Thinking about getting second hand March how good are they I've got a nxs at the moment cheers
Printable View
Thinking about getting second hand March how good are they I've got a nxs at the moment cheers
So you have a Nightforce. My wild guess would be there are some high-mid range branded scopes; March, Nightforce, S&B are all there and going to be similar good performance, so I cant see why its worth swapping out? If I could afford the $3.5k+ the above would all be brands I'd seriously consider. Looking at all the silly "features" popping onto scopes these days I wonder if we have not got to a plateau on performance? so a model year 2015 scope being no real improvement over a 2014 and maybe even a 2012 so they now have gizmos to make you buy.......
buzzman, send DAF a PM, he has actual experience of shooting with some of these in both competition and hunting context.
suspect you'd get a bit more valuable info from him... ;)
Much a muchness in the end, although the magnification range is superb on the March! Hunting wise, I dont think anything can top the 2.5-25 (or 3-24 FFP) for its size and magnification range.
Target wise, have only done a bit of shooting with a 10-60 which was awesome! Sure as hell cannot fault it.
Personally though, I'd say there ain't overly much between a NXS and a March, have used both and will carry on using both.. But the magnification range on the March for its size wins THAT fight hands down.
Good luck! :)
Cool thanks
Members are going to need a lot more info on the intended use and context if you want any sort of useable feedback.Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzman
Mostly hunting and a bit of targets Im running a sako 6.5x47 don't do much bush hunting.I like the nxs just not the bulkyNess of it cheers
What NXS do you have? Presumably the 5.5-22x50 (56?)
When you talk about 'bulkyness' is it the size or weight that's an issue? Does it make the rifle feel unbalanced?
If you don't want to de disappointed by poor low light performance, you are going to want the new 52mm version of the 2.5-25 or 3-24.
Good luck finding one second hand at this stage. I haven't seen one come up yet.
Yip but 50mm the size of the nf.but real just like trying new things
No the 52mm March is much less bulky than the NF. The 42mm March is a backward step from your NF I would say the extra bulk is worth it especially if your not bush hunting.
Thanks good infoQuote:
Originally Posted by L.R
and for that kind of mula i would pick a scope with a better warranty
I doubt Stuart @ BRT will let someone down with a March.Quote:
Originally Posted by deye223
For a hunting rifle anything over 42mm obj is going to be too much compromise.
Something like a Leica ERi would be a more practical option.
I don't think the difference between the 42 and 52 is really going to be felt on the rifle is it? But with the mag range of the march you sure need the bigger objective to make good use of it.
I've found anything over 42 needs a raised comb or other stock pack etc. Getting a good check weld I've found difficult in a 50+mm with a standard stock. As the intention is to be a hunting rifle every little bit added on makes for a pain in the ass IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by L.R
I cant really fathom what over 15x would be any use for in most hunting situations (other than for judging a head maybe).
And if God had intended us to use objectives over 42mm he would have given us an extra neck vertebrae.
That's true I guess. But in the past I've had 42mm March in low Telly rings and had to machine the back of the mount block for the mag ring to clear. It would have still had enough to barrel clearance for a 50mm scope.
I guess it comes down to the mounting situation. Even on a blaser with the lowest rings you still have room for a 50mm scope.
Long range hunting? Low light hunting? I guess there isn't much you can't do with 15x but it's sure nice to have more at times.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahr
@buzzman, get the 2.5-25x52 in mils and then i can buy it cheap when you go back to NF a couple weeks later:thumbsup:
Lol wat about a sako 6.5x47Quote:
Originally Posted by wsm junkie
Haha, na you can keep that:P
Hope to but u know me lolQuote:
Originally Posted by wsm junkie
Nothing wrong with a 50mm obj on a hunting rifle, no need to have a padded cheek rest you can get them low enough with ease
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
For me I found I could source a march '42 new for $600 less than the NF. Considering the weight saving, and the better reticle (imo) I went with the march. It won't be out of place on any rifle I intend to shoot it on.
Until you go to shoot something in low light and have to have it on 2.5 mag to see anything. If you want a march I'm a firm believer it needs to have the 52mm objective on it.
That's what I had to do on this rifle, worked a treat, I milled in from the back of the rear mount leaving the sides in place, the mag ring sits in this milled recess very discretely.Quote:
Originally Posted by L.R
http://i964.photobucket.com/albums/a...psceb3d0d2.jpg
Kj
That's the thing... I never shoot on dusk so spending the extra $1000 for a wider field of view or illuminated reticle is a royal flush down the loo. I've read all the 'hide comments about both scopes and there is a lot of overstated claims on it. Anyone is welcome to come and have a look through my '42 to help make up your own mind. Maybe your eyes are way better than mine I dunno but I'm 100% happy with it. I just wish spuhr made a lower mount that suited the '42 better which is my only minor gripe.Quote:
Originally Posted by L.R