March 2.5-25x52 v Zeiss V6 3-18x50

[Overthehill]

Ready to pull the trigger on one of these scopes. Was going with the Zeiss but just got a decent offer on the March. The scope is going to be used predominantly for stalking but also for a bit of long range targeting on the side. I know I brooched the subject before but was just looking for a bit more feedback. The general jist was to go with the Zeiss as the 'eyebox' is too finicky with the March. On the other hand the March has a bit more magnification & elevation, tactical turrets and illuminated reticle. I'm leaning towards the Zeiss because of previous advice but before I do, I'm open to whatever advice may come. Thanks in advance..

 

[Jelen]

Ready to pull the trigger on one of these scopes. Was going with the Zeiss but just got a decent offer on the March. The scope is going to be used predominantly for stalking but also for a bit of long range targeting on the side. I know I brooched the subject before but was just looking for a bit more feedback. The general jist was to go with the Zeiss as the 'eyebox' is too finicky with the March. On the other hand the March has a bit more magnification & elevation, tactical turrets and illuminated reticle. I'm leaning towards the Zeiss because of previous advice but before I do, I'm open to whatever advice may come. Thanks in advance..

I have that March scope and use it for stalking and gonging. I've also got an adjustable comb on my stock and haven't had any problems with the 'finicky eye box'.

 

[Steff]

Is the illumination on the March just a center dot/cross or the full Christmas tree? If it‘s the latter it isn‘t of much use for stalking.
I have actually owned both of those scopes, non-illuminated though.
The March is the better range and the Zeiss the better stalking scope.
The Zeiss eye box is indeed less finicky. But an experienced shooter will get on with the March eye box as well.
The reticle (#6) on the Zeiss is not as super fine as in the March. But for stalking this is an advantage, especially as there is no illumination.

 

[Overthehill]

Thx Steff.
It would be just the centre dot...

 

[randello88]

Ready to pull the trigger on one of these scopes. Was going with the Zeiss but just got a decent offer on the March. The scope is going to be used predominantly for stalking but also for a bit of long range targeting on the side. I know I brooched the subject before but was just looking for a bit more feedback. The general jist was to go with the Zeiss as the 'eyebox' is too finicky with the March. On the other hand the March has a bit more magnification & elevation, tactical turrets and illuminated reticle. I'm leaning towards the Zeiss because of previous advice but before I do, I'm open to whatever advice may come. Thanks in advance..

I was considering these two scopes as well, ended up with a nf nx8 4-32×50 SFP, it has a few advantages over both of these for my applications. If you never shoot past 200-250 m, get the v6 though

 

[scotch_egg]

I didn’t like the illumination on the Nightforce. Also the dawn and dusk image wasn’t up to the usual standards of European glass.
I have had the March and for me, the eye bix was critical and when not in the perfect position often encountered stalking, I found not ideal.

I’ve moved on to Minox 3-15X50. Heavy but excellent glass, illumination and turrets for reaching out.

Stalking with the occasional longer shot, I would go with Zeiss. Such a shame the V6 is MOA unlike the V8 which is Mil’s. I didn’t get on with the zeiss illumination with my astigmatism.

 

[Overthehill]

I was considering these two scopes as well, ended up with a nf nx8 4-32×50 SFP, it has a few advantages over both of these for my applications. If you never shoot past 200-250 m, get the v6 though

Checked out this nightforce... For me it Looks to be heavy, small max field of view and prefer a simpler reticle such as the Zeiss no. 6 for stalking... But thanks v much for reply. It's good to hear different perspectives..

 

[Overthehill]

I was considering these two scopes as well, ended up with a nf nx8 4-32×50 SFP, it has a few advantages over both of these for my applications. If you never shoot past 200-250 m, get the v6 though

Why would the V6 be limited out to 250m..... It has v good elevation (a shade more than the nightforce) and although it gives up a little in the magnification department I would have thought it would be Def good out to 6, 700 and beyond.

 

[randello88]

Checked out this nightforce... For me it Looks to be heavy, small max field of view and prefer a simpler reticle such as the Zeiss no. 6 for stalking... But thanks v much for reply. It's good to hear different perspectives..

It's not that heavy for the features it rocks, actually is one of the lighters in his category. It is also pretty compact. Field of view is not massive but not terrible. For me the main points were NF notorious mechanical reliability (you can't say the same of zeiss but i assume you won't dial for elevation) and durability and the reticle is almost perfect for a close to mid-long range hunting rifle, as is the magnification range (32x is definitely too much for shooting at animals but it is very useful as a substitute for a spotting scope in certain sotuations, 4x is more than enough for me on the low end, i literally never used the 2x on my khales in 10 years). The sfp reticle is very usable at all distances and magnifications and at 8, 16 and 32x you can also hold for wind after dialing for elevation.
I don't like much the illumination system but it's not a huge deal for me.

If you want a simple reticle and you are gonna shoot at close distance, why are you considering the march? For me the two scopes ypu are comparing are very different from each other so, before the scope, you should choose its application. After that it's easy to give you some suggestions.
The issue with european manufacturer is that they literally don't produce a relatively light (30mm tube, not too many heavy tactical features) high quality scope with the possibility to hold wind decently, in MILs, and with a high magnification (which for me is useful in many occasions). Almost zero options in that field. If you shoot at mpbr (inside 2-3 hundred yards depending on the caliber) you are totally gtg with euro scopes

 

[Overthehill]

I didn’t like the illumination on the Nightforce. Also the dawn and dusk image wasn’t up to the usual standards of European glass.
I have had the March and for me, the eye bix was critical and when not in the perfect position often encountered stalking, I found not ideal.

I’ve moved on to Minox 3-15X50. Heavy but excellent glass, illumination and turrets for reaching out.

Stalking with the occasional longer shot, I would go with Zeiss. Such a shame the V6 is MOA unlike the V8 which is Mil’s. I didn’t get on with the zeiss illumination with my astigmatism.

Again thx for the reply. I'd also prefer it to be in mils but unfortunately it's not. I'd imagine it's only a matter of getting your head around it.... Or am I missing something?

 

[randello88]

Again thx for the reply. I'd also prefer it to be in mils but unfortunately it's not. I'd imagine it's only a matter of getting your head around it.... Or am I missing something?

No exposed turrets for elevation dialing, as a reticle you should choose on of the 2 moa ones and if you are ok with a MOA reticle they could work for you (i am definitely not ok with that). It has parallax adjustments so on that you are gtg.

Useable, not ideal. For hunting shots at 600 (which i would never take anyway) i wouldn't ever chose the V6 with so many options fron nightforce and other good manufacturer.

I have to admit that also the fact that i hate the look of those zeiss contributes ahah

As far as field of view, i swear i never understood why people care about it so much. Unless it is really, really limited i don't see any issue. It never happened me once not to find an animal instantly while looking through the scope at first glance and I get the shot reaction thing but with moderate calibers (which are more than ok for european games) the recoil is not typically enough to make impossible to see the reaction.. unless you use a 6 lb tikka with a featherweight scope.

Oh, another thing i don't get is the obsession for weight. A 9-11 lbs rifle is obviously better for longer shots! A 6 lbs rifle could be handy in very limited applications and the cons would be much more than the pros!

Sorry for the bad english, good luck with your new scope

Anyway, evryone of these is a GREAT scope and would serve you well

 

[randello88]

Again thx for the reply. I'd also prefer it to be in mils but unfortunately it's not. I'd imagine it's only a matter of getting your head around it.... Or am I missing something?

It's just that. If you have multiple rifles and you are used to use MILs there is a (marginal) advantage in haveing every rifle set in MILs. It's not gonna matter much anyway, i wouldn't worry too much.

Everything depends on you hunting style and on the enviroment you are gonna hunt in

 

[randello88]

Oh i remembered. Another reason why i choose the nf is thst the image over 20x on the march start degrading. A 10x mag factor scope weighting nothing has to be a compromise in nost optical fields.

 

[Overthehill]

It's not that heavy for the features it rocks, actually is one of the lighters in his category. It is also pretty compact. Field of view is not massive but not terrible. For me the main points were NF notorious mechanical reliability (you can't say the same of zeiss but i assume you won't dial for elevation) and durability and the reticle is almost perfect for a close to mid-long range hunting rifle, as is the magnification range (32x is definitely too much for shooting at animals but it is very useful as a substitute for a spotting scope in certain sotuations, 4x is more than enough for me on the low end, i literally never used the 2x on my khales in 10 years). The sfp reticle is very usable at all distances and magnifications and at 8, 16 and 32x ypu can also hold for wind after dialisi for elevation.
I don't like much the illumination system but it's not a huge deal for me.

If you want a simple reticle and you are gonna shoot at close distance, why are you considering the march? For me the two scopes ypu are comparing are very different from each other so, before the scope, you should choose its application. After that it's easy to give you some suggestions.
The issue with european manufacturer is that they literally don't produce a relatively light (30mm tube, not too many heavy tactical features) high quality scope with the possibility to hold wind decently. Almost zero options in that field. If you shoot at mpbr (inside 2-3 hundred yards depending on the caliber) you are gtg with euro scopes

Field of view is important to me as I do shoot in woodland from time to time. I believe the nightforce is ultra durable tbf but surely Zeiss is no slouch in that dept either. I normally use the mpbr system but if I've time I can dial to be that little bit more accurate. I'm no expert that's why I'm asking for advice. Similar to the V6 the March also has a wide max field of view with a simple straight forward stalking style reticle. It's compact, light, good glass, large elevation, 30mm tube, zero stop, dialable turrets... That's why I considered it. I would also like to do a bit of long range targeting as a secondary role...

 

[Overthehill]

Oh i remembered. Another reason why i choose the nf is thst the image over 20x on the march start degrading. A 10x mag factor scope weighting nothing has to be a compromise in nost optical fields.

All good points.... If I'm not mistaken the Zeiss is better glass, lighter, bigger field of view and imo better choice of reticle. The night force has better magnification and more durable. For my type hunting with a little bit of long range targeting the Zeiss looks to be the better option... I could be wrong

 

[Malxwal]

Always going to be a compromise, and really stalking in woodland and long range target are two extremes that aren't really compatible.
I'd warrant you'll be happier not having to pass up a shot at a deer because you chose a target/tactical type scope. The NX8 2.5-20 is a near compromise. Ponder a Kahles 3-18x50 with their ballistic turret and the G4B reticle which has a couple of holdover points perhaps ?

 

[Rural Management Services]

In fairness if you are using the scope for say 75% stalking and 25% range then surely a more staking oriented scope than both of these will mean you are only compromising 25% of your shooting time rather than 100% of your time. My logic is that both the Zeiss and the March are not first choice scopes for stalking. They will obviously do but there are better options. Similarly there are better choice dedicated range scopes.

Just my two pence other opinions will obviously exist.

 

[randello88]

All good points.... If I'm not mistaken the Zeiss is better glass, lighter, bigger field of view and imo better choice of reticle. The night force has better magnification and more durable. For my type hunting with a little bit of long range targeting the Zeiss looks to be the better option... I could be wrong

You could be right. Everything depends on the application. On better glass, i think with these high end scopes the difference is negligible. Europeans tend to give more importance to this, probably because of the less adventurous kind of hunting. Americans give a lot of importance to durability. As far as the reticle goes, i love the nf, with reference markings for both 16x and 32x. Especially the sfp is made to dial elevation and hold for wind, again something very used in the US. And i like that approach for longer shots at roes, which are pretty small and require surgical accuracy.

Again, the zeiss is a great choice. Most high end scopes are great choices.

For example, someone says the nx8 has a tight eyeboxe. No one says that about the shv. That's funny because i have had both the nx8 4-32 sfp and the shv 4-14×50 (i think) and the eyeboxe on the nx8 leaves nothing to be desired while on the shv it's oretty bad. Main point is high end scopes have downsides almost only when conpared to other high end scopes as far as optical performances and those differences are negligible. Reticle, magnification and features like parallax adj, illumination or exposed turrets are much more important.

Expanding on this, I would much prefer a 800 euros meopta or shv with a ballistic reticle and exposed turrets for shooting a roe at 350 meters than a 10000 dollars scope with a german IV reticle and no exposed turrets.

That said on my general purpose stalking rifle, which i use only for shots inside 230 m, i have a khales 2-10×50i with a german iv type reticle. I very rarely come back gome empty handed. The possibility to shoot past that distance is useful in very limited occasions for my style of hunting and enviroment but, in that occasions, a ballistic turret or the abilità to hold for wind can make an hazardous shot (which i wouldn't ever take) pretty simple

 

[randello88]

In fairness if you are using the scope for say 75% stalking and 25% range then surely a more staking oriented scope than both of these will mean you are only compromising 25% of your shooting time rather than 100% of your time. My logic is that both the Zeiss and the March are not first choice scopes for stalking. They will obviously do but there are better options. Similarly there are better choice dedicated range scopes.

Just my two pence other opinions will obviously exist.

Right, if your stalking involves even sporadical longer shots everything changes and a more long range scope (i wouldn't call it target scope) becomes useful.
For example with the march or with the nx8 4-32 you don't have to accept so many compromises in my opinion. Still pretty light, very useable also for closer shots but with the possibility to shoot further away if it's your thing. And at the range their features make all the difference in the world.

I understand my approach is not very european and much more american, who knows why i was born a bit weird ahah

Acrually here in Italy many young hunters have this approach. Probably cultural and enviromental differences

 

[Overthehill]

In fairness if you are using the scope for say 75% stalking and 25% range then surely a more staking oriented scope than both of these will mean you are only compromising 25% of your shooting time rather than 100% of your time. My logic is that both the Zeiss and the March are not first choice scopes for stalking. They will obviously do but there are better options. Similarly there are better choice dedicated range scopes.

Just my two pence other opinions will obviously exist.

What scopes would you recommend?