scope and although I’d read and commented about it at the time, so many things blend together that I completely forgot about it. It’s somewhat ironic that I searched diligently for reviews of the 4.5-28 March before my purchase and overlooked two of the best right here. Fortunately neither of you said anything that made me regret my choice.

Assuming I’m not disappointed after I have a chance to try the scope in action (due to be delivered tomorrow), I’ll offer up some thoughts about my decisions to purchase this and other higher tier riflescopes.

For anyone interested, the PDK reticle:

The reticle was indeed referred to as the PRS-DK reticle, with its sister reticle, the LD-DK reticle. The names were changed for commercial purposes to fit in the March nomenclature to FML-PDK and FML-LDK respectively.

That said, I will let you in on a secret and expect you to keep quiet about it. There is an Easter egg in these reticles and if you look closely through the scope, at minimum magnification, you may find it.

I believe low8option has the FML-LDK reticle in his March-FX, for which he did his excellent review.

One thing that does not come across really well in black & white, is how the reticle appears in real life. When I look at the representation you posted, it just looks so busy and one can think, "gosh, how do I see through all that clutter." The reality is that the actual sight picture is just superb and the reticle is really unobtrusive and does not obscure anything. I believe what you posted is the apparent representation at 20X.

You can see the details of the PDK and LDK here.
https://marchscopes.com/wp-con.../4.5-28-PDKLDK-1.png



Looking forward to your initial impressions and a subsequent review.

quote:

Originally posted by NikonUser:
how the reticle appears in real life.

Thanks for making that point that deserves emphasizing for anyone pondering the choice of a reticle other than the most simple design.

My own experiences with illustrations versus actual appearance of reticles was part of the reason I chose the PDK. I have always found that illustrations consisting of black (and sometimes red) lines on a white background tend to give false impressions of how the reticle will actually appear in use. An illustration of a reticle that gives the impression that it will hide half the view through a scope may be totally misleading.

When making my choices I look at a reticle’s clearly visible features, such as subtension intervals, e.g., 0.2 or 0.5 mil; how far do the detailed markings extend on the crosshairs; how they’re marked on the crosshairs, i.e., do they extend through the line or are they perched only on one side and alternate, à la Nightforce; how they’re numbered (if at all); do they have the “tree” below the horizontal crosshair; etc.

I believe the fact that illustrations often give a misconception of how a reticle will look in actual use through the scope is unfortunate for prospective purchasers making a choice, especially if they have no prior experience with a similar design. The admonition to “look before you buy” is excellent advice, but simply unrealistic for most of us.

I don’t know if there’s a solution to the problem. Perhaps if manufacturers posted actual photos of the reticles in use in addition to the line drawings that would help, but maybe they would be misleading too. I just saw a review of a Swarovski spotting scope that features a digital reticle that can be turned on or off. The reviewer kept saying that the pictures of the reticle through the scope did not do it justice, but they made it look terrible; the reticle in a $19.95 scope I bought to mount on a dummy model 700 sniper rifle looks clearer.

Many manufacturers could also do better with the illustrations; as a minimum illustrate the reticle appearance at several different magnifications, but at least at minimum and maximum magnification.

Again, thanks for all your observations.

Added:

quote:

Originally posted by NikonUser:
He says the reason some manufacturers go to a 34mm tube is to provide a wider range of adjustments ....

Which, as most of us who follow the discussions here know, is usually true of larger maintubes. In another review of the 5-40× March, however, the narrator (an Australian?) whom I believe was some sort of retail seller, repeated the common misconception that larger tubes provided brighter images because they allowed more light through. He compounded things by stating that the size of the objective lens had nothing to do with it (paraphrasing slightly): “A one meter lens wouldn’t make any difference.” I thought that was very odd for someone who would be making such a review.

I searched a little bit for that review and did not find it right away. If you have a link, please share and then I might be able to do something about it.

That is, of course, wrong. Tube size is irrelevant provided the erector tube in the scope is the standard size, something near 19mm. If, and that's a big if, the erector tube is bigger, then you will get more light through.

The size of the objective makes all the difference in the world in terms of incoming light. Even if the erector tube is the same size it's looking at an image that has more light and resolution for that 19mm image.

ETA: Also, the larger the objective lens, the smaller the depth of field. March includes an MD disk with many scopes (including the 4.5-28X52), that effectively reduced the size of the objective lens and thus increases the DOF. It's great to use on bright days.

I tried to find the video I referenced without luck. I will try again, but I seem to think it was something posted on a site other than YouTube.

I received the scope today and will be curious to try the MD adapter. Haven't had a chance to do much with it other than get it mounted, but I already really like the reticle.

Well, I finally found the review I mentioned above with the statement about how the maintube size affects the amount of light passing through is a Facebook video. That discussion starts about 15:10.

https://sv-se.facebook.com/503...eos/797854110369078/