March 40-60 ep review?

[Falfan2017]

I don’t see much on the March 40-60 ep. how does it compare to to the nf br 12-42 and the nf comp 15-55?

Usage would be 600 and 1k br and f class.

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

I don’t see much on the March 40-60 ep. how does it compare to to the nf br 12-42 and the nf comp 15-55?

Usage would be 600 and 1k br and f class.

tagged...as I've heard both good and bad.

 

[R.Morehouse]

I have the 36-55 EPZ ( Eyepiece Zoom ). There is a bit of a learning curve to the design. You adjust your magnification with the eyepiece and in doing so the eyepiece moves in and out and that changes your position slightly on the stock. I like mine. The scope is light in weight and is very much like my March fixed 50. I use it on a 6ppc/30Major switch. I did have it on a 6.5-06imp LV 1K BR gun and it worked well there also......But the EPZ does take a bit of getting used to.

Regards
Rick

 

[Falfan2017]

I have the 36-55 EPZ ( Eyepiece Zoom ). There is a bit of a learning curve to the design. You adjust your magnification with the eyepiece and in doing so the eyepiece moves in and out and that changes your position slightly on the stock. I like mine. The scope is light in weight and is very much like my March fixed 50. I use it on a 6ppc/30Major switch. I did have it on a 6.5-06imp LV 1K BR gun and it worked well there also......But the EPZ does take a bit of getting used to.

Regards
Rick

What’s the benefit of adjusting from the eyepiece?

 

[prplrhed]

I've got all three and can likely lend some opinion on each. I primarily shoot ARA and 50/50 at 50 although I have had both the NF's on top of my T3X TAC at 600.

The 15x55 Comp is a darn nice piece of glass. It's clear and, at least in my case, holds well. Others have reported verifiable shift but it appears that NF has resolved whatever the cause. I can't really comment on that much more as I've had no issues at all in that regard.

The 12x42 BR is also really nice. I originally purchased it as my eyes are getting decidedly worse with age and I wanted a scope that would grab as much light as possible. With the 56mm objective, the BR does that well. However, at a max of 42x, any additional light is offset by its lack of power. At least with regards to the 55 and 60x of the other two scopes. It's also considerably larger. You wouldn't think that just a 4mm increase in the objective would result in a scope this darn large but trust me, it's huge. The comparison here is really the 15x55 against the 40-60 as the reduced power and larger objective of the BR put it aside in my opinion. Doesn't mean it's a bad scope in any way. Just not quite the scope the other two are.

I purchased the 40-60 HM as a non NF backup in case the the 15x55 went south shift wise. That hasn't happened and I've now really taken a liking to it. I find the scope to be clear and bright. I have heard others say they felt the NF had the edge but I would put both at the same level. I don't see much of a difference. Where I do see the difference is in what I would call "perceived" precision. Clicks in windage and elevation on the March are extremely crisp whereas the NF feels almost mushy in comparison. They both do the job well enough but you get a super clean click with the March. Otherwise, build quality in both scopes is outstanding. I don't actually notice the additional 5x the March has as at 50yds it's all about the same to me.

I don't have experience in warranty performance with March as the scope has been nothing but great. I do have experience with NF in one case with the 12-42 that was caused by my own fault. They corrected the issue without charge and returned the scope to me almost immediately. Admirable, I would say. Price wise the March has now come down considerably and can be had from them directly for around $1900. I think I paid about $2150 or so. The NF looks to be $2400 now which is about what I paid for mine a few years ago.

Bottom line? It's tough to say from here. The differences in both scopes are subjective at best to me and I find I shoot just as well with either. That said, at least in the rimfire world, you don't see many 40-60's out there in the sea of NF's.

There's a much more in depth discussion about these two scopes here that might offer you a better take on this particularly with the longer distances you shoot at:

http://forum.accurateshooter.com/th...ch-do-you-prefer-for-f-class-and-why.3917950/

That's about it... happy to answer any other questions you have.

 

[Falfan2017]

I've got all three and can likely lend some opinion on each. I primarily shoot ARA and 50/50 at 50 although I have had both the NF's on top of my T3X TAC at 600.

The 15x55 Comp is a darn nice piece of glass. It's clear and, at least in my case, holds well. Others have reported verifiable shift but it appears that NF has resolved whatever the cause. I can't really comment on that much more as I've had no issues at all in that regard.

The 12x42 BR is also really nice. I originally purchased it as my eyes are getting decidedly worse with age and I wanted a scope that would grab as much light as possible. With the 56mm objective, the BR does that well. However, at a max of 42x, any additional light is offset by its lack of power. At least with regards to the 55 and 60x of the other two scopes. It's also considerably larger. You wouldn't think that just a 4mm increase in the objective would result in a scope this darn large but trust me, it's huge. The comparison here is really the 15x55 against the 40-60 as the reduced power and larger objective of the BR put it aside in my opinion. Doesn't mean it's a bad scope in any way. Just not quite the scope the other two are.

I purchased the 40-60 HM as a non NF backup in case the the 15x55 went south shift wise. That hasn't happened and I've now really taken a liking to it. I find the scope to be clear and bright. I have heard others say they felt the NF had the edge but I would put both at the same level. I don't see much of a difference. Where I do see the difference is in what I would call "perceived" precision. Clicks in windage and elevation on the March are extremely crisp whereas the NF feels almost mushy in comparison. They both do the job well enough but you get a super clean click with the March. Otherwise, build quality in both scopes is outstanding. I don't actually notice the additional 5x the March has as at 50yds it's all about the same to me.

I don't have experience in warranty performance with March as the scope has been nothing but great. I do have experience with NF in one case with the 12-42 that was caused by my own fault. They corrected the issue without charge and returned the scope to me almost immediately. Admirable, I would say. Price wise the March has now come down considerably and can be had from them directly for around $1900. I think I paid about $2150 or so. The NF looks to be $2400 now which is about what I paid for mine a few years ago.

Bottom line? It's tough to say from here. The differences in both scopes are subjective at best to me and I find I shoot just as well with either. That said, at least in the rimfire world, you don't see many 40-60's out there in the sea of NF's.

There's a much more in depth discussion about these two scopes here that might offer you a better take on this particularly with the longer distances you shoot at:

http://forum.accurateshooter.com/th...ch-do-you-prefer-for-f-class-and-why.3917950/

That's about it... happy to answer any other questions you have.

Thank you for the information. The 40-60 seems like a pretty good deal right now. Got one I’d like to upgrade.

 

[Fred Bohl]

From the EP Zoom manual - "The EP Zoom Scope integrates a specially designed device with the March 50x52 BR Rifle Scope, eliminating the mechanically induced shift in POA during zooming which is inherent to all other zoom scope designs."

In my own experience - conventional zoom mechanisms are integrated into the erector assembly and when adjusted for power also tend to cause changes in parallax adjustment which is not the case with the EP Zoom as it uses an adjustable power eyepiece (ocular) with the zoom being done behind the plane of the reticle so that the parallax adjustment remains fixed.

I primarily use the zoom feature of my EP Zoom to get a better impression of what the mirage is doing without disturbing parallax or POA.