Comments on: March 40X ED Scope–Now See Your Bullet Holes at 600

By: Heinz Kostner

Heinz Kostner — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 19:43:48 +0000

Having ordered a March BR scope 40X52 with the Crosshair LR2 I would appreciate if you could kindly let me know How many MOA there are between the The central crosshair dot, and the higher located crossahir dot. Thank you
heinz kostner / Italy

By: Laszlo Bekesi

Laszlo Bekesi — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 16:24:05 +0000

I am not a BR shooter, but a Field Target shooter (16J air rifle). We use high mag scopes for measuring the distance of the targets (that we do not know beforehand). We use the side or front parallax wheel for this. The minimum target distance is 8 yards,and the maximum is 55 yards. We need to measure the distance accurately even on 50 yards. We have to differentiate 52 yards from 54 yards due to the bullet drop.

I wonder if anyone has a March 10-60×52 scope, since I would like to know how big is the rotation range of the side parallax knob? Is it almost 360 degrees (one complete turn), or less? If anyone can answer this…
THX.

By: Fred Bohl

Fred Bohl — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 12:08:09 +0000

It is important to realize that in order for our visual system to resolve detail in an image from the scope, the image needs to be as free from all artifacts and distortions as possible. Chromatic aberrations are particularly bothersome since we tend to view or targets in reflected sunlight which is a very broad spectrum source. Any uncorrected chromatic errors will result in out of focus wavelengths which will tend to blur the image.

Beside the obvious advantage of lower chromatic aberration, the use of low and extra low dispersion glass allows for using less individual lens elements and thinner elements with lower surface curvature. This reduces other aberrations and also reduces the transmission losses associated with internal surface reflections. The thinner and lighter lens elements also allow for designs with more durable and stronger mounting at overall lower scope weight.

By: Peter Effenberger

Peter Effenberger — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 19:20:29 +0000

I own Leica M6 and some Nikons, yes the leica is just plain better yes I paid much moroe fore it.
I shoot BR , own few rifles and rifle scopes. The NF is more then twice as much then Weaver T36 which is excelet FOR THE MONEY , but simply not as good as NF in number of ways !
It is simple. In this instance for sure, one just gets what he pays for. That is that.
Now who do I speak at the Kelbys…can I have some name and tel. number please. I would like to give the firstrifle scope with the ED glass try,

Thank You

Peter Effenberger

Moderator: Peter, ask for Jim Kelbly or Hobie bond. The phone number is: USA Country Code + 1+ (330) 683-4674.
Web: http://www.kelbly.com/main.html

By: Ian

Ian — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 20:02:31 +0000

Extra low dispersion glass will help with image sharpeness by focusing all wavelengths of light on the same plane but you only really look at the very center of a rifle scope , you will likely never notice a difference. Zoom scopes also have inherent pincushion and barrel distortion at each end of their power extremes, but nobody notices that either.

By: Bert Seltzer

Bert Seltzer — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 18:33:29 +0000

I have daily contact with optical engineers at my place of employment (NASA), and their (rather authoritative) opinion is while ED glass certainly improves contrast & color rendition, it does nothing for resolution. Now visual perception is also very subjective, so I guess if you want to believe ED elements make that much difference, then maybe for you they will. I know if I’d dropped $2K+ on a scope, I’d sure want to believe it was something magical.

However, it is still my opinion that $2K worth of barrels, actions, and/or bullets can do a heck of a lot more to improve one’s performance that the same amount spent on a single scope.

As an aside, if you REALLY want to see 6mm bullet holes at 600 yds, take a look through the (> $600) Meade 125 ETX spotting scope.

Regards,
Bert

By: Jason Baney

Jason Baney — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 17:08:03 +0000

Bert – neither sightron nor leupy 36x scopes have impressed me…the 40x Leupold Comp is a big leap though…and I suspect the March will be a similar leap ahead of that.

Seeing bullet holes in paper at 500-600yds is tough to talk about as a little difference in mirage makes ALL the difference. THat said, I’d not want to have to depend on a 36x if I had to see holes at 500-600…I wish I could (cause they are cheaper) but I don’t have faith in them after using them along with a 40x and 50x leupy and 42x NF…

That is just my experience trying to see bullet holes at 500-600…

By: Editor

Editor — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 01:36:52 +0000

Bert, thanks for your comment. If your T-36 did the job at the same place, in the same conditions, one can’t argue with that.

However, it’s an unfortunate fact that not all examples of a particular brand of scope will necessarily perform as well. Jason and I have both personally checked out Sightron and Weaver 36X scopes that will NOT reliably resolve 6mm bullet holes at 600. The Nightforce 12-42x and Leupold Comp 40x are a step up, but again, most of the 600-yard shooters I’ve polled using those scope tell us that resolving 6mm holes is “iffy” with those scopes at 600 yards.

Regarding the benefits of ED, or low dispersion, the point is not so we can see more vivid colors. Rather we are trying to see light that is not breaking down into different wave lengths. “White light” is actually composed of multiple wavelengths. The problem when you have secondary chromatic aberration is that the green wavelengths “bleed” out of the white light and actually focus at a different point. This means that the entire image you see starts to look ragged or fuzzy with green/magenta fringes. It’s sort of like having 10-20% of the reflected light from an object slightly out of focus.

I have no doubt that your T-36 performed admirably. But I can assure you that if you looked through two otherwise identical spotting scopes, one with ED glass and one without, you would notice the difference–even with white and black objects. With the ED the edges would appear crisper and you could resolve slightly smaller objects. This is because the ED glass eliminates green/magenta color fringes.

That said, if you have a great T-36 that does the job, there’s certainly no reason to spend a dollar more. I’ve looked through more than a few Weaver 36s that were marginal even resolving 30-caliber holes at 500 yards, plus the glass was dim and there was definitely distortion around the edges.

Is the March worth the price? To some shooters yes. To others, the $1700+ you pay over a Sightron or Weaver is better spent on a new barrel and action.

Thanks again for your comment.

By: Bert Seltzer

Bert Seltzer — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 22:24:41 +0000

If I were a bird-watcher, the ED glass in the March scope might be of interest. However, since I’m a BR shooter, chromatic aberration is a complete non-issue. To see bullet holes at any distance is a matter of distinguishing dark from light, NOT colors. FWIW, I was in the same match with Lou, on the same relay, and I too could see my bullet holes quite easily with a $300 Weaver T-36, thank you very much. $2100 for a scope that offers nothing that can’t be had at half the price or less? I don’t think so….