Up to now I've always used just plain old duplex crosshair reticles, normally Leupold. So my new NSX 5.5-22 SFP and its MOAR reticle is a new experience for me. I took it out to the range for the first time yesterday, and I'm liking it. The MOA markings are a good thickness and labeled enough to be useful without getting too busy. The "christmas tree" reticles (good term, Fritz!) I've looked at are way too busy for me. It's also by far the heaviest scope I've ever owned.

It's in a Bobro QD mount on my newly finished 20" Krieger barreled target rifle.

I think the issue is more with paying for them, other than that we can easy LIKE them.

In reality, how many of us NEED a $2000 scope to take that 75 yard, daylight deer shot?

I think they are great scopes.

I have a Nightforce NXS 12-42X56. It's a fine scope but I upgraded to a March-X 5-50X56 because I was disappointed with the clarity of the NXS, especially at that price. I also save quite a few ounces, which for F-TR, is a big thing. I can place the weight savings in the barrel where it will do me more good.

The ATACR line is fine, and I believe the glass is better than the NXS, which is not too difficult, but the ATACR is still very porky. The one model that comes somewhat close to my current March in magnification is the 7-35X56 ATACR. It is over 8 ounces heavier, a full half-pound, and that's a lot. Now, some of you might say, but NikonUser, your scope is an SFp, and the ATACR is an FFP, so there would be a difference there because FFPs weigh more than SFPs.

To which I reply, balderdash. If you want to compare FFP to FFP, the March-FX 5-40 is an FFP with greater magnification than the ATACR and it weighs 31.4 ounces compare to the porky ATACR at 39 ounces.

Extra weight has always been a feature of Nightforce, for some reason.

quote:

Originally posted by NikonUser:
Extra weight has always been a feature of Nightforce, for some reason.

Isn’t one of Nightforce’s “things” their ruggedness?

Thanks for the comments. A couple of years ago someone who retired from a top tier military special operations unit said that one earlier Nightforce line was “crap,” and I’ve since wondered what he was referring to. Your comment about the NXS made me question if that was what he was referring to.

I keep hearing about March scopes and although I’m probably not going to do any switching in the near term as we settle deep into winter here, I did look at their site, and now I’m confused about what options are available.
The site itself seems to list many fewer models that what EuroOptic shows, for example. In particular, the F Tactical 3-24×42 FML-1 (D24V42FIML) attracted my attention, but I can’t find it on the March site. When I contacted EuroOptic the response was that it could be ordered with an expected delivery time of three months.

Can you provide any insights into which March scopes are actually available at present?

quote:

Originally posted by NikonUser:
I have a Nightforce NXS 12-42X56. It's a fine scope but I upgraded to a March-X 5-50X56 because I was disappointed with the clarity of the NXS, especially at that price. I also save quite a few ounces, which for F-TR, is a big thing. I can place the weight savings in the barrel where it will do me more good.

I think your rifle had the Nightforce on it when I took a few shots. Seemed very sensitive to any movement off center & seemed to wash out, cloud up (not sure what the more technical term would be). Otherwise I remember it being clear for my amateur eyes.

It's one thing I like about my Monarch, very forgiving to movement by the squishy part of the equation.

quote:

Originally posted by P250UA5:
I think your rifle had the Nightforce on it when I took a few shots. Seemed very sensitive to any movement off center & seemed to wash out, cloud up (not sure what the more technical term would be). Otherwise I remember it being clear for my amateur eyes.

It's one thing I like about my Monarch, very forgiving to movement by the squishy part of the equation.

I believe you are correct, you were shooting my rifle when it had the NXS on it. I believe I've said it a few times already and I will repeat it here, the NXS is a great scope; there are no flies on it. In fact, I have kept my NXS.

The issue you are taking about is the exit pupil size. Once you're behind that scope at 40X, the exit pupil is 1.4mm. This means that if you are wiggling behind the rifle, you will lose the image very easily. It's just a fact of life and it's all part of optics. I don't remember the exact model of the Monarch you go, I think it was the M5 5-20X50. at 20X, the exit pupil on that puppy is going to be 2.5mm, twice the size of the one of a 40X with a 56mm objective.

Let me assure you that my March-X will have the exact same exit pupil as the NXS when they are both at 40X. They both have 56mm objectives.

When you look through the NXS at 40X, in the middle of the day, the image is quite clear. This is what I'm talking about when discussing user impressions of a scope. If you look at the NXS only, you think this is excellent. But if you look at the NXS, say at 40X on an NRA target, then you immediately look through a March-X 5-50X56 at the same target, same magnification, same setup; you will notice the image becoming crisper, with more contrast. When you get older you will rely more on good contrast as your vision ages. When the contrast is more clear, more pronounced, you see better.

Also, the March has better light transmission compared to the NXS; it's maybe an additional 6-7% more, but it's enough to actually perceive. So, a bit brighter and better contrast and much less chromatic aberration and you can see why I prefer my March over my NXS especially since I'm in my mid-60s.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by NikonUser:
Extra weight has always been a feature of Nightforce, for some reason.

Isn’t one of Nightforce’s “things” their ruggedness?

Thanks for the comments. A couple of years ago someone who retired from a top tier military special operations unit said that one earlier Nightforce line was “crap,” and I’ve since wondered what he was referring to. Your comment about the NXS made me question if that was what he was referring to.

I keep hearing about March scopes and although I’m probably not going to do any switching in the near term as we settle deep into winter here, I did look at their site, and now I’m confused about what options are available.
The site itself seems to list many fewer models that what EuroOptic shows, for example. In particular, the F Tactical 3-24×42 FML-1 (D24V42FIML) attracted my attention, but I can’t find it on the March site. When I contacted EuroOptic the response was that it could be ordered with an expected delivery time of three months.

Can you provide any insights into which March scopes are actually available at present?

There's rugged and then there's porky.

Nightforce makes very good scopes and I know a lot of people who have them and swear by them. I'm not here to change anyone's mind; I have one and I haven't sold it.

March is in a different league from Nightforce. Think of Nightforce as high end mass production riflescopes. March is almost a boutique business; their yearly production is not huge; each and every scope is handbuilt and essentially made to order. They make a certain number of the more popular ones, but if you want something specific you will wait. EuroOptic is showing all variations of all models of March. At the Marchscopes.com website, you can real about a specific line and then see the multiple reticles in which each model is available. That's why the EuroOptic site lists so many and the Marchsopes.com site appears to have so few models.

The March scopes cost more than most because of the quality of the materials and the total hand assembly process.

For instance, the riflescope tube is made from aluminum bar stock, which is then machined down to the final product. Read about it here:
https://marchscopes.com/news/3538/

The glass they use is the very best Japanese glass available and all the other parts are from Japan as well. There is no Chinese stuff in there; not sure every other scope manufacturer can make that claim.

So here's the breakdown:

The March-X line is composed of 3 scopes: 5-50X56, 8-80X56 and 10-60X56HM, all SFP. The first two have ED glass, the last one has Super-ED glass. They all have a 34mm body, with the walls being 4mm thick, compare to the usual 2mm. Very strong scopes with excellent glass.

The March line is composed of 2 scopes, a 5-32X52 and a 10-60X52, both SFP. They both have ED glass and a 30mm body.

The March Compact line is made up of 5 scopes: 1-4X24, 1-4.5X24, 1-10X24, 2.5-25X42 and a 2.5-25X52. Those are all small and light scopes, perfect for hunting and some have very long zoom ratios: 10X. They do not have ED glass and all have 30mm bodies. There will be a new one announced at SHOT; 1 1.5-15X42 Compact, also an SFP design.

The March Fixed Power line has 2 models: a 48X52 and a 40-60X52. Both have the Super-ED glass and a 30mm body. The 40-60X52 model is an EZ or Eyepiece Zoom model. The eyepiece has a 1.5X zoom built into it. Excellent scopes for Benchrest competition.

Now for the PRS shooters.

The March-F line has 4 models: a 1-8X24 Shorty, a 1-8X24, a 3-24X42 and a 3-24X52. These are all FFP. They do not have ED glass. The all have 30mm tubes and are very light and strong. The heaviest if the 4-24X52 with illumination and it's only 23.6 ounces.

Next up is the March-FX with currently only one model: a 5-40X56 FFP. It has ED glass and a 34mm tube, very strong. The heaviest model with illumination is a shade under 2 pounds at 31.4 ounces. This scope will be joined by the new 5-42X56 with Super-ED glass and Wide Angle eyepiece. That's the one hitting production that we will see at SHOT.

The final line is the GENESIS, designed from extreme long range. The current model is the 6-60X56 with Super-ED glass and 114MIL of elevation travel; something like 86 up and 24 down or some such. The main tube is adjusted, so the light path never changes; there is no inner tube It's FFP, of course and it will be joined by the new 4-40X56 GENESIS now ready for production.

I hope this clears it up for you. March is not mass production, and it's not for everyone.

Great! Thanks much for taking the time to discuss all that. It helps to explain at least in part why some of the line is more expensive than others.

quote:

Originally posted by NikonUser:

quote:

Originally posted by P250UA5:
I think your rifle had the Nightforce on it when I took a few shots. Seemed very sensitive to any movement off center & seemed to wash out, cloud up (not sure what the more technical term would be). Otherwise I remember it being clear for my amateur eyes.

It's one thing I like about my Monarch, very forgiving to movement by the squishy part of the equation.

I believe you are correct, you were shooting my rifle when it had the NXS on it. I believe I've said it a few times already and I will repeat it here, the NXS is a great scope; there are no flies on it. In fact, I have kept my NXS.

The issue you are taking about is the exit pupil size. Once you're behind that scope at 40X, the exit pupil is 1.4mm. This means that if you are wiggling behind the rifle, you will lose the image very easily. It's just a fact of life and it's all part of optics. I don't remember the exact model of the Monarch you go, I think it was the M5 5-20X50. at 20X, the exit pupil on that puppy is going to be 2.5mm, twice the size of the one of a 40X with a 56mm objective.

Let me assure you that my March-X will have the exact same exit pupil as the NXS when they are both at 40X. They both have 56mm objectives.

When you look through the NXS at 40X, in the middle of the day, the image is quite clear. This is what I'm talking about when discussing user impressions of a scope. If you look at the NXS only, you think this is excellent. But if you look at the NXS, say at 40X on an NRA target, then you immediately look through a March-X 5-50X56 at the same target, same magnification, same setup; you will notice the image becoming crisper, with more contrast. When you get older you will rely more on good contrast as your vision ages. When the contrast is more clear, more pronounced, you see better.

Also, the March has better light transmission compared to the NXS; it's maybe an additional 6-7% more, but it's enough to actually perceive. So, a bit brighter and better contrast and much less chromatic aberration and you can see why I prefer my March over my NXS especially since I'm in my mid-60s.

Thanks for the explanation, didn't the term for 'exit pupil'
Also, good memory on my M5.

Exit pupil is easily calculated by dividing the objective lens size (eg 56) by the magnification (eg 40X).

56/40=1.4mm. If I zoom down to 5X, then the exit pupil is 11+. The exit pupil is the actual size of the final image projected by the eyepiece to your eye. The human eye's iris can go up to about 7mm or so in the dark and squinch down to very small in the light of the mid day sun. Of course, as you age the pupil of the eye doesn't open nearly as much so 4mm is probably what my eyes can do now.

When you have a very large exit pupil, it makes it very easy to get behind the rifle and get the full picture. As the magnification increases, the exit pupil diminishes and eye placement becomes increasingly critical. That's the stuff some people call the eyebox.

Optics being all a game of tradeoffs, especially in riflescopes, there are some slight variations on the eyebox from scope to scope, even with the same specs. But suffice it to say, that unless you have porthole size objective lenses on your riflescope, as you get much beyond 40X, everything becomes very critical.

Of course, since the size of the image you are examining diminishes as the magnification increases, your are looking at less and less light, so as the image gets bigger, it also gets darker. If you light transmission is ordinary, it gets darker faster.

Next up as the amount of light you are examining is reduced as the magnification increases, any defects in the glass or stray light or chromatic aberration is well, magnified. This is where the actual resolution of the glass comes into play and I believe that the glass in the top end March scopes is so good, they are actually near being diffraction limited, which is absolute state of the art in the domain of riflescopes.

I have a March-X High Master 10-60X56 on order from them (yes, I crumbled,) and I'm looking forward to trying it out. These things take a bit of time as they are essentially built to order and I spec'ed this one out properly. I found out recently that they machine all their scope tubes from aluminum bar stock. I believe they are one of the very few who do that, (difference between boutique and mass production.) They are absolute works of art. And very strong.

I e never noticed any nightforce scopes to not have clear glass, that being said, I’m not a target shooter, the scope is an aiming device for steering bullets not an observation device. I have spotters and binos for just looking.

quote:

Originally posted by newmexican:
I e never noticed any nightforce scopes to not have clear glass, that being said, I’m not a target shooter, the scope is an aiming device for steering bullets not an observation device.

For its time, the NXS glass was pretty good and the NSX scopes are built like tanks. But the glass is getting long in the tooth -- it's not the clearest, it has a blue-ish cast, and colors don't pop.

The F1 3.5-15x version of the NXS was an improvement, although incremental. Clarity improved and much of the blue color went away.

The SHV F1 scopes in theory might have lower quality materials than the NSX models, but I find the clarity and color better in my SHV F1 than in any of my NXS models.

The 2.5-10x42 Compact NXS has a little better glass than the full size sfp NXS models. Again, less blue and better colors.

The NX8 has clearer glass and less blue than the sfp NXS models. I have not looked through the 2.5-20x or the 4-32x models yet.

The entire ATACR line is a huge glass quality improvement for Nightforce. Better clarity, brighter colors, sharper focus & parallax, no blue. Furthermore, the 7-35x ATACR has the best glass of the line -- I can see a little better than I can with my 5-25x ATACR.

I have 6 NF scopes. 5 NXS scopes: 3-15x50, 2 5.5-22X50, 2 8-32X56 and 1 ATACR 5-25X56. And they are my favorite scopes. I also have 2 Burris XTR II's and 6 Bushnell Elite Tacticals 3 DMR's and 3 ERS's. While I like all of then they are all in a lower tier imo than my NXS's. I can't afford to have all my rifles with NF scopes. If I could I would.

newmexican, some of us use our riflescope for more than the few seconds needed to take the shot. This is where great glass makes a difference. In the past, I have discussed how to use a riflescope for long durations without running into eye fatigue and the first factor for that is excellent glass.

fritz, The NXS model does not have ED glass, which is why the colors do not pop. I also agree that mine has a bluish tint, which is due to the lens coating formula. I've not lloked through an NX8, SHV or ATACR. I do hknow that the ATACR has ED glass, which is why you see such an improvement over the NXS line that did not have ED glass. I suspect the lens coating formula was modified after the NXS, which is why the SHV and NX8 have less of a bluish tint.

If you think that ED made a big difference, you can only dream about hat Super-ED does. I'm looking forward to receiving my new March-HM.

About twelve years back I bought my 8-32x56 NSX here in UK for around the equivalent of $2800.

It has the dot-in-circle MIL dot reticle that I find very useful in my main application, but I find that leaving on x22 means that my dots ARE one MIL, and that makes ranging at unknown distances a cinch.

I have other scopes, all older, but only my Hensoldt comes close to equaling the colour definition of the NF, and I bleeve that as a life-long user of high-grade optics, well, since 1974, that is, I can appreciate good glass when I look through it.

If I had the need for another similarly-priced scope, I'd be giving a NF model some serious consideration

A word of warning tacfoley, do not ever look through a high-grade optics with ED or (even worse) Super-ED glass; it might end up being a very expensive mistake.

This is another great thread with some great optics info. from experienced users. NikonUser, I have been looking at the March scopes and I can certainly see their merits. The thing that concerns me is that I'm considering an optic for my SCAR 20S and their 5yr warranty gives me pause.

Considering the SCAR's unique recoil principles, I was leaning toward the NF ATACR line due to their reputation and warranty, though I realize they don't cover the electronic illumination for the lifetime of the scope.

What are your thoughts of a March on a SCAR? With my eyesight, I need all the help I can get.

quote:

Originally posted by Belgian Blue:
This is another great thread with some great optics info. from experienced users. NikonUser, I have been looking at the March scopes and I can certainly see their merits. The thing that concerns me is that I'm considering an optic for my SCAR 20S and their 5yr warranty gives me pause.

Considering the SCAR's unique recoil principles, I was leaning toward the NF ATACR line due to their reputation and warranty, though I realize they don't cover the electronic illumination for the lifetime of the scope.

What are your thoughts of a March on a SCAR? With my eyesight, I need all the help I can get.

Well, BB, the 5yr warranty for the March is a Japan law thing. Also, I understand that may have changed; I'll find out at SHOT.

Now for your real question. I remember reading a thread here recently about how SCARs chew up riflescopes due to their bizarre cycle. I have zero experience with the SCAR. I'm not clear on exactly what is strange, bizarre, or unique about its cycle, so I am loath to recommend any scope for it, especially an expensive one.

I will discuss this with the March folks who are coming to SHOT next month; one of them is the CEO and chief designer so he should know. Of course, any information that I can give him about the SCAR cycle would be useful.

Finally, tell me more about your eyesight, and especially what you envisage is the usage you would make of this rifle/riflescope combo.

NikonUser many thanks for the comprehensive details on March. I'm shopping 2020 for a new scope and I'll certainly look at March. That said I own way too many SCAR's and have since one could get one as a civilian. And I have followed the internet world on SCAR's for a long time. What I can say from personal experience is that Aimpoint, Nightforce NXS and ATACR are not bothered in the least by a SCAR. Way too many rounds to have it be a concern. Since while components may differ (eg ed glass, super ed, scope diameter and thickness, etc.) the construction of scopes is not very different between brands of a given type at the high end. So I would expect any high end scope to be just fine, but thats a hypothesis on my part. The stories of SCAR killing scopes do seem credible for some models (example Eotech with parallel batteries), but I don't see much about it anymore. Certainly the description of failure has been its pretty immediate so the Belgian Blue warranty issue I don't personally see as any issue for the SCAR issue.
(tongue in cheek) If you get march to send me one I'll shoot the snot out of it...

quote:

Originally posted by hrcjon:
NikonUser many thanks for the comprehensive details on March. I'm shopping 2020 for a new scope and I'll certainly look at March. That said I own way too many SCAR's and have since one could get one as a civilian. And I have followed the internet world on SCAR's for a long time. What I can say from personal experience is that Aimpoint, Nightforce NXS and ATACR are not bothered in the least by a SCAR. Way too many rounds to have it be a concern. Since while components may differ (eg ed glass, super ed, scope diameter and thickness, etc.) the construction of scopes is not very different between brands of a given type at the high end. So I would expect any high end scope to be just fine, but thats a hypothesis on my part. The stories of SCAR killing scopes do seem credible for some models (example Eotech with parallel batteries), but I don't see much about it anymore. Certainly the description of failure has been its pretty immediate so the Belgian Blue warranty issue I don't personally see as any issue for the SCAR issue.
(tongue in cheek) If you get march to send me one I'll shoot the snot out of it...

Hrcjon, thanks for the excellent response. It was indeed my initial intention to say that March scopes would have zero problems with the SCAR. However, as you have probably noticed so far, I try not to make statements about things I do not know well, either through personal experience of the result of knowledge gained from sources I trust. My current March scope has been on my match rifle for the last 5 years and has steered in the neighborhood of 20,000 heavy match loads in over 100 matches around the continent. It's actually beefier than my NXS, which seems frail compared to it. Plus the tubes on all March scopes are machined from aluminum bar stock, not press molded. All that to say, I know you are right, but I want to be sure. I'll be at SHOT in a month, I'll know for sure (and more) then.

Thanks again.