JEFFPPC
Gold $$ Contributor
The Sightron adjustment is much finder than any others. 4x1 ratio allows you to find the best spot and to land on it, not go past before you can stop.
Advice needed on scope to look at
- Thread starter kris bassett
- Start date
I just got my sightron catalog out of my mailbox. Getting ready to open it up!
Your march is really 2nd to the sightron?
Turbulent Turtle
F-TR competitor
10X zoom ratios in FFP is extremely rare. I only know of 2. The March Genesis 4-40X52 and the March Genesis 6-60X56. They are way out of your price range.
March makes the March-FX 5-40X56 Gen 2, that is closer to your price range, something around $3200. It has ED glass, (Deon was the first manufacturer to use ED glass in a riflescope.) Look at the FML-PDKi reticle. The gen 2 has the Shuriken turrets, among the best in the industry. Like all X March riflescopes its tube is 34mm and the tube wall is 4mm thick, incredibly strong.
Edited to remove a bad case of mind reading.
March makes the March-FX 5-40X56 Gen 2, that is closer to your price range, something around $3200. It has ED glass, (Deon was the first manufacturer to use ED glass in a riflescope.) Look at the FML-PDKi reticle. The gen 2 has the Shuriken turrets, among the best in the industry. Like all X March riflescopes its tube is 34mm and the tube wall is 4mm thick, incredibly strong.
Edited to remove a bad case of mind reading.
Last edited:
Sandstorm
Gold $$ Contributor
Depends on my score that day. Lol
Everyone,s eyes are different and you really need to try a lot of them to find what works for you. You wont go wrong with any of the top options…and your eyes will tell you what they like.
Turbulent Turtle
F-TR competitor
Yes, let's talk about the side focus (the proper term for this control knob.)
I see that the Sightron you're pushing has two dials for the focus knob; the regular one and then another one with a 4:1 gear reduction. That's a bit like my Kowa spotting scope, neat idea at the cost of more complexity and heavier weight. (Sigh, nothing is free when it comes to optics.)
You are correct that I do see March Majesta owners sometimes fiddling with the side focus, but the main reason for that is as follows: The depth of field of a riflescope is directly related to the magnification used, and the objective lens size, which is where modifier disks come in. Let's leave the MD disks aside for now.
The Majesta owner will be using them at 80X for the most part, with some at 65X or some such, to get a very wide field of view and forego the use of a spotting scope. (The 25° AAOV of the Majesta allows shooters to do that. No other 2nd focal plane scope (and most FFP scopes) even comes close.) So they use the Majesta at very high magnification, much higher than lesser optics. This makes the focus that much more critical. Add to that the mirage and conditions and yes, you will fiddle with the focus.
But here's the thing than many Majesta owners have discovered; DEON includes what they call an middle wheel in the box (along with an MD disk) and that little wheel fits on the side focus knob and effectively doubles the diameter of the knobs, doubles the granularity of the control and makes for a much finer control, without the added complexity of a second gearing mechanism. For even more increased granularity, you can buy a larger side focus wheel that fits on top of the included middle wheel and makes the side focus knob incredibly precise and that wheel weighs virtually nothing. I've been using such a wheel on my March scopes for years to help with my arthritis, and it provides incredibly fine control of adjustments.
These wheels are available for all March scopes and the middle wheel is included with most new scopes now.
Please note that I am not recommending a Majesta to @kris bassett , it is overkill, out of his price range and would be like suggesting a Lamborghini to someone who just wants a great sedan. The March-X 10-60X56 HM would be the model below the Majesta, but even that one is somewhat out of his price range, and in any case the Majesta, the 10-60X56 HM, and the Sightron SS-something are all second focal plane and kris wants a first focal plane, which is why I suggested the March-FX 5-40X56, which comes closest to his requirement of a 10X zoom and is close to his price range.
Last edited:
Thanks for all the suggestions guys! What is a modifier disk?
I did find in the last couple days that my reticle is hindering me at farther distances, covering the bullseye. I also decided I really want .125" adjustments. I'm having a time getting my rifle on exact center at 300 yards. I really don't want to have to go to a different base.
I did find in the last couple days that my reticle is hindering me at farther distances, covering the bullseye. I also decided I really want .125" adjustments. I'm having a time getting my rifle on exact center at 300 yards. I really don't want to have to go to a different base.
This rifle gets used for a lot of different duty, including hunting. I like being able to use my windage holdoffs without having to be on a specific power setting.
Turbulent Turtle
F-TR competitor
A modifier disk or whatever name various manufacturers use for the gadget is a disk with a hole that you screw onto a riflescope's objective. The purpose of this simple device is to reduce the amount of light coming into the riflescope.
Now, we're going to get technical. The size of the hole, or more properly, the aperture is usually 50% the size of the objective lens. This reduces the light by 50% and in optics parlance, that represents 1 F-stop. The net effect of this is an increase in the depth of field of the target area and this may show more mirage. So for a 56mm lens, the aperture of the modifier disk will be (if memory serves,) 39.5mm, which is 50% the size of the 56mm objective. That will be one F-stop. It also makes the image darker, but your eye will adjust provided it's not overcast.
Also, usually an FFP design is better served with a MIL reticle and MIL turrets. You can the look to something with .05MIL adjustments rather than the more typical 0.1MIL. There are MOA/MOA FFP scope, not sure if they come in 1/8MOA rather than the more prevalent 1/4MOA. Let me check something...
Back.
Well, what do you know; the March-FX 5-40X56 Gen 2 is available in .05MIL, as well as in MOA/MOA with 1/8 (.125) MOA increments.
Last edited:
Clancy
Silver $$ Contributor
If you’re looking for elite glass, look elsewhere.
I’ve got a bunch of scopes up to $4500 and I don’t think anything comes remotely close to checking as many boxes as an ATACR.
I was wondering if that's what they were. So it's just like F stops on camera. My Buris signature has this built in.
The March FX is the scope I've been looking at all day lol.
Thanks for the info!
Really? I've read only good things about their glass?
Clancy
Silver $$ Contributor
Positively. They’re decent edge to edge, but dark and very unimpressive to my eyes and several others I’ve talked to.
DaWhit
Silver $$ Contributor
I was underwhelmed when I looked through a friend’s 8-80 Majesta but the ocular was not set for my eyes in all fairness. The darkness is what jumped out at me but another friend said that is why they deal with mirage better than other lines. No idea if that is true.
Glass is very subjective, what is good to one shooter, is trash to another shooter, which is why it is important to get behind as many different brands and samples as possible. You also have to account for “one offs” in quality control.
As an example, every Weaver straight 46x scope I have looked through at our club has phenomenal glass, colors pop and exceptional clearness, others would say I am blind or crazy, I do have 20/15 vision still. I was going to buy another shooters spare 45x Leupold, til I mounted it and shot it, to my eyes the glass was awful compared to Sightron and Weaver straight power target scopes. Maybe it was a bad sample that got through quality control, I have owned other Leupolds in variable power lines that I was very happy with.
If you read enough scope reviews you will find for every positive review there is probably a negative review to offset the positive. At least until you get into the top tier Alpha glass, where reviews are overwhelmingly positive.
Turbulent Turtle
F-TR competitor
I just love these quick reports from people who took a quick peek through a scope and then jumped to conclusions and further generalize their statements to cover an entire brand.
Then they back up and say something trite like “glass is very subjective,” or “all eyes are different”, or some other inane platitude.
Let me put it this way; I discount every single riflescope comparison or even report unless the following conditions are met.
1- The exact make and model of the riflescope being compared are clearly stated.
2- The comparison is done at the same time, looking at the same target, at equivalent magnification.
3- The riflescopes are adjusted to the eyes of the person doing the comparison.
4- The person takes the time to get adjusted to the riflescope and spends more than 5 seconds looking through each.
If one thinks the Majesta is dark at 80X, sure, compared to what other riflescope at 80X? What were the conditions when you glanced through it?
I am still reminded of the story with my friend Otis @BP1, who one day at a Bayou 1000-yard match, got behind a Majesta set at 80X on a rifle, took a quick look and then stated something like “my NF competition is brighter, and I don’t see what the big deal is about the increased field of view.” I asked him to look through the Majesta again, but this time set at 55X. Being a good sport, he did just that and when he next got up, his face spoke volumes. Case closed.
When someone wants to look through my Majesta, which is always set at 80X, I caution them that it is at 80X. If they want to compare it to something to which they are used to, dial it down (sometimes way down) to that magnification and then look.
Glass is glass, optics is optics. If everyone’s eyes were different, it would be chaos, and nothing would work. So that’s a myth. What is different is everyone’s brain and experiences. The brain interprets what the eyes are sending it and filling in a LOT of missing or scrambled information. If you have never been behind a riflescope at 80X, it’s a new experience for your brain and it takes time for it to understand and interpret it. Throw in mirage conditions and it gets worse, much worse. Your brain is trying to figure out what’s coming at it.
If you think you will get a postcard perfect picture of the 1000-yard target at 80X through mirage, you will be disappointed. But your brain will soon understand that the aiming black is still round and not bobbing up and down and that the rings are still visible even if they look yucky and you can place the nice crisp reticle anywhere you want on the target. That takes a match or two for your brain to adapt to this.
The Majesta is in a class by itself, and you cannot compare it to any other riflescope simply because there is no other riflescope that goes to 80X and has a 25° AAOV. The 60X scopes from other vendors have 20° and 21° AAOV. The older March-X 8-80X56 has a 20° AAOV. The NF Competition has 18.9° and their 12-42X56 is 19.3°. The Kahles K1050 is at 17.2°. The Trijicon 5-50X56 is at 20°. The March-FX 5-40X56 is at 20°. I’m using the FOV values that are published at various manufacturers websites.
Then they back up and say something trite like “glass is very subjective,” or “all eyes are different”, or some other inane platitude.
Let me put it this way; I discount every single riflescope comparison or even report unless the following conditions are met.
1- The exact make and model of the riflescope being compared are clearly stated.
2- The comparison is done at the same time, looking at the same target, at equivalent magnification.
3- The riflescopes are adjusted to the eyes of the person doing the comparison.
4- The person takes the time to get adjusted to the riflescope and spends more than 5 seconds looking through each.
If one thinks the Majesta is dark at 80X, sure, compared to what other riflescope at 80X? What were the conditions when you glanced through it?
I am still reminded of the story with my friend Otis @BP1, who one day at a Bayou 1000-yard match, got behind a Majesta set at 80X on a rifle, took a quick look and then stated something like “my NF competition is brighter, and I don’t see what the big deal is about the increased field of view.” I asked him to look through the Majesta again, but this time set at 55X. Being a good sport, he did just that and when he next got up, his face spoke volumes. Case closed.
When someone wants to look through my Majesta, which is always set at 80X, I caution them that it is at 80X. If they want to compare it to something to which they are used to, dial it down (sometimes way down) to that magnification and then look.
Glass is glass, optics is optics. If everyone’s eyes were different, it would be chaos, and nothing would work. So that’s a myth. What is different is everyone’s brain and experiences. The brain interprets what the eyes are sending it and filling in a LOT of missing or scrambled information. If you have never been behind a riflescope at 80X, it’s a new experience for your brain and it takes time for it to understand and interpret it. Throw in mirage conditions and it gets worse, much worse. Your brain is trying to figure out what’s coming at it.
If you think you will get a postcard perfect picture of the 1000-yard target at 80X through mirage, you will be disappointed. But your brain will soon understand that the aiming black is still round and not bobbing up and down and that the rings are still visible even if they look yucky and you can place the nice crisp reticle anywhere you want on the target. That takes a match or two for your brain to adapt to this.
The Majesta is in a class by itself, and you cannot compare it to any other riflescope simply because there is no other riflescope that goes to 80X and has a 25° AAOV. The 60X scopes from other vendors have 20° and 21° AAOV. The older March-X 8-80X56 has a 20° AAOV. The NF Competition has 18.9° and their 12-42X56 is 19.3°. The Kahles K1050 is at 17.2°. The Trijicon 5-50X56 is at 20°. The March-FX 5-40X56 is at 20°. I’m using the FOV values that are published at various manufacturers websites.
Inflation gets away on me. Several years ago $3k got you anything. I think TT are over $6k if I'm not mistaken....
I have a couple 2.5-25x42 March, very light and very good for what I use them for. I do wish I had gotten illumination though. I don't think you would kick yourself for buying March.
Op asked about IOR, I have a 4-14x50. Best glass I have. Better than ATACR, Zeiss V6 and March that I own. Comparable to Leica. I don't own TT, S&B, ZCO or any ultra high end glass. IOR are not popular in these forums, I guess they used to have problematic internals.....they are heavy as well. Mine has worked flawlessly on a 6.5x284.
YMMV.
I have a couple 2.5-25x42 March, very light and very good for what I use them for. I do wish I had gotten illumination though. I don't think you would kick yourself for buying March.
Op asked about IOR, I have a 4-14x50. Best glass I have. Better than ATACR, Zeiss V6 and March that I own. Comparable to Leica. I don't own TT, S&B, ZCO or any ultra high end glass. IOR are not popular in these forums, I guess they used to have problematic internals.....they are heavy as well. Mine has worked flawlessly on a 6.5x284.
YMMV.
Upgrades & Donations
This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.