Low light performance of March scopes

[Rsl]

Dear all:

I have never had the chance to use a March scope but I am seriously considering purchasing one for my new rifle, for stalking purposes. They have a wide range of magnifications and seem to be very compact and lightweight optics. Very frequently, I hunt at dawn or dusk so I would like to know, from field experiences, the low light performance of March scopes. How do they compare to other brands of renown? My main choices would be 2.5-25x42, 2.5-25x52, 3-24x42, 3-24x52 or even 1.5-15x42. I assume that the 52 mm objective might be potentially better for shooting in low light conditions but I could be wrong.

I have used and still use a Meopta ZD 4-16x44 and to my eyes, its dusk performance is outstanding. Better than the IOR Recon 4-28x50, and honestly, I cannot separate my Meopta from my Zeiss Victory HT.

Many thanks in advance.

 

[Klenchblaize]

It’s a good question but the fact you have to ask it may inform the answer.

Unless there’s a specific feature in a March scope that is not available from S&B, Zeiss, Leica or Swarovski I’d stick with one of the aforementioned’s low light-friendly hunting models.

K

 

[nun_hunter]

March have some amazing glass and are often the choice of scope by serious long range shooters. From what I've read their glass coatings are optimised for clarity during daytime but not saying theyre bad at low light at all.

Personally I'd say the low weight, more versatile mag range and build quality will more than make up for the fact they "might not" give you those extra 5 minutes of shooting time.

Even cheap Vortex Diamondback will allow me to shoot past what I can comfortably see with the Mk1 eyeball

 

[scotch_egg]

I had a 2.5-24X52 it was excellent. Not really sure why I sold it on now to be honest. Low light was up there with my Schmidt’s. In fact is was the size and it didn’t suit the rifle it was on top of.

The 2.5-24X42 has a very tight eye box and really doesn’t have the light gathering of its big brother.

 

[lambic]

Went from Swaro Habicht to 2 x Swaro Z6 and then 3 X March FFP

2 X March 52mm FFP and 1 X March 42mm FFP. All excellent

Just had my eyes checked for biannual medical and the nurse said they were the only bit that worked perfectly.

No plans to change scopes again, ever ...

 

[NullMac]

I have an March 52mm FFP. It replaced my Kahles 624i which IMO is one of the most underrated scopes out there. The glass is on a par (once you get to that level I think it is pushing it to pick a winner). I really like the March as it is simple, compact (typical Japanese) and light. Eye 'box' and focus are a bit more finicky.

I have never tried the last light challenge side by side so who knows

 

[caorach]

It is a little old now but one of the very few well conducted reviews of scopes included a March scope, unfortunately they are all "tactical" models so it is not super valuable for the deer stalker but it might at least help inform your thinking, these are the results but you have to read the actual detail of the test and of each scope as, with it being a tactical review, glass quality was only a small part of the final score:

Tactical Scopes: Field Test Results Summary & Overall Scores

This is the executive summary and overall scores from an epic scope field test focused on long-range...

precisionrifleblog.com

 

[Cloudhopper]

I've had a 3-24x42 for 5 years. I also have a 2.5-10x50 Zeiss. I was interested to how they stacked up against each other at last light and viewed a house at about 140m as dusk fell. I set them both at the same typical hunting magnification of about 6x. Looking at features like tiles and bricks, I couldn't see any difference between the two scopes, not to my eyes anyway. The crosshair reticle on the Zeiss is fairly heavy and easy to make out in poor light but the FML1 reticle on the March is illuminated with adjustment down to a dull red which makes it easy to see but not so much that it dazzles. The March is lightweight and well designed. The comment above about the eye box only really applies when the magnification is turned up. People say try before you buy which is sensible, I didn't but I wasn't disappointed.
CH

 

[norcan]

@Cloudhopper
Nice. Which model of Zeiss was that?

 

[Cottis]

I would be very careful using that field test link above as a source of conclusive info. The March comes off badly in that due to a claimed mechanical issue which if it were scored as the others, would have it punching well above its weight and bothering the top spots. All of this as well considering it was easily the smallest objective lensed optic in the test.

March are used in a variety of high level shooting events. If those units have slightly off adjustments, then they must repeat and be set up to the competitors liking to be as competitive as they are. Maybe the test was duff or he randomly had a duff unit. Don't know but outside of that conclusion, it would appear it fared very well considering the units it was up against in a playing field that clearly does not seem level.

I have a March amongst the scopes I use. It is not on my main deer rifle as I prefer something more simple for that type of hunting but I have my compact on a walk about rifle that is used for basically everything from medium range corvids, to squirrels to muntjac to foxes with NV add ons. The advantage of the compact range is the versatility. Relatively speaking you get low weight, great dimensions, top quality optics, large choice of reticles, very good easy to access illumination modules and brilliant zoom range. It also works as well with NV add ons as any other scope I have tried. Mine dials great both in anger in the field and on paper.

To the OP though, I am not sure you will see much benefit of changing though if you already have a smallish Meopta and a Zeiss HT. You are not wanting for very really good optics and unless you want a crossover scope for either target work or some other format where the March would be useful, I don't see the benefit for you.

They are really good scopes though and I am surprised you don't see more of the compact range on stalking rifles by people who want a rifle for more multi use work. In a perfect world PMII's would be lighter and I would then use them as my favourite but i dislike the illumination knob on them and the weight and size is just not for me on the rifles I use. Apart from that, I really like S&B. Swaro I am not overly keen on as I know too many people who have had issues and had to return. I do like Leica glass but not keen on the other features. March ticked the most boxes for me but is not perfect. At higher mags, the eyebox is tighter than other scopes I have but it is no issue if mounted properly on a correctly fitting rifle. The focus can be a touch fussy as well on certain parts of the range but again, I don't find it an issue. Everything else is perfect. Optically in terms of edge to edge, colouration, depth of view and overall image it is very real and clear. It isn't that sort of soft image like Leica or Swaro. It is very real and bright to my eyes. A bit more like the odd Zeiss glass I have looked through but without the eye popping brightness you seem to get with Zeiss.

I have not tried them side by side in failing light but I suspect my 56mm lensed Delta Titanium HD would have the slight edge at last light on the 42mm March if both on the same mag setting. That Delta is insanely good for the price and nice and simple for a deer rifle. I can never see me changing that either. It does not have the overall optical image quality of the March though.

If the OP wants absolute last light ability, then surely a 56mm objective from Zeiss HT range or Schmidt Polar or something like that would be the target.

 

[norcan]

I would be very careful using that field test link above as a source of conclusive info. The March comes off badly in that due to a claimed mechanical issue which if it were scored as the others, would have it punching well above its weight and bothering the top spots. All of this as well considering it was easily the smallest objective lensed optic in the test.

Indeed, the test is from over eight years ago and what they incorrectly call a "mechanical error" is simply the use of a different unit standard.

Edit: It's also odd that they either didn't notice the significant tunnelling that's a well-known issue in the S&B 5-25X, or didn't consider it be a flaw.

 

[scotch_egg]

They are focus fussy. I’ve just remembered. The parallax adjustment is very fine and needs constant adjustment.

 

[Cloudhopper]

@Cloudhopper
Nice. Which model of Zeiss was that?

Zeiss Classic Diavari. It was new in 2008 but an older design. It has the T* coated lenses.
CH

 

[Rsl]

I would be very careful using that field test link above as a source of conclusive info. The March comes off badly in that due to a claimed mechanical issue which if it were scored as the others, would have it punching well above its weight and bothering the top spots. All of this as well considering it was easily the smallest objective lensed optic in the test.

March are used in a variety of high level shooting events. If those units have slightly off adjustments, then they must repeat and be set up to the competitors liking to be as competitive as they are. Maybe the test was duff or he randomly had a duff unit. Don't know but outside of that conclusion, it would appear it fared very well considering the units it was up against in a playing field that clearly does not seem level.

I have a March amongst the scopes I use. It is not on my main deer rifle as I prefer something more simple for that type of hunting but I have my compact on a walk about rifle that is used for basically everything from medium range corvids, to squirrels to muntjac to foxes with NV add ons. The advantage of the compact range is the versatility. Relatively speaking you get low weight, great dimensions, top quality optics, large choice of reticles, very good easy to access illumination modules and brilliant zoom range. It also works as well with NV add ons as any other scope I have tried. Mine dials great both in anger in the field and on paper.

To the OP though, I am not sure you will see much benefit of changing though if you already have a smallish Meopta and a Zeiss HT. You are not wanting for very really good optics and unless you want a crossover scope for either target work or some other format where the March would be useful, I don't see the benefit for you.

They are really good scopes though and I am surprised you don't see more of the compact range on stalking rifles by people who want a rifle for more multi use work. In a perfect world PMII's would be lighter and I would then use them as my favourite but i dislike the illumination knob on them and the weight and size is just not for me on the rifles I use. Apart from that, I really like S&B. Swaro I am not overly keen on as I know too many people who have had issues and had to return. I do like Leica glass but not keen on the other features. March ticked the most boxes for me but is not perfect. At higher mags, the eyebox is tighter than other scopes I have but it is no issue if mounted properly on a correctly fitting rifle. The focus can be a touch fussy as well on certain parts of the range but again, I don't find it an issue. Everything else is perfect. Optically in terms of edge to edge, colouration, depth of view and overall image it is very real and clear. It isn't that sort of soft image like Leica or Swaro. It is very real and bright to my eyes. A bit more like the odd Zeiss glass I have looked through but without the eye popping brightness you seem to get with Zeiss.

I have not tried them side by side in failing light but I suspect my 56mm lensed Delta Titanium HD would have the slight edge at last light on the 42mm March if both on the same mag setting. That Delta is insanely good for the price and nice and simple for a deer rifle. I can never see me changing that either. It does not have the overall optical image quality of the March though.

If the OP wants absolute last light ability, then surely a 56mm objective from Zeiss HT range or Schmidt Polar or something like that would be the target.

I couldn't agree more regarding Delta scopes. In my mountain rifle, mainly used for chamois stalking, I have a Delta Titanium HD 4-24x50 (the one with low profile, capped turrets). Absolutely cracking scope for the price. And the low light performance is also excellent.
I am looking for an all-round pure hunting scope for a spare rifle, not necessarily specialised in low light but very capable of performing well since I encounter those dusk conditions very often. From what I have researched, March scopes appear to be optically brilliant but I was certainly surprised to find scarce or limited information about them, hunting wise. Taking into account their specifications and the multiple choices you have regarding turrets (tactical or capped, in MOA or Mil) or reticles, these optics should easily fulfill the hunting niche and I am certainly attracted to them.

 

[kripton]

Wanting a good quality lightweight scope and hearing how light they are I have compared the weight of the March SFP 1.5-15x42 version with my illuminated Zeiss Conquest DL 3-12x50. - surprisingly, the Zeiss is lighter at 590 gm and the March (according to the published spec) weighs 624gm. - What am I missing?
I do have a number of other superb scopes by various top end makers and was only considering the March in view of its purported light weight.

 

[norcan]

@kripton
I think what’s generally meant is “light compared to a big honking tactical scope”, not light by hunting-scope standards.

Zeiss’s 56 mm HT is also under 600 g, and Leupold makes some truly lightweight scopes such as a 2-7x33 at 310 g, though its low-light performance isn’t as good as the HT’s.

 

[nun_hunter]

Wanting a good quality lightweight scope and hearing how light they are I have compared the weight of the March SFP 1.5-15x42 version with my illuminated Zeiss Conquest DL 3-12x50. - surprisingly, the Zeiss is lighter at 590 gm and the March (according to the published spec) weighs 624gm. - What am I missing?
I do have a number of other superb scopes by various top end makers and was only considering the March in view of its purported light weight.

You're comparing an entry level Zeiss scope with a 4x magnification range to a relatively high end March Scope with a 10x magnification range. I doubt you will find any other scope manufacturer who is making a 10x magnification scope that weighs less

Those March scopes are used by some specialist military units because of their build quality, massive magnification range and durability. No military units are using Zeiss Conquest scopes.

Edit. I appreciate we are talking about lightweight hunting scopes and not military use but the point is still that you don't get 10x magnification with decent glass and build quality for the same weight as a scope that has less than half the magnification range.

 

[kripton]

You're comparing an entry level Zeiss scope with a 4x magnification range to a relatively high end March Scope with a 10x magnification range. I doubt you will find any other scope manufacturer who is making a 10x magnification scope that weighs less

Those March scopes are used by some specialist military units because of their build quality, massive magnification range and durability. No military units are using Zeiss Conquest scopes.

Edit. I appreciate we are talking about lightweight hunting scopes and not military use but the point is still that you don't get 10x magnification with decent glass and build quality for the same weight as a scope that has less than half the magnification range.

I appreciate what you are saying but I think you may be confusing the Zeiss Conquest V4 with the older Conquest DL referred to in my post.
For interest sake I have also weighed a couple of my other scopes with the following results -

Delta HD Titanium 2.5-15x56 ....778gm
Zeiss Conquest V6 2.5-15x56 .....690gm

My remaining scopes are all on rifles and I have therefore refrained from disturbing them.

You are quite correct that I am looking at a hunting scope for which I rarely use more than 8x magnification so a magnification range of 4x or 6x is perfectly adequate for my purposes.

 

[Optics Trade EU]

In our opinion, March belongs among the top manufacturers out there, so that's a great choice right there! Every March scope is equipped with low-dispersion ED lenses that increase the light transmission rate. In our experience, however, hunters often opt for other options when it comes to low-light hunting. That doesn't mean March isn't a viable option, but rather that it is a lot more popular in other fields, such as sports shooting and tactical applications.

Considering everything you mentioned, we think that March 2.5-25x52 SFP is probably the closest to what you're looking for and might need. SFP is more widely used for low-light hunting, and we also think That 2.5-25x52 SFP comes with a more suitable reticle than some of the other scopes on offer.

Should you wish so, you could also read our Low Light Riflescope Buying Guide if you need any additional help deciding.

You also got some great recommendations in this thread so far!

 

[kripton]

In our opinion, March belongs among the top manufacturers out there, so that's a great choice right there! Every March scope is equipped with low-dispersion ED lenses that increase the light transmission rate. In our experience, however, hunters often opt for other options when it comes to low-light hunting. That doesn't mean March isn't a viable option, but rather that it is a lot more popular in other fields, such as sports shooting and tactical applications.

Considering everything you mentioned, we think that March 2.5-25x52 SFP is probably the closest to what you're looking for and might need. SFP is more widely used for low-light hunting, and we also think That 2.5-25x52 SFP comes with a more suitable reticle than some of the other scopes on offer.

Should you wish so, you could also read our Low Light Riflescope Buying Guide if you need any additional help deciding.

You also got some great recommendations in this thread so far!

Thank you - most helpful. I appreciate that when thinking of low light scopes in particular, the fixed mag versions are likely to give the best low light performance - this is born out by my Swarovski 8x56 - I only wish it had an illuminated reticle.
I will have a look at the March 2.5x52 SFP (with particular reference to the reticle)