Thread: 6GT

Mk6 - not VX

It has a non-illuminated FFP TMR. Good reticle, nice and thick on low magnification but thin enough not to disrupt precision at higher end. I may sell and get another March F to match my other rifle though (anyone got a 3-24x42 March F with FML1 they're looking to sell?). I like the floating dot of the March reticle.

GT works well on deer

Originally Posted by gimp

3.85kg with an empty 6rd Magpul AICS

The suppressor cover adds about 80gm (3.85 includes this)

EH8 may be a little heavier than the Glacier

The barrel is a lot lighter weight than it first appears then, looks a heavier profile in the pictures than it actually is.

So I succumbed to temptation and obtained a 3-24x52 March with FML reticle for this. Not quite identical to the .223 as that's a x42, and FML-1, but close. Would consider swapping for a x42 with FML-1 if anyone is interested..

Mounted in aligned, torqued & loctited Talleys with the most optimal ring spacing achievable

Originally Posted by gimp

So I succumbed to temptation and obtained a 3-24x52 March with FML reticle for this. Not quite identical to the .223 as that's a x42, and FML-1, but close. Would consider swapping for a x42 with FML-1 if anyone is interested..

Mounted in aligned, torqued & loctited Talleys with the most optimal ring spacing achievable

Attachment 275625

Very nice so what's the weight less the Atlas

Sent from my CPH2531 using Tapatalk

It was 3.85kg with empty mag with the Mk6, probably the same plus or minus 10 or 20gm with the March

E: the mk6 is advertised as 677gm but actually weighed 645. The March is advertised as 653gm, I haven't weighed it. Basically the same

Originally Posted by gimp

It was 3.85kg with empty mag with the Mk6, probably the same plus or minus 10 or 20gm with the March

E: the mk6 is advertised as 677gm but actually weighed 645. The March is advertised as 653gm, I haven't weighed it. Basically the same

So I guess you are really liking the March.
How does it's glass compare to say your S&B that you had. And how do you find the eye relief

Sent from my CPH2531 using Tapatalk

The March F is the best scope I've found yet. I do think I prefer the x42 as it's a little more compact.

The S&B was probably better in every way, except too heavy to be practical.

Eye relief on the March is fine. In theory the eye box may be finicky, more so with the x42, but in practice it's fine. You don't notice it, you just shoot things.

The March is basically the only scope I'd buy new at the moment. Maybe the Steiner HX6i if it ever exists. Or the FFP S&B meta if it isn't 9 million dollar and if they introduce a better reticle

It's one scope I've never looked at I've always been a swarvoski man and love the z8 glass but not the price.

Sent from my CPH2531 using Tapatalk

I would be interested to hear what you reckon after using both scopes (x42 and x52) for a while.

Originally Posted by 25/08 IMP

It's one scope I've never looked at I've always been a swarvoski man and love the z8 glass but not the price.

Sent from my CPH2531 using Tapatalk

While I don't have much faith in this individual's integrity or motivation, and consider the testing method entirely questionable - the inability of most scopes to retain an accurate zero just through being driven around in cars means that I now consider all scopes untrustworthy until an example is meaningfully proven otherwise
https://rokslide.com/forums/forums/r...aluations.133/

I have used a March F 3-24x42 for several years now, work and recreational hunting, and it has reliably held zero within 0.1MRAD. So I trust the March F

Swarovski, irrespective of the feature set that puts them off the to-buy list for me - not so much

https://rokslide.com/forums/threads/...d-eval.405637/

Originally Posted by Shamus_

I would be interested to hear what you reckon after using both scopes (x42 and x52) for a while.

Roger. I'll report back. The x52 is optically nicer certainly. Which means essentially nothing for hunting, might be worth a point at some stage in a match (If there is ever a match I can get to)

I would swap for the x52mm but won’t be back in country for at least 6 months, at which point we have both probably changed our minds ��

Originally Posted by gimp

While I don't have much faith in this individual's integrity or motivation, and consider the testing method entirely questionable - the inability of most scopes to retain an accurate zero just through being driven around in cars means that I now consider all scopes untrustworthy until an example is meaningfully proven otherwise
https://rokslide.com/forums/forums/r...aluations.133/

I have used a March F 3-24x42 for several years now, work and recreational hunting, and it has reliably held zero within 0.1MRAD. So I trust the March F

Swarovski, irrespective of the feature set that puts them off the to-buy list for me - not so much

https://rokslide.com/forums/threads/...d-eval.405637/

The bloke did an epic U-turn on NF to shill for Maven...

Originally Posted by caberslash

The bloke did an epic U-turn on NF to shill for Maven...

To be fair as much as I dont trust it 100% I'd hardly say saying one model of scope they do is good and the rest are shit. Whilst still saying that most nightforce,trijicon, SWFA are a safe bet is shilling for Maven.

Half the people on this and that forum shill hard for whatever gear they purchased so they dont feel like the balls up.

Sunk cost bias is real. Plus if you wanna sell it cos it doesnt work for you, you can hardly tell people it's shit