Overthehill
Well-Known Member
Also.. Why is the Zeiss V6 3-18x50 not a first choice scope for stalking? Thx
March 2.5-25x52 v Zeiss V6 3-18x50
- Thread starter Overthehill
- Start date
That’s a tough question as everyone has an opinion on this matter. Budget also comes into it. Not to mention what sort of range based shooting you are planning on, but if you are thinking stalking with occasional range use out to medium range then maybe Leica Amplus with the BDC cheaper than your Zeiss option with illumination, similar mag range and comparable glass. There are also offerings from Delta with ballistic turrets Or S.B. or Swarovski etc. Your personal budget also needs to come into this because I’m assuming money is not no object.
All of the above hunting biased scopes all require hold off for wind because the windage turret will be capped in most cases and they will have hunting rets rather than the Christmas tree style range ones.
Again as before other opinions will exist.
Fine, non-illuminated ret and for some a 56mm objective is preferable.
Zeiss Victory 4-16x50 with ASV elevation turret and illuminated #60 reticle?
I’d be interested in the March, if you’re not.
I’d be interested in the March, if you’re not.
I have March, Leica and Schmidt scopes on my main CF rifles and use Delta scopes on rimfires and air rifles. I would be happy using any of them on a stalking rifle as such if they offered a balance when considering some form of target shooting. I can say the Schmidt Polar is not actually on my main deer gun. It is actually on my .222 which is my most used rifle and the rifle I am most likely to be using in to the period where light fails.
I use the March on a .243 which is basically a middle distance pest control rifle or a fox rifle at night. It works brilliantly with NV add ons and dials faultlessly for those longer shots during the day. People always say the eyebox is fussy and it is not as easy as the Delta's for example but optically, when your mounting position is sound, it is very very good. It is not an out and out light gathering monster but you can crank it down to x2.5 mag which makes it very versatile for close shots and I have also used it on Muntjac in woodland. I rarely use it over x20 mag, which is the point where it becomes a fussier but x 20 is a lot of mag and fine for 99.9% of shooting. What I will say is that the reticule on mine (MTR3) is literally the best multi purpose reticle I have. It is thick enough to be visible but not so much that it obscures but you do not need to use illumination to see it against dark backdrops unless the light is really failing. The other thing to remember is that the reticule subtends correctly at x10 and at x20 mag and this is obvious as these Mag numbers are in red on the zoom wheel while all others are in white. I only use it at x 20 to use the ret for windage but it has open turrets, so I would dial anyway. The illumination is the best I have used. it is light, very light. It is small, very small. It is my favourite scope. The optic I have had the longest and I get through them, so that is saying something.
Here is a view at approx 225yds. The reticle is a bit out of focus and in reality when looking through it, it seems bolder and darker. It is my favourite reticle. The whole reticle (not the fat stadia, just the finer lines) illuminates via 4 touch push button on the side. Very intuitive and instant. No idea why all scope makers don't use this rather than the stupid illumination wheels. The worst being on the Polar T96 which annoys the hell out of me.
The scope I use on my main deer rifle is a Leica Amplus 3-18x44 with the newer windage reticle. This subtends correctly at x18mag which is fine as I would only be holding for wind at longer ranges where it would be likely I would be cranked up on zoom. And no need to make sure you are on an exact mag setting. Just crank it up to max and you know it is perfectly adjusted for using the reticle for windage. Elevation turret is open and easily dialled. The glass is good and it falls to the eye nicely as the smaller objective lets it sit at a natural height for me and my rifle. The reticle is finer than the March but not by much. I prefer the March reticle but this scope is a decent all rounder and nice and tough. The March is not quite as bright but is optically better in my view. Better colouration, better depth and better edge to edge and overall contrast. The overall clarity is better. Many people get hung up on overall brightness but optical quality goes deeper than that. March make very good glass. Mine is the 42mm, so the 52mm must be better brightness wise.
Anyhow, here is a view at around 275yds through the Leica Amplus. I think both of these scopes are nice and light and small but cover many bases without being perfect at anything. There is a Delta 4-24x50 Titanium HD on here with BT's that was going for something stupid like £515. I have no idea why it hasn't been bought other than people have no money at the moment. Delta make solid scopes that optically are really very good for the money. If I only ever had the Delta on a hunting rifle, I would never be disappointed as such.
I use the March on a .243 which is basically a middle distance pest control rifle or a fox rifle at night. It works brilliantly with NV add ons and dials faultlessly for those longer shots during the day. People always say the eyebox is fussy and it is not as easy as the Delta's for example but optically, when your mounting position is sound, it is very very good. It is not an out and out light gathering monster but you can crank it down to x2.5 mag which makes it very versatile for close shots and I have also used it on Muntjac in woodland. I rarely use it over x20 mag, which is the point where it becomes a fussier but x 20 is a lot of mag and fine for 99.9% of shooting. What I will say is that the reticule on mine (MTR3) is literally the best multi purpose reticle I have. It is thick enough to be visible but not so much that it obscures but you do not need to use illumination to see it against dark backdrops unless the light is really failing. The other thing to remember is that the reticule subtends correctly at x10 and at x20 mag and this is obvious as these Mag numbers are in red on the zoom wheel while all others are in white. I only use it at x 20 to use the ret for windage but it has open turrets, so I would dial anyway. The illumination is the best I have used. it is light, very light. It is small, very small. It is my favourite scope. The optic I have had the longest and I get through them, so that is saying something.
Here is a view at approx 225yds. The reticle is a bit out of focus and in reality when looking through it, it seems bolder and darker. It is my favourite reticle. The whole reticle (not the fat stadia, just the finer lines) illuminates via 4 touch push button on the side. Very intuitive and instant. No idea why all scope makers don't use this rather than the stupid illumination wheels. The worst being on the Polar T96 which annoys the hell out of me.
The scope I use on my main deer rifle is a Leica Amplus 3-18x44 with the newer windage reticle. This subtends correctly at x18mag which is fine as I would only be holding for wind at longer ranges where it would be likely I would be cranked up on zoom. And no need to make sure you are on an exact mag setting. Just crank it up to max and you know it is perfectly adjusted for using the reticle for windage. Elevation turret is open and easily dialled. The glass is good and it falls to the eye nicely as the smaller objective lets it sit at a natural height for me and my rifle. The reticle is finer than the March but not by much. I prefer the March reticle but this scope is a decent all rounder and nice and tough. The March is not quite as bright but is optically better in my view. Better colouration, better depth and better edge to edge and overall contrast. The overall clarity is better. Many people get hung up on overall brightness but optical quality goes deeper than that. March make very good glass. Mine is the 42mm, so the 52mm must be better brightness wise.
Anyhow, here is a view at around 275yds through the Leica Amplus. I think both of these scopes are nice and light and small but cover many bases without being perfect at anything. There is a Delta 4-24x50 Titanium HD on here with BT's that was going for something stupid like £515. I have no idea why it hasn't been bought other than people have no money at the moment. Delta make solid scopes that optically are really very good for the money. If I only ever had the Delta on a hunting rifle, I would never be disappointed as such.
Overthehill
Well-Known Member
The Leica was recommended to me before alright. Another who had first hand experience of all these scopes and seemed to have a really good grasp of what he was talking about considering his in-depth explanation ruled out the Amplus due to a really mediocre image. It's
Thank you a very thought out and In depth reply. Have you any experience with the Zeiss V6 3-18x50?I have March, Leica and Schmidt scopes on my main CF rifles and use Delta scopes on rimfires and air rifles. I would be happy using any of them on a stalking rifle as such if they offered a balance when considering some form of target shooting. I can say the Schmidt Polar is not actually on my main deer gun. It is actually on my .222 which is my most used rifle and the rifle I am most likely to be using in to the period where light fails.
I use the March on a .243 which is basically a middle distance pest control rifle or a fox rifle at night. It works brilliantly with NV add ons and dials faultlessly for those longer shots during the day. People always say the eyebox is fussy and it is not as easy as the Delta's for example but optically, when your mounting position is sound, it is very very good. It is not an out and out light gathering monster but you can crank it down to x2.5 mag which makes it very versatile for close shots and I have also used it on Muntjac in woodland. I rarely use it over x20 mag, which is the point where it becomes a fussier but x 20 is a lot of mag and fine for 99.9% of shooting. What I will say is that the reticule on mine (MTR3) is literally the best multi purpose reticle I have. It is thick enough to be visible but not so much that it obscures but you do not need to use illumination to see it against dark backdrops unless the light is really failing. The other thing to remember is that the reticule subtends correctly at x10 and at x20 mag and this is obvious as these Mag numbers are in red on the zoom wheel while all others are in white. I only use it at x 20 to use the ret for windage but it has open turrets, so I would dial anyway. The illumination is the best I have used. it is light, very light. It is small, very small. It is my favourite scope. The optic I have had the longest and I get through them, so that is saying something.
Here is a view at approx 225yds. The reticle is a bit out of focus and in reality when looking through it, it seems bolder and darker. It is my favourite reticle. The whole reticle (not the fat stadia, just the finer lines) illuminates via 4 touch push button on the side. Very intuitive and instant. No idea why all scope makers don't use this rather than the stupid illumination wheels. The worst being on the Polar T96 which annoys the hell out of me.
The scope I use on my main deer rifle is a Leica Amplus 3-18x44 with the newer windage reticle. This subtends correctly at x18mag which is fine as I would only be holding for wind at longer ranges where it would be likely I would be cranked up on zoom. And no need to make sure you are on an exact mag setting. Just crank it up to max and you know it is perfectly adjusted for using the reticle for windage. Elevation turret is open and easily dialled. The glass is good and it falls to the eye nicely as the smaller objective lets it sit at a natural height for me and my rifle. The reticle is finer than the March but not by much. I prefer the March reticle but this scope is a decent all rounder and nice and tough. The March is not quite as bright but is optically better in my view. Better colouration, better depth and better edge to edge and overall contrast. The overall clarity is better. Many people get hung up on overall brightness but optical quality goes deeper than that. March make very good glass. Mine is the 42mm, so the 52mm must be better brightness wise.
Anyhow, here is a view at around 275yds through the Leica Amplus. I think both of these scopes are nice and light and small but cover many bases without being perfect at anything. There is a Delta 4-24x50 Titanium HD on here with BT's that was going for something stupid like £515. I have no idea why it hasn't been bought other than people have no money at the moment. Delta make solid scopes that optically are really very good for the money. If I only ever had the Delta on a hunting rifle, I would never be disappointed as such.
Overthehill
Well-Known Member
I have enquired about the Amplus and the feedback is that it has a really mediocre image. It's heavier than the V6, not quite as much elevation and the reticles don't appeal to me. The kahles not the best choice for dialling... But everybody's opinion is different, What's suits someone may not sit others and that is fair enough. I'm a relative newby to it all, however I've done a lot of research and sought several different opinions. I've come to the following conclusion...I want a 30mm tube, 50mm objective, good glass, good magnification, FOV above 10m, light weight and compact, illumination (if possible but not a deal breaker. The ideal all rounder scope doesn't exist, so some allowances must be made), simple straight forward thick hunting style centre dot reticle, elevation above 20 mrad, good eye relief and eyebox, durability of premium scopes and the usual proofs etc... I'm also going to go with target turrets. I know capped maybe the wiser choice but this appeals. I'd prefer windage capped and a lockable elevation with a zero stop. In this case I've made allowances... The V6 has a zero stop and several people have said they have yet to have it move on them out hunting. Americans who carry it in a saddle case have had that problem when sliding it out to take a shot... All in all, I'm happy to go the V6 direction the only scope that may change my mind is the March 2.5-25x52 which is why I'm looking for final advice. The initial research indicates the March eyebox and parallax is v fussy and so may not be ideal as a stalking scope. It's mag also gets compromised from 20 on...
I prefer the 50mm objective as a compromise between the 44 and the 56. My thinking is the 44 doesn't gather light as much and the 56 makes the scope heavier and upsets the ergonomics and balance of the rifle... But again I'm only shooting 2.5 years so I'm no expert...
I prefer the 50mm objective as a compromise between the 44 and the 56. My thinking is the 44 doesn't gather light as much and the 56 makes the scope heavier and upsets the ergonomics and balance of the rifle... But again I'm only shooting 2.5 years so I'm no expert...
I have no in field experience with the V6 I'm afraid. I'm not a big Zeiss fan as the image is too vivid and poppy to my eyes.
I would not agree that the Amplus is mediocre. It is certainly not up to their Magnus range but mediocre is not how I would describe it. Top of mid tier glass is more suitable but all eyes are different
I don’t know who told you the Leica was a poor image but having owned several I can assure you they are not. When they come up for sale occasionally on here they command a secondhand value around 75% of their new value and they sell very quickly. That should tell you all you need to know about the popularity stalkers.
I’ve also had Zeiss exactly the same as you are looking at I find it very poor for Stalking and average Best as a rain scope.
The advantage of owning a Shooting business means I get to have lots kit and the advantage of owning two rifle ranges means I get a lot of practical experience with other peoples kit. Add in the Stalking side of the business which is very active optics tend to get a very thorough testing.
You have asked for advice and received do with it and Will.
Overthehill
Well-Known Member
As I've stated I'm new to this and no expert. I welcome all views, perspectives and arguements. This is only a discussion. Thanks for your advice. All is appreciated!
Overthehill
Well-Known Member
Is there anybody else that currently uses the Zeiss V6 3-18x50 for stalking and will give their opinions on it?
Unfortunately, I have no experience with the Zeiss V6. But I do own a March 2.5-25x52 illuminated with a MML reticle. This scope replaced my Delta HD 4-24x50 that also has my highest recomendation as an all rounder.
Regarding the March rifle scope I just love it. I like the reticle, the illumination, the turrets, I like how well balanced is my rifle with it on top and I love the glass. Having a 10x erector system, it cannot be perfect, there are some compromises made and something has to give up. The field of view is good but not worldclass and in low light conditions, it is not the best. However, it offers something very unique providing extreme versatility in a very compact and light weight package. I use it for mountain hunting of chamois and Iberian ibex during daytime and for this purpose it is my favourite scope. I know what it has been said about it, but I do not find it fussy at all. Let's say that it is not the easiest scope on the eye nor it has the most forgiving eyebox. But I have not had any problems using it. Bear in mind that I have to shoot over very steep slopes and I have always found the scope user friendly. The glass is very good in my opinion and particularly, the contrast is outstanding. For me it is a joy to use. It is very reliable, sturdier than it looks and tracks perfect. And the customer service of March really is excellent.
I also own a Leica Magnus 2.4-16x56 with lockable turrets which without a doubt is the best scope I have ever had. The image provided by Leica optics really suits my eyes: very relaxed and with natural colours. This scope is absolutely oustanding in any way and during low light, it is one of the best. It has a capped windage turret and the elevation turret is lovely. However this is a pure hunting scope, not a target oriented scope.
And finally, I also have a Meopta ZD 4-16x44 in my 7x64 and a Meopta Meostar R1 4-16x44 (non illuminated) in my .30-06. These scopes excell at low light. Despite the 44 objective, I have used them very succesfully at last light hunting roe deer, red deer and wild boar. The glass from Meopta is stunning. But for modern standars, the ZD is now an old fashioned design.
Regarding the March rifle scope I just love it. I like the reticle, the illumination, the turrets, I like how well balanced is my rifle with it on top and I love the glass. Having a 10x erector system, it cannot be perfect, there are some compromises made and something has to give up. The field of view is good but not worldclass and in low light conditions, it is not the best. However, it offers something very unique providing extreme versatility in a very compact and light weight package. I use it for mountain hunting of chamois and Iberian ibex during daytime and for this purpose it is my favourite scope. I know what it has been said about it, but I do not find it fussy at all. Let's say that it is not the easiest scope on the eye nor it has the most forgiving eyebox. But I have not had any problems using it. Bear in mind that I have to shoot over very steep slopes and I have always found the scope user friendly. The glass is very good in my opinion and particularly, the contrast is outstanding. For me it is a joy to use. It is very reliable, sturdier than it looks and tracks perfect. And the customer service of March really is excellent.
I also own a Leica Magnus 2.4-16x56 with lockable turrets which without a doubt is the best scope I have ever had. The image provided by Leica optics really suits my eyes: very relaxed and with natural colours. This scope is absolutely oustanding in any way and during low light, it is one of the best. It has a capped windage turret and the elevation turret is lovely. However this is a pure hunting scope, not a target oriented scope.
And finally, I also have a Meopta ZD 4-16x44 in my 7x64 and a Meopta Meostar R1 4-16x44 (non illuminated) in my .30-06. These scopes excell at low light. Despite the 44 objective, I have used them very succesfully at last light hunting roe deer, red deer and wild boar. The glass from Meopta is stunning. But for modern standars, the ZD is now an old fashioned design.
SussexSteve
Well-Known Member
Bought the Leica prs a few weeks ago very impressive. Have a look at one or the amplus
I have the ffp 3-24x42 March. I use it for hunting and target work as I have only one rifle. I see it as a scope with two modes of use. Firstly, at the lower magnifications, the eye box is no different my my Zeiss 2.5-10x50 Classic or probably any other scope and you can set the parallax and leave it alone. Secondly, at the higher mag. settings, above about 18x then it becomes more fussy. It's an excellent all-rounder.
CH
Overthehill
Well-Known Member
I did as much research as I could, weighed up the pros and cons of each scope within my budget and finally ordered the Zeiss V6 3-18x50, with the target turrets & the number 6 reticle. Hopefully I've made the right decision and it works out. I appreciate all your advice! Thanks to all who gave their opinions
I think you’ll like the V6, good compromise.
Could you let me know where the March, you we’re considering, is for sale.
Thanks and enjoy the scope.
Could you let me know where the March, you we’re considering, is for sale.
Thanks and enjoy the scope.
Overthehill
Well-Known Member
Thanks to everyone for your advice and input. I went with the Zeiss V6 3-18x50 with ASV turrets and am well pleased with it so far. Money well spent imo and would recommend it to anyone...
Overthehill
Well-Known Member
In case anyone might be considering the Zeiss V6 3-18x50, here's my experience so far, for what it's worth: It's light, compact size seems to sit nicely on the T3x, giving it an overall good balanced feel to it. The glass is excellent. FOV very good. It has plenty of elevation. Have lugged it about now a fair bit, dropped it several times and have found it to be durable with perfect tracking and zero stop. Its not a bad or fussy scope on the eye except maybe up around 18 mag which is to be expected to be fair. As for the decision to go with capped or ASV turrets, I'm glad I took the advice given and got the ASV turrets, allowing for easy adjustment to fine tune shots when time allows. As suggested I've never found any turret to move off zero while being lugged about. I've not missed the illumination feature either... The glass and reticle proving sufficient for several near dark shots. Likewise I didn't find it difficult going from Mill to MOA . I zeroed it just over an inch high from POA allowing for MPBR out to maybe 220 yds. I then verified it out to 400 yds in steps & marked the elevation and parallax accordingly. Someone commented before purchasing that the V6 glass didn't shed water as well as some other scopes. I've had it out in various degrees of wet conditions. And to be honest I haven't enough knowledge or experience to dispute this, except to say I managed in most conditions fine with maybe a little wiping of the lens, except for maybe once when it was torrential and driving directly into me and as such I had to leave it go till another day. Overall I'm well pleased with it but I must admit I'm no expert....a pal has recently purchased a Leica so I'm looking forward to getting out with him and comparing scopes. All the Best! 
Last edited:
Similar threads
