• If you are being asked to change your password, and unsure how to do it, follow these instructions. Click here

March 2.5-25x52 vs….

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.
 
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.
 
I'm really wanting to purchase a March. I've no experience or have even held one. What I currently have are….

Kahles 318i, 525i, a few Swaro X5i's, a few ATACR's, NX8, Zeiss V6's and a handful of Mark5HD's.

The March is appealing due to its reliability, tracking, and mostly the size and weight. But, I've heard they suffer from poor eyebox, terribly touchy parallax and darkening over 20 power. So for those who own one, or have compared to the above scopes that I own, any infor or feedback would be great. I'm tired of slapping 30-38oz optics on full carbon builds, but don't want to suffer optically.
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.
 
I'm really wanting to purchase a March. I've no experience or have even held one. What I currently have are….

Kahles 318i, 525i, a few Swaro X5i's, a few ATACR's, NX8, Zeiss V6's and a handful of Mark5HD's.

The March is appealing due to its reliability, tracking, and mostly the size and weight. But, I've heard they suffer from poor eyebox, terribly touchy parallax and darkening over 20 power. So for those who own one, or have compared to the above scopes that I own, any infor or feedback would be great. I'm tired of slapping 30-38oz optics on full carbon builds, but don't want to suffer optically.
I think the March scopes are one of the best! I have no issues whatsoever with mine!
 
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.

Is there a significant difference between the March and the S&B in low light, resolution, and tc?
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
Thank you! Honestly, I was just about to purchase another Kahles 318i. Those were the two scopes that I mainly wanted to compare. I have a 318 and a 525 now. Both fantastic. Just really needed someone that's owned both to compare. The weight savings is substantial!
Thanks.
 
Top