Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Long Range Scopes and Other Optics
March/ZCO/ etc…
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="lancetkenyon" data-source="post: 2551824" data-attributes="member: 68875"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>Here is my take on them: </p><p> </p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>The WA is very nice. I really like it. </p><p> </p><p>Nice and short overall length at 12.5".</p><p></p><p>Parallax is still a bit touchy, but better than the old March F 3-24×52. </p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="lancetkenyon, post: 2551824, member: 68875"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Long Range Scopes and Other Optics
March/ZCO/ etc…
Top