• This Forum is for adults 18 years of age or over. By continuing to use this Forum you are confirming that you are 18 or older. No content shall be viewed by any person under 18 in California.

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

tom said:
Talk those boys at valdada into a sub 5 pound variable.

Tom
Click to expand...

I've tried! I'm surprised that I got them to change as much as I have! New reticels and shrunk the ocular on the 36s.
Got them to put 1/8 clicks in the Terminator. But I'm told the tactical guys like 1/4 clicks because they can get 25 MOA one turn. Go figure!


I'm working on them but it's slowwwww!

Bart
 
BartsBullets said:
I've tried! I'm surprised that I got them to change as much as I have! New reticels and shrunk the ocular on the 36s.
Got them to put 1/8 clicks in the Terminator. But I'm told the tactical guys like 1/4 clicks because they can get 25 MOA one turn. Go figure!


I'm working on them but it's slowwwww!

Bart
Click to expand...

Buddy of mine is a Valdada dealer, I looked through one of his scopes. Glass looked really good. I think he just sold a fixed 36 power to a buddy for F class. Interested to see how he likes it.
 
Down South said:
Buddy of mine is a Valdada dealer, I looked through one of his scopes. Glass looked really good. I think he just sold a fixed 36 power to a buddy for F class. Interested to see how he likes it.
Click to expand...


I have a straight 36x and love it. Crystal clear awesome reticle and
seems to be rock solid. I have mostly NF br's and I have never felt under scoped with the 36.
 
jghoghunter said:
I have a straight 36x and love it. Crystal clear awesome reticle and
seems to be rock solid. I have mostly NF br's and I have never felt under scoped with the 36.
Click to expand...

I'm perfectly fine with 36X shooting at 1000 yards when mirage isn't too heavy, I never crank my current NF comp scope above 42X even on first string in ideal conditions in matches. When mirage is really heavy i prefer to shoot lower power (20X-24X). That's why i don't know if i would like a fixed power scope.
 
Alex Wheeler said:
Ya, a 20-60x60 Valdada 30 oz or so would be sweet. Not sure why so many high mag scope insist on giving us the low power we never use and sacrifice image quality by multiplying the image more times than needed. Even a 25-50 would be fine.
Click to expand...

I agree.......:)
 
Last edited:
Alex Wheeler said:
Ya, a 20-60x60 Valdada 30 oz or so would be sweet. Not sure why so many high mag scope insist on giving us the low power we never use and sacrifice image quality by multiplying the image more times than needed. Even a 25-50 would be fine.
Click to expand...

+1. I find 60X or higher to be unusable on all scopes, but that's just me. I know guys that do it and make it work for them. 20-60 would be ideal in my book, though an even shorter range would probably work for me.
 
Alex Wheeler said:
Ya, a 20-60x60 Valdada 30 oz or so would be sweet. Not sure why so many high mag scope insist on giving us the low power we never use and sacrifice image quality by multiplying the image more times than needed. Even a 25-50 would be fine.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm not so sure about that. Whether the eyepiece is made up of lenses that produces 50X by itself or an eyepiece that produces 5X behind a 10X zoom, you're still inspecting the image that was formed by the objective lens under high magnification and would probably find little to no difference between prime or zoom.

If you want higher resolution, get a bigger objective and/or more focal length before getting to the zoom/eyepiece assembly. This would make for a much bigger and longer riflescope.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JRS
Someone clicked the Like button on this old post of mine a while ago and after reading what I had written, I believe I must correct some of the statements I made in that post that are incorrect. Ok, flat out wrong. I snipped out a lot so as to just focus (pardon the pun) on the issues that need attention.

Turbulent Turtle said:
It has been my observation that mirage is being tamed by ED glass, to the point where I discern it but it is not affecting the target the way non-ED glass show it to my eye. Also, mirage is a function of depth of field. The greater the depth of field, the more mirage you will discern. Depth of field is a function of magnification, distance and aperture. The larger objective lens of the March-X (56mm VS 52mm on the Comp), will reduce the depth of field. I also believe that the March-X has larger internal lenses in its 34mm tube with a still-constrained 60MOA total adjustment range. That probably increases the aperture and thus further reduces the depth of field.
Click to expand...

That belief has been proven wrong. The reason the March-X 5-50X56 (and probably the 8-80, and others) has a 34mm tube is because of the additional 2mm of thickness in the material of the body. This makes for a stronger tube only. It's actually nice to know that the March-X is very sturdy.


ETA: I also take note of some devices sold by some riflescope manufacturers that partially hide the objective lens. This has the effect of reducing the aperture, increasing the f-number and extending the depth of field, and thus show even more mirage. I noticed the same thing using a medium yellow filter on my NXS, which had the effect of increasing the f-number by 2/3 stops and showed we the mirage more distinctly.
Click to expand...
I had to read this one a few times because it confused me, and I'm the one who wrote it. While a yellow filter did seem to show the mirage more distinctly, some people might infer from my words that having a filter on a lens affects the aperture size and the resultant depth of field. It does not. A filter cuts down on the amount of light coming in depending on the type of filter used and will cause the image to be darker but will not increase depth of field. I used yellow, orange and red filters in my days of B&W photography to increase the contrast. A yellow filter seemed to alter things to make the mirage stand out more on a riflescope, but it does not affect the aperture and depth of field. For that, you need an aperture reducer.
 
Last edited:
Turbulent Turtle said:
Someone clicked the Like button on this old post of mine a while ago and after reading what I had written, I believe I must correct some of the statements I made in that post that are incorrect. Ok, flat out wrong. I snipped out a lot so as to just focus (pardon the pun) on the issues that need attention.
Click to expand...

Timely post Denys...I was laying awake last night, sleepless, contemplating your statements and thinking WTF??? I just could not sleep until I sorted them out. Thanks for the clarification!

:p:p:p
 
rardoin said:
Timely post Denys...I was laying awake last night, sleepless, contemplating your statements and thinking WTF??? I just could not sleep until I sorted them out. Thanks for the clarification!

:p:p:p
Click to expand...

Great, I'm so glad to put what's left of your mind at ease. ;)

I just wanted to correct the record in light of the fact some people are reading these threads long after they come to an end.

I make mistakes and I correct the ones I can. It's a bad habit of mine.
 
Is this POA shift not considered an issue with tactical scopes in 5-25 range used in PRS? Never heard of this testing before but seems quite practical considering the prices and distances involved. I would think it would affect any scope being used at distsnce regardless of magnification but could be wrong. Confidence in your gear canreally sway the mental side of the game.
 
Scott Harris said:
As Jim says, if you are going to spend that kind of money, look thru both of them. I've owned both the scopes you mention and used the for long-range f-class. They are more similar than different. In this price range, you will not find a scope with bad glass. People with clarity "problems" often need to get the eyepiece adjusted better. Other things are bigger differentiators: weight, reticles, turrets. Both NF and March are rock solid. Unlike most, I believe 1/4MOA turrets are better for 1K shooting, easier to keep track of where you are and to make adjustments in windy conditions. When you are making 4 minute+ adjustments and the wind is tossing elevation 9s, 1/8 click turrets add no value. I really like the (newer) March tactical scope turrets: 25MOA of travel per turn, very clearly marked, with the best zero-stop out there . That's my .02 and it's probably worth less than that!

PS. IMHO the very best of the March scopes is the 5-40x56 FFP. It only weighs 30oz has amazing glass with a capital A and has the awesome turrets previously mentioned. The thinner FMA-2 reticle is very popular for target shooting.
Click to expand...
People with sever astigmatism, many will have an issue of getting a clear focus without prescription glasses. Even then it can be a challenge.
 
Alex Wheeler said:
We live in a world that facts can hurt feelings. Too many people got bent that their favorite didnt do well. I got tired of the grief and pulled it down. But I did get a ton of emails and calls letting me know they fixed their rifles by swapping scopes. So it was worth it.
Click to expand...
Facts hurting feelings on this board is unfortunate
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

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.

Classified Ads

Forum statistics

Threads
165,786
Messages
2,203,366
Members
79,110
Latest member
miles813

Share This Page

Back
Top