Long range rifle scope- march vs razor vs Mk5hd

[Ewad3]

Alright guys, I’m ready to start planning my next rifle build. Goal is a semi lightweight, buy it for life rifle for both long and normal range shooting. Mainly for white tails in PA where we shoot 500-1100 yards but it will also go with me out west for elk in the future.
The only component I’m struggling with is a scope. I currently have a Razor Gen 2 3-18x50 on my 6.5cm. I like it a lot but it is a beast and definitely leaves optical quality on the table especially during the last 30 minutes of shooting light.
My buddy just bought a Mark 5 HD 5-25x56 and I really like the glass in it. Way better than my razor especially at max power and fading light. However I don’t love the turrets and I have heard of several people having tracking issues. I’m looking for FFP, 50-56mm objective, top tier glass, 30 ounces or less, and minimum 20x.
Considering Maven rs3, mark 5hd, or one of the March scopes. I have Maven B series glass in 2 sets of binoculars and really like it. Price point is great too.
Mostly looking for information on the March scopes- I don’t mind spending extra $ to get the best if it’s a noticeable upgrade. Optically, how do March scopes compare to the razor gen 2 and the mark 5hd? I’m confident that the maven would be a considerable step up compared to my razor based on the glass in my binos. FWIW, planning on building a 7SS finishing under 10lbs with an accutac and glass. Thanks in advance.

 

[ResearchinStuff]

Incredibly, we have a whole sub forum devoted to this very topic: https://rokslide.com/forums/forums/rifle-scope-field-evaluations.133/

 

[Justin Crossley]

I would put the 2.5-10x42 NXS or the 4-32x50 NX8 on it.

 

[Raider4044]

Mark 5 would be what I’d go with.

I would put the 2.5-10x42 NXS or the 4-32x50 NX8 on it.

NXS glass isn’t even in the same league as the Mark 5 or Razor. Decent scope, but glass sucks. I’m not a huge fan of the NX8 either due to the small eyebox. Durability is the only category they might edge out over the Mark 5.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[slowelk]

NXS glass isn’t even in the same league as the Mark 5 or Razor. Decent scope, but glass sucks. I’m not a huge fan of the NX8 either due to the small eyebox. Durability is the only category they might edge out over the Mark 5.

Have you been behind a 4-32? Eye box is not an issue and is overblown on the forums. It’s too much magnification for me, but I used one for a season and didn’t struggle with it at all in field positions, and obviously not on a range.

 

[huntnful]

I would go with NX8 4-32 or March F 3-24X52. You can't go wrong with either of them. The March will save you 5oz over the Nx8 also.

 

[Justin Crossley]

Mark 5 would be what I’d go with.



NXS glass isn’t even in the same league as the Mark 5 or Razor. Decent scope, but glass sucks. I’m not a huge fan of the NX8 either due to the small eyebox. Durability is the only category they might edge out over the Mark 5.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You should probably read the scope evaluations that are posted here.

The Leupold Mark 5 doesn't hold zero. So, that's a non-starter since that's the most important function of a scope. It's a bummer because I like a lot of things about that scope.

NXS glass is never going to be the reason you don't hit a target. I have shot plenty of them and all the others you mentioned, and it's never even been a thought, let alone an issue.

 

[RussDXT]

I wouldn’t run a Leupold if it were given to me. If they don’t track and hold zero what’s the point?

 

[madcalfe]

kahles k318i. it's just over your weight at 33oz

 

[huntnful]

I've had some Gen 2 Razors and the little Mark 5. I'll say to get anything comparable from NF you need to be looking at their ATACR series. The 4-16x42 is the only one that will meet your weight goal. I've had a couple of those baby ATACRs and I think that stack up well with the Mk5 & G2Rs.

The reputation of finicky parallax and tight eyebox of the 3-24 March makes me a bit hesitant to try them out (plus resale kinda sucks). The 4.5-28 high master sounds to be the much better optic, but mounting might be a PITA if you are using a long action. March just recently announced the FFP versions of their 1.5-15, which might interest you. The short length might make mounting a PITA on this one as well.

If you can bump your weight goal a little, you might look at the Kahles k525i (had that one for a bit, but the DLR would be the one to pick nowadays), the ZCO 420 (have that one), or maybe an S&B 3-20 US (haven't had that one). The 3-15 Tangent (I have that one) doesn't have the upper magnification that you want, but it's definitely useable beyond 1,100 yards. The Tangent will be the most expensive, and it may not have the "value" you're looking for.

Of all those options or anything that's been mentioned in this thread by anyone, the ZCO 420 is the way to go IMO if you can swing it monetarily and slightly bump up your weight goal.

I don't notice the finicky parallax or tight eyebox in the March 3-24X52 honestly. It is much easier to get behind than my NX8 was. But the highmaster FX 4.5-28X52 is definitely better ( I have it also). The majority of people I've talked to that have owned most of the high end optics all agree with you. The ZCO 420 is superior. IDK why I can't get behind the 36mm tube (and only higher ring options) and 15 mil turret. I just rather have more bold and separated turret markings with 10 mil. Pretty much the only things keeping me from buying one lol. Dumb, I know haha.

 

[nobody]

Mark 5 would be what I’d go with.



NXS glass isn’t even in the same league as the Mark 5 or Razor. Decent scope, but glass sucks. I’m not a huge fan of the NX8 either due to the small eyebox. Durability is the only category they might edge out over the Mark 5.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would encourage you to read the subforum on riflescope field evaluations if you're worried about "glass." Riflescopes are aiming devices, not observation devices. They have one single, solitary job. Steer bullet to target. You don't need to resolve a cheater on the buck across the canyon, you don't need to pick out the bull with devil's tines, that's what your binos and spotter are for. You need your riflescope to function mechanically FLAWLESSLY, and the biggest mechanical failure of 99% of modern optics is their ability to hold and maintain zero from any type of bump, impact, or vibration. If your reticle floats and the scope wanders and you have to check zero after every drive, that's an optic failure. Period.

Again, and I can't stress this point enough, a scope is an aiming device, not an observation device. Buy good glass in your observation optics, binos and spotter. Buy good mechanics in your scopes. Somewhere around the $300-$500 mark in scopes and your glass is no longer the reason you miss the buck. But the mechanics will be the reason you miss. And more money spent does not equal better durability, that relationship is not linear. Price means nothing in this exercise, a scope either works or it doesn't. And most are in that second group.

Short list of viable riflescopes (Form can chime in and correct me if I'm wrong):

Nightforce
Trijicon
SWFA
Minox ZP5
MAYBE the Meopta Optika 5

You can roll your dice on a pretty gold ring, but after fighting my own failures plus the following thread, I've since repented.

2x Leupold Mark 5 Field Evaluations

This is a field evaluation of the Leupold Mark 5 3.6-18x44mm and the Leupold Mark 5 5-25x56mm. These scopes were brought to me from Ryan Avery for evaluation. The ammunition used for the 3.6-18x was Federal 168gr GMM, and for the 5-25x was Hornady ELD-M Match 168gr that was purchased by Ryan...

rokslide.com

But hey, I'm just some random guy on the internet.

 

[MTNHUNTER76]

I would encourage you to read the subforum on riflescope field evaluations if you're worried about "glass." Riflescopes are aiming devices, not observation devices. They have one single, solitary job. Steer bullet to target. You don't need to resolve a cheater on the buck across the canyon, you don't need to pick out the bull with devil's tines, that's what your binos and spotter are for. You need your riflescope to function mechanically FLAWLESSLY, and the biggest mechanical failure of 99% of modern optics is their ability to hold and maintain zero from any type of bump, impact, or vibration. If your reticle floats and the scope wanders and you have to check zero after every drive, that's an optic failure. Period.

Again, and I can't stress this point enough, a scope is an aiming device, not an observation device. Buy good glass in your observation optics, binos and spotter. Buy good mechanics in your scopes. Somewhere around the $300-$500 mark in scopes and your glass is no longer the reason you miss the buck. But the mechanics will be the reason you miss. And more money spent does not equal better durability, that relationship is not linear. Price means nothing in this exercise, a scope either works or it doesn't. And most are in that second group.

Short list of viable riflescopes (Form can chime in and correct me if I'm wrong):

Nightforce
Trijicon
SWFA
Minox ZP5
MAYBE the Meopta Optika 5

You can roll your dice on a pretty gold ring, but after fighting my own failures plus the following thread, I've since repented.

2x Leupold Mark 5 Field Evaluations

This is a field evaluation of the Leupold Mark 5 3.6-18x44mm and the Leupold Mark 5 5-25x56mm. These scopes were brought to me from Ryan Avery for evaluation. The ammunition used for the 3.6-18x was Federal 168gr GMM, and for the 5-25x was Hornady ELD-M Match 168gr that was purchased by Ryan...

rokslide.com

But hey, I'm just some random guy on the internet.

Well I have 3 mark 5's that hold zero and track correctly. I know several shooters who run these in prs comps, my self included. Also know folks running marks 5's on elr rigs and long range hunting rifles.

I shoot mine in comps and they don't get babied. My rifles don't even get carried in hard cases to and from hunting trips or matches. I've been shooting the mark 5 line since it was introduced. I've shot assorted game between 500-800yds. I haven't had any issues. Could an issue arise.....possibly.

Any scope can fail. Failures in the mark 5 line is not a common event.

 

[huntnful]

That's interesting that you don't notice any parallax sensitivity. For something like my Tangent, I can shoot from about 300 yards to 1,000+ yards without touching parallax. Even my ZCOs aren't that good. What kind of DoF do you notice in the mid-range for the 3-24 March? At this point, I should just grab a 4.5-28 to try it out for a bit, but the secondary market seems fairly weak for March (maybe I'm wrong?). The newly announced FFP 1.5-15 is a little interesting, but the reticle choices aren't for me.

I've read a few people make similar statements about the 36 mm tube. That has never entered my mind, and I don't really get it. I sort of agree the the 15 mil/rev turret. But most modern designs limit the total number of revolutions for a turret. So if you drop to 10 mil/rev, people will complain that such-and-such competitor has more available elevation to dial. Personally, I think the numbering on the ZCO is really big and bright as it is. I've got mixed feelings about the locking turret though. I'm going to send one off of my ZCOs off to try out the NLE.

Hopefully, ZCO throws their hat in with a lighter weight offering. That would likely require a smaller main tub, and smaller turrets. That make believe offering would likely convert me to run ZCOs exclusively, LOL.

If you stay below maybe 15X I'd say you have 500 yards parallax free pretty easily. Once at 24X it's a smaller, maybe 200 yard window. I've been pretty happy with the FX so far for sure. Very durable and reliable. The 20% wider FOV is a huge advantage for follow up shots and watching reactions on animals. I've noticed that for sure. Glass is pretty good. I'm sure not comparable to TT or ZCO though. That's interesting to hear about the locking turret. I once thought that was a "must have" feature. Until I got one of these March's. The turrets are so solid, I've never slipped a single click with a lot of field use. I'm waiting for TT to drop a 32oz 4-20X52 with a 34mm tube lol.

 

[huntnful]

Agreed regarding locking turrets - and my preferences have evolved over time as well. The exposed non-locking turrets on my Tangent are more secure than the "locking" windage on my LRTS or some of the other cheaper options. I do like the zero lock of the Mk5 or the 4-16 ATACR though.

After the new 7-35 Tangent drops next year, the 4-20 should be next up. Rumor has it that the 4-20 will likely be in the 'Professional' line, which means it'll probably be on the heavy side - but that's just rumor as far as I know. I'm hopeful that Tangent includes a 'Marksmen' version. And those idiots need to put a thicker reticle in their mid-powered scopes, LOL. A 0.025mil thick reticle is basically unusable below about 8x. Take their Gen 3xr, and bump it up to about 0.045 mil, and they'd have a winner.

Agreed!! I feel like the .05 thickness of the march FX is perfect. Even the .07 center dot of the March F is actually about perfect for hunting. Slightly bold for target shooting, but still easy to stack up some small groups on paper.

 

[Justin Crossley]

Well I have 3 mark 5's that hold zero and track correctly. I know several shooters who run these in prs comps, my self included. Also know folks running marks 5's on elr rigs and long range hunting rifles.

I shoot mine in comps and they don't get babied. My rifles don't even get carried in hard cases to and from hunting trips or matches. I've been shooting the mark 5 line since it was introduced. I've shot assorted game between 500-800yds. I haven't had any issues. Could an issue arise.....possibly.

Any scope can fail. Failures in the mark 5 line is not a common event.

I know a lot of people with similar experience to yours. Most my friends compete with Mark 5's with good results. But, a lot of them have had issues with them holding zero as well. Some have required warranty repairs. I mean it when I say I really want them to work because on paper, they are an awesome scope that I would love to use. I was actually just about to pull the trigger on a couple and then a buddy had issues with another one.

It's really not a big deal on a match rifle because you can almost always check zero at a match. Hunting is a different story and that's why I wouldn't put one on my hunting rifles.

Nightforce scopes on the other hand, almost never have issues which is why I just ordered two more.

 

[huntnful]

I know a lot of people with similar experience to yours. Most my friends compete with Mark 5's with good results. But, a lot of them have had issues with them holding zero as well. Some have required warranty repairs. I mean it when I say I really want them to work because on paper, they are an awesome scope that I would love to use. I was actually just about to pull the trigger on a couple and then a buddy had issues with another one.

It's really not a big deal on a match rifle because you can almost always check zero at a match. Hunting is a different story and that's why I wouldn't put one on my hunting rifles.

Nightforce scopes on the other hand, almost never have issues which is why I just ordered two more.

For anyone that has had good luck, and who knows people that have had good luck with leupold and Mark 5's..... there is an equal amount that haven't and an equal amount that knows people who haven't. THAT IS NOT GOOD. My personal Mark 5, no issues. My buddy's exact same Mark 5, failed right beside me. Then there's the constant weird slight zero shifts also. Seen 3 VX5's and 2 Mark 5's lose zero or completely fail. Even though I've never personally had an issue with the 3 I used to have. Can't and won't own another one. I'll learn from others failures, before it happens to me.

Oh, my original Mark 5 5-25 in MOA also showed up with MIL internals. Had like 105 clicks per rotation instead of 100 and tracked like a MIL and was constantly misaligned on the turret. Had to send it back it TWICE. First time, they just sent it back to me without fixing it and said nothing was wrong. Second time they actually fixed it, but the return paperwork still said nothing was wrong lol.

 

[SDHNTR]

Of those, March.

 

[MTNHUNTER76]

I know a lot of people with similar experience to yours. Most my friends compete with Mark 5's with good results. But, a lot of them have had issues with them holding zero as well. Some have required warranty repairs. I mean it when I say I really want them to work because on paper, they are an awesome scope that I would love to use. I was actually just about to pull the trigger on a couple and then a buddy had issues with another one.

It's really not a big deal on a match rifle because you can almost always check zero at a match. Hunting is a different story and that's why I wouldn't put one on my hunting rifles.

Nightforce scopes on the other hand, almost never have issues which is why I just ordered two more.

The competitive shooting world is very demanding. If the mark 5s holding zero and not tracking was an issue nobody would run them.

I've owned just about every high end scope made. Schmidt & bender, zeiss, Khales,nf atacr, nf nxs, vortex gen 2 razor, leupold mark 5, zcs. Only one I haven't owned is the tangent theta.

My main hunting gun wears a 7-35 mark 5. Has been trouble free for 3yrs. It doesn't get zero checked. Just goes hunting and kills stuff.

I'm sure there are lemons now and then, same as any other product.

Hard to beat the mark 5 for the $.

Happy hunting!

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

 

[RussDXT]

The competitive shooting world is very demanding. If the mark 5s holding zero and not tracking was an issue nobody would run them.

I've owned just about every high end scope made. Schmidt & bender, zeiss, Khales,nf atacr, nf nxs, vortex gen 2 razor, leupold mark 5, zcs. Only one I haven't owned is the tangent theta.

My main hunting gun wears a 7-35 mark 5. Has been trouble free for 3yrs. It doesn't get zero checked. Just goes hunting and kills stuff.

I'm sure there are lemons now and then, same as any other product.

Hard to beat the mark 5 for the $.

Happy hunting!

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

I wish they did, but looking at the test it’s simply not the case.

 

[Justin Crossley]

The competitive shooting world is very demanding. If the mark 5s holding zero and not tracking was an issue nobody would run them.

I've owned just about every high end scope made. Schmidt & bender, zeiss, Khales,nf atacr, nf nxs, vortex gen 2 razor, leupold mark 5, zcs. Only one I haven't owned is the tangent theta.

My main hunting gun wears a 7-35 mark 5. Has been trouble free for 3yrs. It doesn't get zero checked. Just goes hunting and kills stuff.

I'm sure there are lemons now and then, same as any other product.

Hard to beat the mark 5 for the $.

Happy hunting!

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

The competition world is not demanding at all. I see shooters checking and correcting their zeros at matches all the time while telling their buddies how great their scope is.

I mentioned before that many of my friends who compete (some very elite) still swear by the Mark 5 and win a lot of matches with them. I'm not saying they won't work. I personally have more confidence that Nightforce scopes will hold zero, so I recommend them.

Remember that many shooters also shoot various Vortex scopes that don't hold zero. You still see a pile at every competition, though, because half the field of shooters can get a deal on them, and the other half thinks they are getting good advice from the first half...