March 5-50 vs 10-60 and the Sightron SVSS ED

[RampedRaptor]

Hello,

I wasn’t able to find a good thread that covered my questions but if there is one, I’d appreciate being pointed in the right direction.


1-What’s the major difference between the March 5-50x56 and the 10-60 HM?

2- How does the Sightron SVSS ED 10-50x60 compare the 5-50 and 10-60 March scopes?

I don’t really know what makes a HM and HM and how the 5-50 isn’t listed as a HM.


Thanks

 

[rardoin]

The High Master series has different glass quality/coatings on the optics.

 

[LA50SHOOTER]

Hello,

I wasn’t able to find a good thread that covered my questions but if there is one, I’d appreciate being pointed in the right direction.


1-What’s the major difference between the March 5-50x56 and the 10-60 HM? - Looking at March's website - not much difference, both are 34mm main tubes that are "Big Magnum" series which means they have heavy wall tubes. But the 10-60 HM has the Super ED glass and the 5-50 doesn't.

2- How does the Sightron SVSS ED 10-50x60 compare the 5-50 and 10-60 March scopes? - That's a subjective and personally opinionated question as each individuals eyes are different so you'll get reports from both sides saying that one is better than another. - I personally prefer the Sightron SVSS ED 10-50x60 with the 10th moa target dot & 1/8th moa clicks

I don’t really know what makes a HM and HM and how the 5-50 isn’t listed as a HM. - High Master as per March's website "Super-ED, high refractive glass for unparalleled quality and exceptional clarity. This high-tech glass greatly reduces chromatic aberration for a previously unheard of level of sharpness and brilliance that you truly need to see to believe!"

So I would presume that the High Master Series have the Super ED glass and the 5-50 doesn't as it was an earlier product line offering.

- Here's some web links to read from March Optics -
http://marchoptics.com/#/
http://marchoptics.com/shop/brand_march-optics/secondfocalplane/5-50x56mm-scope
http://marchoptics.com/shop/brand_march-optics/secondfocalplane/10-60x56mm-scope
http://marchoptics.com/high-master-series

- Ron -

 

[RampedRaptor]

Thank you very much!

 

[RampedRaptor]

The glass does appear to be the primary difference in the March scopes and explains the cost increase.

I can’t really see myself not getting the ED glass.

It would be nice to fine one of the ED Sightrons locally so I could take a look at through it. There is a lot of March 10-60 info out there but less Sightron

Thank you

 

[Turbulent Turtle]

The glass does appear to be the primary difference in the March scopes and explains the cost increase.

I can’t really see myself not getting the ED glass.

It would be nice to fine one of the ED Sightrons locally so I could take a look at through it. There is a lot of March 10-60 info out there but less Sightron

Thank you

Let me correct a few things here.

I own a March-X 5-50X56 and have had it for 5 years. It's been on a rifle that has fired over 20,000 rounds.

The March-X 5-50X56 has ED glass. The March 10-60HM has Super-ED glass. The difference between non-ED glass and ED glass is quite substantial, provided you know what to look for. To the uneducated viewer, the colors in the ED glass will seem to pop more, just look better.

The difference between ED glass and Super-ED glass is just incremental, nowhere near the difference between regular glass and ED glass. I do not know that there is a difference in the coatings between the March-X 5-50X56 and the March HM 10-60X56. There may well be, but I don't know that.

I compared an 10-60X56 with a 5-50X56 under the same conditions and at the same magnification, and I could barely discern a difference. As I said, incremental. The difference was certainly not enough for me to sell my 5-50X56 and get a 10-60X56 instead. If the difference in price between the two is in the hundreds of dollars, I would say go for the 10-60X56 and don't look back. On the other hand, if the difference is in the multiple hundreds or more, the decision is a lot more problematic.

I never rarely go above 40X and I can't remember ever going below 40, so the 60X is not something I need, and the 5X is not something I need either. The 10-60X56 has a simpler zero stop mechanism compared to the 10-50X56.

 

[Turbulent Turtle]

I forgot to point out that I use my March-X 5-50X56 on my match F-TR rifle with which I usually compete at 1000 yards. The scope prior to the March-X was a Nightforce NXS 12-42X56. I'm in my mid-60s and my eyes are not as good as they once were and I needed a brighter scope than the NXS for the early morning matches and when it was heavily overcast. The March-X presents a much better picture to my eye than the NX; brighter with better contrast. It was not a night and day difference by any means, but it is visibly better in the March-X.

There is nothing wrong with the NXS and it served me well. I kept the scope and recently, I had March change out the reticle in my March-X from the MTR-2 to the thicker MTR-5 because I was unable to discern the reticle and the aiming dot at times, especially on a black target. During the trip to and from March for the reticle exchange, I used my NXS to shoot one LR match. It did just fine, but I could well see the difference in the image compared to what I was used to with my March; I was glad to put my March back on the rifle.

The March 10-60 HM has arguably the best glass available on a riflescope and it is probable that if I did not already have the March-X 5-50X56 and I was going to upgrade from the NXS, I would get the 10-60X56. Yeah, even with a price difference. I'm a glass snob. There, I said it. I believe that you should have the best glass possible for F-Class as one tends to spend a lot of time looking through the scope. I believe that ED glass tends to minimize mirage and every little bit helps. On the other hand, I want to see all the mirage I can see in my spotting scope.

There's more to a riflescope than just glass, but that is a big factor, provided everything else works properly.

I find that the knobs are great on the NF as well as the March, but the side focus on the March is better. I added a big focus wheel on my March, which makes it even better than before. It actually allows me to change focus on the line to look at mirage at different distances at the very last second before shooting; just a quick flick with my pinky; something you just can't do with other scopes.

Finally, I know nothing of Sightron and never even looked through one; I have a March, why would I bother to look at Sightron.

 

[RampedRaptor]

I was about to ask how the ED glass in the March compares to the Sightron’s ED glass until I read your last sentence

 

[X-Caveman]

I have a regular old March 10-60 x 52. I like it because it holds zero, tracks well, MTR reticle, has positive clicks & allows me to make 17# with a 28" barrel and a heavy action (BRMXD). To my eye, however, the glass is pretty common. Certainly not as good as the NF Comp nor the Sightron SVSS ED that I've looked thru - neither of which I own (but I used to have the Comp). My March 10-60 is probably about on par with the NF BR12-42 in the glass department. The problem I have with the Sightron is the weight and unimaginative reticle. If it was a 30 OZ scope, I would likely own one.

 

[RampedRaptor]

The problem I have with the Sightron is the weight and unimaginative reticle.

By saying “unimaginative,” do you mean boring and not interesting to you?

 

[X-Caveman]

By saying “unimaginative,” do you mean boring and not interesting to you?

Yes, but I have my reasons... I like some MOA hash marks in a thin reticle that subtends properly at about 40X. I find it useful for bracketing targets, holding off, knowing how much to adjust, etc. Sometimes mirage is so bad we cannot see the center of our targets, but we can easily make out the edges vs the black backers. This is really bad when trying to find a red fly on a yellow target at 500M while shooting quickly. Having some reference marks to aid is more than just a convenience for me in these situations.

^^^ said, I did not know that they came out with a new MOA-H reticle for 2019. I was only aware of the .1 MOA cross hair/ dot. The MOA-H looks a little busy/ heavy for my liking, but I'd have to see one in person to make that call for sure. I do own a 6-24x50 SIII FFP with the MOA2 (?) reticle. I like that scope very much, but it's a tool for a different game.

 

[RampedRaptor]

Roger that.

The MOA-H reticle looks doable for me.

Model# 27011 is the one I was leaning towards but can’t seem to find anyone with them in stock

 

[LA50SHOOTER]

Roger that.

The MOA-H reticle looks doable for me.

Model# 27011 is the one I was leaning towards but can’t seem to find anyone with them in stock

They will be out soon, my guess is 60 days,

The SVSSED with the 1/10th MOA dot and 1/8th MOA clicks is a great scope.
- I have 2 regular SVSS's and they both are excellent as well and I prefer the MOA reticle over the MIL-Hash but both are great.

 

[Turbulent Turtle]

I have a regular old March 10-60 x 52. I like it because it holds zero, tracks well, MTR reticle, has positive clicks & allows me to make 17# with a 28" barrel and a heavy action (BRMXD). To my eye, however, the glass is pretty common. Certainly not as good as the NF Comp nor the Sightron SVSS ED that I've looked thru - neither of which I own (but I used to have the Comp). My March 10-60 is probably about on par with the NF BR12-42 in the glass department. The problem I have with the Sightron is the weight and unimaginative reticle. If it was a 30 OZ scope, I would likely own one.

The March 10-60X52 is a very different animal compared to the March 10-60X56 HM. This does not make the older model bad in any way.

 

[RampedRaptor]

Order placed. Thank you

 

[johara1]

I forgot to point out that I use my March-X 5-50X56 on my match F-TR rifle with which I usually compete at 1000 yards. The scope prior to the March-X was a Nightforce NXS 12-42X56. I'm in my mid-60s and my eyes are not as good as they once were and I needed a brighter scope than the NXS for the early morning matches and when it was heavily overcast. The March-X presents a much better picture to my eye than the NX; brighter with better contrast. It was not a night and day difference by any means, but it is visibly better in the March-X.

There is nothing wrong with the NXS and it served me well. I kept the scope and recently, I had March change out the reticle in my March-X from the MTR-2 to the thicker MTR-5 because I was unable to discern the reticle and the aiming dot at times, especially on a black target. During the trip to and from March for the reticle exchange, I used my NXS to shoot one LR match. It did just fine, but I could well see the difference in the image compared to what I was used to with my March; I was glad to put my March back on the rifle.

The March 10-60 HM has arguably the best glass available on a riflescope and it is probable that if I did not already have the March-X 5-50X56 and I was going to upgrade from the NXS, I would get the 10-60X56. Yeah, even with a price difference. I'm a glass snob. There, I said it. I believe that you should have the best glass possible for F-Class as one tends to spend a lot of time looking through the scope. I believe that ED glass tends to minimize mirage and every little bit helps. On the other hand, I want to see all the mirage I can see in my spotting scope.

There's more to a riflescope than just glass, but that is a big factor, provided everything else works properly.

I find that the knobs are great on the NF as well as the March, but the side focus on the March is better. I added a big focus wheel on my March, which makes it even better than before. It actually allows me to change focus on the line to look at mirage at different distances at the very last second before shooting; just a quick flick with my pinky; something you just can't do with other scopes.

Finally, I know nothing of Sightron and never even looked through one; I have a March, why would I bother to look at Sightron.

I think you had better look through a 10-50 x60 SV series with ed glass it will flat blow that March right out of the water. I have them all and the Sightron is at the top for everything but weight. When the mirage is bad you can see right through it with the Sightron, 4.5 eye relief that has a non critical eye box, plus more movement than the March and NF...... jim

 

[rotts4u]

I have the March HM 10-60X56 and the Sightron SV but not the ED model. Though the Sightron is very good the SV I have doesnt compare to the March. The SV has an odd color rendering on it but I do love its dual knob focus ring. The SV is very heavy as pointed out already. The SV a very good scope but after a season of shooting F class with two rifles one with the March and one with the SV, it makes me want to sell the SV and get the March HM

 

[johara1]

I have the March HM 10-60X56 and the Sightron SV but not the ED model. Though the Sightron is very good the SV I have doesnt compare to the March. The SV has an odd color rendering on it but I do love its dual knob focus ring. The SV is very heavy as pointed out already. The SV a very good scope but after a season of shooting F class with two rifles one with the March and one with the SV, it makes me want to sell the SV and get the March HM

Compare it to the SV ED TD series totally different than the sv series and they are a lot of $$$ difference..... jim

 

[Wooten]

I think you had better look through a 10-50 x60 SV series with ed glass it will flat blow that March right out of the water. I have them all and the Sightron is at the top for everything but weight. When the mirage is bad you can see right through it with the Sightron, 4.5 eye relief that has a non critical eye box, plus more movement than the March and NF...... jim

also to add, the Fine Focus is also a very nice feature !! Definatly a great scope.

 

[johara1]

also to add, the Fine Focus is also a very nice feature !! Definatly a great scope.

Without a doubt, and bright. they make my March 56 mm.scopes look dark in compared side by side..... jim