March 10-60 Vs NF Comp 15-55. Which do you prefer for F class and why.

[JimPag]

Tell Sid I said hello. I didn't get to the IBS meeting so I didn't get to see him for awhile. With my wife's medical problems I didn't get around last summer. Matt

Sorry to hear that Matt. I hope she gets well. I didn't get to the meeting this year either. Just didn't feel like driving all that way for a 3 hour meeting. I will tell Sid that you were asking for him.

 

[falconpilot]

Well You better believe it. I have 2 friends who live in PA. One is Jim Eazor who is a gunsmith and makes EPS bullets and who shoots in all different deciples, SR score, 600 & 1000 yard stuff and the other is Roy Hunter, a well know stock maker who shoots SR Group & score, and 600 yard stuff. They both had 3 NF 55 Comps between them. They both got rid of them and bought March 10-60's. They both told me the exact scenario that the NF's were so clear, it would amplify mirage. The March buffered the mirage to where it was more readable. Roy told me that he was at a match and he brought both scopes on 2 different rifles and when the mirage was bad, he said he was able to shoot in that condition with the March and not with the NF, so he sold both of his.

I agree 100% with this..this is exactly how the March is for me. The only other thing not mentioned is the the fine cross hairs in the March would disappear about half way through a string for me..no matter how exact I adjust the eye piece. The fact that it will cut the mirage is lost to the fact that I lose my the reticle.

 

[Turbulent Turtle]

Well You better believe it. I have 2 friends who live in PA. One is Jim Eazor who is a gunsmith and makes EPS bullets and who shoots in all different deciples, SR score, 600 & 1000 yard stuff and the other is Roy Hunter, a well know stock maker who shoots SR Group & score, and 600 yard stuff. They both had 3 NF 55 Comps between them. They both got rid of them and bought March 10-60's. They both told me the exact scenario that the NF's were so clear, it would amplify mirage. The March buffered the mirage to where it was more readable. Roy told me that he was at a match and he brought both scopes on 2 different rifles and when the mirage was bad, he said he was able to shoot in that condition with the March and not with the NF, so he sold both of his.

That's interesting and completely counter to my understanding of optics. As far as I'm concerned the higher the quality of the glass, the less it is affected by mirage. My Weaver T-36 would be completely useless in heavy mirage and the aiming black on the target would appear as crazed amoeba on a sugar high through the eyepiece. My NF NXS was actually usable but I would dial it down to 25 to try shooting with it. I run my March X at 40X all the time and at the last match when the conditions got nasty and the mirage was running all over the place, I was still amazed that it was so clear, I could not easily detect the mirage switches which were numerous and fast. It showed up on my score.

I have experimented with a yellow filter to help define the mirage more, but I did not have it installed that time and suffered for it. I had brought the wrong tripod for my spotting scope so I did not have it with me on the line. My March-X is just too clear and is not affected by the mirage at the same level as the scopes with lesser quality glass.

Mirage is actually a distortion of the atmosphere where the light refracts differently going through layers of hot or cold and moist or dry air. Using a scope is those conditions will enhance these issues and create the equivalent of bokeh in the eyepiece. The higher the quality of the glass, the less this occurs. In addition, the greater the diameter of the lens the greater the resolution and 56 is larger than 52. Another method of "controlling" the mirage is the depth of field. A larger lens with a higher magnification will reduce the depth of field and the amount of mirage. On the other hand, if you ARE looking for mirage, a simple way to further enhance it in your riflescope is to cut the amount of light going into the scope with a filter or one of those ring things. This will cause the F-stop number to increase along with the depth-of-field. That's why my T-36 with its 40mm objective and relatively cheap glass was toast in mirage conditions, and my NXS was better but its resolution was nowhere near what my March is so I had to turn it down.

 

[Turbulent Turtle]

I agree 100% with this..this is exactly how the March is for me. The only other thing not mentioned is the the fine cross hairs in the March would disappear about half way through a string for me..no matter how exact I adjust the eye piece. The fact that it will cut the mirage is lost to the fact that I lose my the reticle.

My March does not have a crosshair reticle, but I do like to turn on the illuminated reticle when the conditions force me to help my aging eyes.

 

[dkhunt14]

That's interesting and completely counter to my understanding of optics. As far as I'm concerned the higher the quality of the glass, the less it is affected by mirage. My Weaver T-36 would be completely useless in heavy mirage and the aiming black on the target would appear as crazed amoeba on a sugar high through the eyepiece. My NF NXS was actually usable but I would dial it down to 25 to try shooting with it. I run my March X at 40X all the time and at the last match when the conditions got nasty and the mirage was running all over the place, I was still amazed that it was so clear, I could not easily detect the mirage switches which were numerous and fast. It showed up on my score.

I have experimented with a yellow filter to help define the mirage more, but I did not have it installed that time and suffered for it. I had brought the wrong tripod for my spotting scope so I did not have it with me on the line. My March-X is just too clear and is not affected by the mirage at the same level as the scopes with lesser quality glass.

Mirage is actually a distortion of the atmosphere where the light refracts differently going through layers of hot or cold and moist or dry air. Using a scope is those conditions will enhance these issues and create the equivalent of bokeh in the eyepiece. The higher the quality of the glass, the less this occurs. In addition, the greater the diameter of the lens the greater the resolution and 56 is larger than 52. Another method of "controlling" the mirage is the depth of field. A larger lens with a higher magnification will reduce the depth of field and the amount of mirage. On the other hand, if you ARE looking for mirage, a simple way to further enhance it in your riflescope is to cut the amount of light going into the scope with a filter or one of those ring things. This will cause the F-stop number to increase along with the depth-of-field. That's why my T-36 with its 40mm objective and relatively cheap glass was toast in mirage conditions, and my NXS was better but its resolution was nowhere near what my March is so I had to turn it down.

The glass is way better in the Competition then in the NXS. I have 3 NXS scopes. A 8x32, a 12x42 and a 5.5x22. I also have about 4 Nightforce BR's. The Competition blows them out the water with their glass. Matt

 

[Turbulent Turtle]

The glass is way better in the Competition then in the NXS. I have 3 NXS scopes. A 8x32, a 12x42 and a 5.5x22. I also have about 4 Nightforce BR's. The Competition blows them out the water with their glass. Matt

I'm sure the glass in the NF Competition is better than the glass in the NF NXS.

 

[Willow]

I don't think it was a High Master scope you looked through, I asked and have been told they are not in the country yet.

I am in Australia mate and I can assure you it was a High Master prototype. The Australian distributor Stuart Elliot loaned a prototype to my gunsmith who is one of Australia's top F class shooters.

I was able to turn the magnification up in this scope and had improved clarity compared to my Golden Eagle and an NF comp mounted on a friends rifle.

 

[Willow]

Whet

I am sorry but i dont believe this statememt. Mirage is an an atmospheric condition. While one scope may be brighter or clearer then another, I don't believe you will see through it any better then another. A clearer scope may allow you to see it better. Also usually the higher the power the more mirage you see. Matt

Whether it's a poor choice of words on my part or not, I have not looked through glass like this before. The March was clearer on 40x than my Golden Eagle and a 2014 NF Comp on 30x - same condition across the board. Mirage was heavy, it was a hot, humid and sunny day and the March was noticeably clearer when it came to resolving the target - mirage was nowhere near as much of an issue as the Vortex and NF. I'm not bashing Vortex or NF, I like them both and have no intention of selling my Golden Eagles but this new March is something else. Whatever the engineers did regarding the lens coatings and internal lens arrangement has worked.

 

[Alex Wheeler]

I have had oportunities to look though and adjust most of the top scopes in near perfect conditions. Optically the NF 15-55 is untouched, have not seen the new March scopes yet. However, I know of quite a few rifles fixed by taking the 15-55 off. I cant recommend them unfortunately. My favorites are the 10-60 March and NF 12-42 BR.

 

[swd]

Alex, what kind of problems are you seeing with NF Comp?

 

[johara1]

I had four NF. comps all four had the same issues, impact shift. Not a lot but it was there, and fixed by replacing with a 10-60 March. You send them back and they will tell you nothing is wrong it is your rings and base not bedded. I like the clarity of the NF. comp. but i had one NXS i saw 338 bullet holes in the box at 1000 never had that happen with any other one. The BR model is golden except for the short eye relief and the weight....... jim

 

[Ned Ludd]

This type of thread is always good for a laugh. You need to look through a scope you may want to purchase and determine with your own eyes what you see. As far as I can tell, about 90% (if not more) of what I just read in this whole thread is opinion...nothing more, nothing less. You've got people arguing about glass clarity, as if that is really a quantifiable value, one scope is better than another in cutting through mirage, etc. ad nauseum. In some cases, I'm betting from the response that the people haven't ever even looked through the other model scope, they simply know theirs has to be better. I could add my opinions to the list, but why bother? Even though they differ substantially from much of what I just read, they're still just my opinions, not facts. Every time a thread like this comes up (i.e. Whose glass is better?), you get dozens of different answers by dozens of different people, all completely convinced they are completely right and the other people are completely wrong. That alone should tell you something. If it's at all possible, arrange to look through the scope(s) you are interested in, side-by-side if possible. That's the only way you will ever know for sure.

 

[JimPag]

This type of thread is always good for a laugh. You need to look through a scope you may want to purchase and determine with your own eyes what you see. As far as I can tell, about 90% (if not more) of what I just read in this whole thread is opinion...nothing more, nothing less. You've got people arguing about glass clarity, as if that is really a quantifiable value, one scope is better than another in cutting through mirage, etc. ad nauseum. In some cases, I'm betting from the response that the people haven't ever even looked through the other model scope, they simply know theirs has to be better. I could add my opinions to the list, but why bother? Even though they differ substantially from much of what I just read, they're still just my opinions, not facts. Every time a thread like this comes up (i.e. Whose glass is better?), you get dozens of different answers by dozens of different people, all completely convinced they are completely right and the other people are completely wrong. That alone should tell you something. If it's at all possible, arrange to look through the scope(s) you are interested in, side-by-side if possible. That's the only way you will ever know for sure.

This type of thread is always good for a laugh. You need to look through a scope you may want to purchase and determine with your own eyes what you see. As far as I can tell, about 90% (if not more) of what I just read in this whole thread is opinion...nothing more, nothing less. You've got people arguing about glass clarity, as if that is really a quantifiable value, one scope is better than another in cutting through mirage, etc. ad nauseum. In some cases, I'm betting from the response that the people haven't ever even looked through the other model scope, they simply know theirs has to be better. I could add my opinions to the list, but why bother? Even though they differ substantially from much of what I just read, they're still just my opinions, not facts. Every time a thread like this comes up (i.e. Whose glass is better?), you get dozens of different answers by dozens of different people, all completely convinced they are completely right and the other people are completely wrong. That alone should tell you something. If it's at all possible, arrange to look through the scope(s) you are interested in, side-by-side if possible. That's the only way you will ever know for sure.

What's your point? As far as looking thru scopes go it's always going to be an opinion even though say 200 people look thru two scopes side by side and all 200 pick the same scope, so it's obvious that scope is clearer but it's still an opinion. I have 5 Marches and 2 NF comps, in my opinion as far as clarity goes NF wins hands down. It's a fact that more people say a NF is clearer than a March but that still is an opinion. Where does it end? It doesn't.

 

[johara1]

This type of thread is always good for a laugh. You need to look through a scope you may want to purchase and determine with your own eyes what you see. As far as I can tell, about 90% (if not more) of what I just read in this whole thread is opinion...nothing more, nothing less. You've got people arguing about glass clarity, as if that is really a quantifiable value, one scope is better than another in cutting through mirage, etc. ad nauseum. In some cases, I'm betting from the response that the people haven't ever even looked through the other model scope, they simply know theirs has to be better. I could add my opinions to the list, but why bother? Even though they differ substantially from much of what I just read, they're still just my opinions, not facts. Every time a thread like this comes up (i.e. Whose glass is better?), you get dozens of different answers by dozens of different people, all completely convinced they are completely right and the other people are completely wrong. That alone should tell you something. If it's at all possible, arrange to look through the scope(s) you are interested in, side-by-side if possible. That's the only way you will ever know for sure.

I would guess the big thing that matters to me is that it hold point of impact and rock solid movement, best glass or what ever is down the list. ..... jim

 

[lawman29]

JimPag couldn't agree more. That's what our Forum is all about, information exchange, opinion, debate, etc. Under gstaylorg's theory we wouldn't discuss barrels, actions, triggers, stocks, bullets etc. It's up to the reader to decide what weight to give to any 'opinion'. Posts can be irrelevant, irrational, informative, entertaining...I like the ones that are informative and entertaining.....

 

[JimPag]

I would guess the big thing that matters to me is that it hold point of impact and rock solid movement, best glass or what ever is down the list. ..... jim

Your right Jim. I sure didn't get the March's because I thought they were the clearest scope on the planet. Every thread I read on BRC about people that had them said they aren't the clearest but they hold POI better than anything else. That's what sold me.

 

[Ned Ludd]

Never said anything whatsoever about not having the discussion. What I said was that some discussions like this one are so filled with opinion, if not downright disinformation, that they are of little value to the OP. That IS my opinion, IS just as valid as anything else posted in this thread, and something the OP can also weigh when trying to determine how useful the bulk of responses they get actually are. "Best scope" threads are almost always that way.

I have 8 or 10 NF NXS scopes, and one Competition. IMO - the NXS glass is every bit as good as the Competition, and the NXS 12-42s don't suffer from the extremely tight eyebox like the Competition. If the lighter weight of the Competition wasn't essential for that particular rifle, I would swap it for a 12-42 NXS in a heartbeat. I don't have a great deal of time behind March scopes, but they certainly have a good reputation. In fact, I've heard more March owners indicate they thought the glass was However, I wouldn't ever use anywhere near the 60-80X magnification available on some March scopes in F-TR, so paying top dollar for one isn't so high on my list. Even the 55X mag on the Competition is overkill for F-TR IMO, but others have the exact opposite opinion. For me, the extra mag simply represents a much greater risk of crossfiring, without added benefit. I can see well enough at 35X to hold as tight as I am capable of holding. Anything more costs extra and doesn't add value for me.

 

[Raythemanroe]

@ the IBS National's I watched and listened to guys on the line using March, Comp's and so on.. The one's using the March all seemed to have the least change of impact from relay to relay... I know this was just my observation but I did stay at a Holliday Inn..

Ray

 

[Medic505]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the thing I liked best about the March 10 x 60 I owned was I finally sold it and didn't take a beating on it. I used those funds to purchase a NF Comp. I couldn't be happier. The March was a good scope, but no matter what I did, it never fit my eyes.

 

[JimPag]

Never said anything whatsoever about not having the discussion. What I said was that some discussions like this one are so filled with opinion, if not downright disinformation, that they are of little value to the OP. That IS my opinion, IS just as valid as anything else posted in this thread, and something the OP can also weigh when trying to determine how useful the bulk of responses they get actually are. "Best scope" threads are almost always that way.

I have 8 or 10 NF NXS scopes, and one Competition. IMO - the NXS glass is every bit as good as the Competition, and the NXS 12-42s don't suffer from the extremely tight eyebox like the Competition. If the lighter weight of the Competition wasn't essential for that particular rifle, I would swap it for a 12-42 NXS in a heartbeat. I don't have a great deal of time behind March scopes, but they certainly have a good reputation. In fact, I've heard more March owners indicate they thought the glass was However, I wouldn't ever use anywhere near the 60-80X magnification available on some March scopes in F-TR, so paying top dollar for one isn't so high on my list. Even the 55X mag on the Competition is overkill for F-TR IMO, but others have the exact opposite opinion. For me, the extra mag simply represents a much greater risk of crossfiring, without added benefit. I can see well enough at 35X to hold as tight as I am capable of holding. Anything more costs extra and doesn't add value for me.

See that's OK. That's your opinion about the NXS scope. Your the 1st and I mean 1st person that I have ever heard say that the NXS glass is every bit as good as the Comps glass. Your opinion and I respect that. Me personally, I disagree. That's what this forum is all about different opinions from different people. It like Fords vs Chevys vs Mopars.