March scope resolution

[mikecr]

I wonder if anyone here has done resolution comparisons/tests with the higher power March scopes?
By this, I mean on resolution test targets, or game at distance, rather than 1moa bullseyes.

My thinking(which is weak on optics), is that there is only a certain amount of information brought to the reticle plane for a given size scope(tube length/lens size & quality), and that merely zooming in on this information more & more(like to 80x) would just reduce resolution. With this, I would expect an 80x scope, if equal in resolution to a 25x scope, to be way bigger than that 25x scope.
Along this line, I have read a shooter report that his 50x March had way lower resolution at 800yds than his 25x Leupold Mk4, and he did not consider March suitable for hunting varmints because of this. He couldn't tell a rabbit from a rock (or something along that line) with a March.

I tried the add on booster lens out there for my NF scopes, and found that it reduced resolution to the point of useless for anything but paper targets of simple bullseye. It did not actually provide any benefit whatsoever.
This told me that magnification -without appropriate resolution, provides no actual gain to the end user in the field.

 

[dansig]

did the booster lens cost as much as the Nightforce ?

putting a cheap lens on a quality scope makes the scope as cheap as the lens..

buy a $2500 booster and you will not loose much resolution.

I've been in the same situation in photography, $5000 lens with a $150 booster... could have bought a $ 500 lens with the same zoom and saved $4500....

but with a $900 booster the image became much better....

 

[Frankr]

Good Question mikecr. i have also been looking at taking the march plunge.. would be interested in hearing what march scope owners have to say about them.

mikecr watch the video in the daily bulletin. looks good enough for me.

 

[RGRobinett]

Law of optics: doubling magnification halves resolution, and, vice versa. Of course, this assumes all else - lens quality, objective [lense] diameter, etc., are equal: natural attributes of a variable magnification optic.

The chicken, or, egg question raises it's ugly head: when does resolution trump magnification and, vice versa? That said, when it comes to resolution, there is NO replacement for quality lenses. The mirage is either there, or, not . . . unlike a low/marginal quality scope, a high quality optic does NOT distort, but, rather reveals what is there . . . our vision and translation of what we see varies. ;D

In Y2K, when [the late] George Myer and I went to Germany, to pursue a lens crafter, for the Myer Optics (rifle-scopes), we were told - by TOP of the LINE optic makers; BIG name players - that our lens standards were, "reserved for the finest optical devices: photographic, etc." George and I knew better . . . I believe that George eventually, but following initial correspondence along the initial German lines, obtained glass from/through DION (sp?), after convincing them that he was serious. Some day, I may publish some of our written correspondence . . . my recollection of details is a little fuzzy.

At that time between about 1997 - Y2K, as tested via several resolution chart types, most "top end" scopes robbed my guinea pigs of 25%, or, more of his/her naked eye resolving power - a full 33% reduction was a common outcome. The Night Force offerings were the best we tested . . . I don't recall the exact margin, but, it was substantial. RG

 

[BoydAllen]

I have looked through several March scopes, both variable and fixed power. It seemed to me that the 10-60X variable looked pretty good, but that the 40X did not look nearly as good as a 45X Leupold. Of course the initial reason that the March was built and imported was not so much about the absolute in optical quality as the issue of having an unmoving point of impact, for benchrest applications. If they do that, then I think that they are superior for 1-200 yard benchrest.

As far as the discussion about the whys and wherefores of auxiliary lenses go. I think that fellows should probably wait till they have tried one. I use such a lens, not of the commonly available variety that are sold for that application, and after a lot of experience with it, I can say that it gives me a better view of the target than when it is not on the scope.

Recently, I got a report, from a friend who did the same thing, on my recommendation, and he came back with an extremely favorable report, after doing some extended target work at 200 yd. with a 20X side focus Leupold variable.

Based on that report and my experience, I told a friend that he might want to try that to help with range testing of a 14X Leupold variable that makes him work pretty hard for best results on paper. His reaction was quite negative, based on a lot of theoretical stuff that I am perfectly familiar with (having considerable experience with photography and rifle scope theory). He is a fine fellow, and a good friend, but even though it would have cost him nothing to look through one of my scopes, he dismissed the idea out of hand. This is no big deal, but I give it as an example of a type of mind set, fellows that think that they have the absolute answer about something that they have not seen or tried. Just my two cents....

 

[JRS]

My experience is limited to what my eyes tell me, but, when the good RG Robinett speaks, I listen very carefully

 

[BoydAllen]

A lot of what people have absorbed about optics over the years has related to the requirements of photography, and in that application, the image is recorded at one size, and magnified to viewing size. It is this magnification, and to what degree that it is done, that puts a premium on optical resolution, sorting the sheep from the goats, as it were.

On the other hand, while we can readily see the differences in optics that are used to view something directly with, at some point, improvement in resolution may exceed the unaided eye's ability to tell a difference, and for different viewing situations, different evaluation criteria may be appropriate. In any case, if an optical system is to be used for direct viewing, I contend that the best standard for evaluation is actually looking through the device with an eye that has been confirmed to have excellent vision. On a good day, with a fresh prescription, I can still read the chart to 20/15.

People who evaluate optics by reading about them and applying generalizations are kidding themselves. While it is generally true that you get what you pay for, I have seen expensive scopes that were not up to standard, and cheap ones (rarely) that were surprisingly good. (This is not to say that they were mechanically as godd as the optics looked.) In any case, the whole point of this is, for optics that you look through with your eyes, you should acturally look through them, and make comparisons with other products, at the same time and place, since memory can loose fine distinctions, and viewing conditions have a strong influence on results.

Back in the day, I built a side by side portable bench mount, and mounted five different 1" 36X scopes (that belonged to a friend) so that they were as close as possible, with their rings and bases all aligned to the same target, in the distance, using one scope. We took it to a registered benchrest match at Visala, and set it up, behind the firing line, on a table and invited shooters to take a look at the targets down range at 200 yards. They were free to make any adjustments that they liked, and we did not rush them. IMO, that is the best way to compare optics. I have never heard of this sort of evaluation being done before or since.

 

[Fred Bohl]

Guys,

Below is a link to thread On the Benchrest Central Forum. The exchange of posts there may shed light on some of your questions.

http://www.benchrest.com/showthread.php?58716-Reducer-Ring

The resolution of March scopes with data appears in my posts #11 and #31. But please read all posts for the insights provided.

 

[Frankr]

well that is alot of information on optic's ya da ya da is kind of what i read.(no offence ment) my 40x leupold is quite good to great at 100-300 yrds..I have had days where the resolution where so good i dont think anything could look better. I have also had days where it looked so bad i thought something must of happened to it..I dont mean mirrage. .i mean just hazy dim , big loss of resolution,thick air... just the nature of the beast at high magnafacation. days where the mirrage looked like water running but was cristle cleer.. other days just magnifying the thick hazy air..then add mirrage and it looks like crap...so i think i'm going to be in for a 10-60 march.

 

[mikecr]

I appreciate the discussion.
I'm not so interested in resolving bullet holes on standard targets, as I am in calling a rabbit from a rock at 800yds.

Since I cannot just borrow someone's March, I'm left to predict it, unless someone has compared a good scope in a hunting type field.
Personally, I'm totally happy with my 25x Mk4s/32x NXSs(optically the same to me). But if I can get twice the power & actually GAIN from it, then I'd give March a go. On the other hand, if March power is no more than the boosting trick I've tested(Gene Davis booster lens), then my quest goes elsewhere.

 

[johara1]

I have found the 10-60 x 52 March to be very dark compared to a NSX, I think the Sightron close too the NF at powers around 40. The 50 power March is almost as good as a 36 power Weaver...... jim