I had a 2.5-25x42 March for short period of time. At high magnification eye box, parallax and image quality suffer. If march would forget the 10x magnification and produce something like 4-20x50ffp at about 24oz I would buy 2.
March 2.5-25x52 vs….
- Thread starter shooters
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
I would definitely go with the 52mm objective over the 42mm. I had the 42mm for a while, eyebox seemed very tight, and the image became darker at high magnification. My eye likes the NX8 4-32X50mm better, but that isn't apples to apples with different objective sizes.
Aussie Hunter Steve
Well-Known Member
I have a March, 52mm objective, and really like it. Most of my scopes are S&B but I wanted a lighter weight scope that is still optically excellent. I have used it for shooting pigs in the moonlight and it gathers enough light. After what I'd read about a critical eye box, I was pleasantly surprised to find it quite easy to get a good sight picture. I think you'll find it optically superior to the other scopes you mention.
pony doctor
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2014
- Messages
- 118
I think the March scopes are one of the best! I have no issues whatsoever with mine!
shooters
Well-Known Member
Is there a significant difference between the March and the S&B in low light, resolution, and tc?
shooters
Well-Known Member
Mari said they don't loan to individuals. Said only to dealers.
Mari said they don't loan to individuals. Said only to dealers.
Sorry.. now I remember I had to sign the agreement for my buddy. Basically taking ownership of the liability
Aussie Hunter Steve
Well-Known Member
In my experience, the March is the closest thing to the high end S&B's. Optically I give S&B the edge but prefer the March to Swarovski and Zeiss, and much prefer them over Nightforce.
Danehunter
Well-Known Member
I used to "lust after" March scopes until I heard they went out of business.
Are they still making scopes?
Are they still making scopes?
Very much in business
I have a March 2.5-25x52 D25V52TM with the MTR-3 Reticle. It saved me exactly 10oz. over my previous scope on an otherwise heavy hunting rifle so that was a huge help.
The glass is very clear, I have no issues with the eye box (just set it up properly for me), and the parallax adjustment is just different. Much faster and requires a little more precise adjustment, but once set all parallax is out.
I agree with the above statement from @eoperator that they should forget the 10X zoom and would be much better served. on paper it sounds amazing! On 2.5x it seems to be a fish eye view and half of the bottom of scope view has the barrel and suppressor in it, not very useable. I don't lose the barrel and suppressor in sight picture until about 5X. On the high end it does get kind of dark at about 22-25X. It would be a much better scope at probably 4-22X. I have used it at around 20-22X and called it good for best clarity and light gathering. I don't have a lot of time behind yet but these were my observations so far.
The glass is very clear, I have no issues with the eye box (just set it up properly for me), and the parallax adjustment is just different. Much faster and requires a little more precise adjustment, but once set all parallax is out.
I agree with the above statement from @eoperator that they should forget the 10X zoom and would be much better served. on paper it sounds amazing! On 2.5x it seems to be a fish eye view and half of the bottom of scope view has the barrel and suppressor in it, not very useable. I don't lose the barrel and suppressor in sight picture until about 5X. On the high end it does get kind of dark at about 22-25X. It would be a much better scope at probably 4-22X. I have used it at around 20-22X and called it good for best clarity and light gathering. I don't have a lot of time behind yet but these were my observations so far.
Last edited:
Rich Coyle
Well-Known Member
I agree except for the Nightforce. I sold the Nightforce long before I had the others.
CLP
Well-Known Member
I have fairly extensive real world experience with both the 3-24x42 and 52 FFP versions. I originally had the 42mm on my sheep rifle to shave weight and it was a fantastic little scope. I flew all over with it and it never moved. Being in the mountains and shooting from a bunch of different awkward angles I got a little frustrated with the tight eyebox so I switched to a K318i. Wonderful scope as well but I think the optical performance (to my eyes) isn't that much different. I got tied of carrying around the Kahles and went back to March this year but with the 52mm version. It's much improved in the eyebox department and I enjoyed hunting with it this fall. I took it to Russia in September and October and Turkey last month and it's never lost zero with all the flying and being beat around in the mountains. I'd buy another one in a second over the other premium brands if weight is a concern.
