March 2.5x25x52mm SFP scopes?

[DPR64]

Looking to build up a long range 6.5 creedmoor hunting rifle and am looking at the March 2.5x25x52mm SFP illuminated scope with the MTR-3 reticle..
Anyone with experience/ownership of a March 2.5/25/52 scope? Likes? Dislikes?
How is the 'eyebox' so to speak? Easy to get on target and forgiving or hard to acquire?
Thanks!
(posted this on another site as well)

 

[bates]

I have the 42mm version and like it

Eyebox can be a bit tight but I haven’t had any issues

For the size and weight it’s tough to beat

 

[DPR64]

I have the 42mm version and like it

Eyebox can be a bit tight but I haven’t had any issues

For the size and weight it’s tough to beat

Do you think the 52mm would be more forgiving?

 

[FURMAN]

I have the non illuminated version. I love the turrets. I love the glass. I love the size and weight. I do not like that the reticle has to be on 20x to be at 2moa. If I remember correctly it's 1.6moa at 25x. I wish I would have gone FFP(not usually a FFP guy). It has been brought to my attention that some may have had tracking issues. I do know that many have claimed this with the MIL version but everyone I have seen was confused on which MIL spec was used. I still really need to put mine through the paces but it has always hit the target during practice at long ranges which obviously has included dialing and I smoked two does at 675 last winter. I did a mini tracking test with four bullets(ran out of time) at 100 yards and ended up with two groups under .5 moa, dialing between each shot, exactly 20moa(what I dialed) apart. I have never had issues with any scope and the "eye box". I make sure my scopes are set correctly for me on each rifle and when I obtain my cheek weld the sight picture is as expected. So as far as "eye box" I am not the best guy to ask. The zero stop is stupid simple to set but is not as definite as zero stops such as the Swaro X5 or NXS. It does always stop at zero but it is a little soft feeling. I rarely dial power down but I could easily see this scope as a do all scope.

 

[bates]

From what I’ve heard yes

Never laid hands on one though

My biggest gripe is my not crazy about the reticle. I have the mil one

For a lightweight small scope I love it.

I would say the parallax is more finky than the eye box.

 

[DPR64]

I am very curious as to how much 'better' it might be than my 3-18 Z6 Swarovski... I am more of a long range hunter here in AZ and am not much of a turret twister (old school holdover with the descending hash marks based on scope power and yards/range) Swarovski has a great online program that has most factory ammo setup to my reticle.
I hear so many good things about S&B, March, Etc. but want to stay light with the scope and not worry too much about the turrets. Also, no one around here has any of those top tier scopes in stock to look at so I am reaching out a bit to see how people like them...

 

[bates]

I had that z6 and sent it back


I’m a turret twister and I didn’t have enough up for me and not crazy about the reticles

Have a 1,000 yard range so I need enough up to confirm and practice that far

Swaro has better glass, March more features better turret and reticle

 

[wind gypsy]

I had the 3-24x52 FFP version, I was disappointed with it in it's intended application on a 6.5 SAUM custom.

I loved the form factor, weight, image quality, and turrets.

The adjustments were off cumulatively about 0.2 Mil over 10 mils of adjustment but the error was consistent across every click. People were quick to say that it was one of the 1/6400 mil dimension scopes but that would have actually had the error in the opposite direction. This was a minor gripe, could have just validated dope and corrected adjustments in my ballistic solver.

I had zero issues with eyebox. Wasn't as impressed with image quality at 24x as I thought i might be.

Primary Gripe: Getting a clear image, sharp reticle, and parallax tuned out all at the same time was like a freaking science experiment.

Secondary Gripe: Customer Service left a lot to be desired. Bullets.com was primary importer, not sure who is running the show now.

I replaced it with a Bushnell LRHS that weighs more, has less magnification, less refined turrets, and inferior optics but it will give me a clear image, clean reticle, and dial out parallax effortlessly which is more important to me in an aiming device. That and the reticle is better than the crappy ones March uses.

 

[28bang]

I have this scope on my 28 nosler. I really like it, especially for hunting.

 

[land cruiser]

I have few. Absolutely love them. I bought my first one when I started hunting sheep in bear country. There has not been anyone on the market who can compete with them in terms of magnification delta. And it's been over 7 years. I have used S&B prior and I don't feel that apples-to-apples March is inferior in quality of glass. I do think Swarovski has an edge optically but less than 5% and of course with lower magnification. March FFP or SSP to me is the best scope money can buy today.

 

[Ndbowhunter]

A guy had one at the range out in California on a precision rifle.

Do not see any advantage to a sfp scope in any situation with more then 10x power.

Scope was hard to get behind on more then 15 power or so.. we were shooting prone on concrete up hill and the eyebox seemed tight up and down but not bad fore and aft.

Seemed like a cool scope on paper but in reality, for anything more then benchrest it seemed a bit novelty.

Oh and the parallax adjustment was in minute increments.. it went super slow to 75 yards and then quick as from there to infinity.

As for glass.. dont care about that so much

It did have awesome turret clicks.