Thread: March scopes

Originally Posted by L.R

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Tahr

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.

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.

@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

Originally Posted by wsm junkie

@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

Lol wat about a sako 6.5x47

Haha, na you can keep that

Originally Posted by wsm junkie

Haha, na you can keep that

Hope to but u know me lol

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.

Originally Posted by L.R

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.

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.



Kj

Originally Posted by L.R

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 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.