New March in Exhibitions 2018.

1) ............................................

4) I am not looking to have a custom scope made and I have talked to Deon people a few years ago when they were all at SHOT. Given the language barrier with them and the fact that Shiraz with whom I do not have a language barrier seems to be on this thread, input is exactly what I am providing here. A larger diameter eyepiece that keep the eye relief a little longer with wide FOV may not be a bad idea.

5) Cheap ELR practice is a great thing, but unless you plan to sell these to airgunners somehow, I do not understand a need for 10m parallax in lieu of more precise long range parallax adjustment. As for the World Champion stuff, this seems to be brought up all the time. We all know that some exceedingly capable shooters in their disciplines are involved with March scopes, for example Shiraz and Denys who have posted on this thread. Does that excuse the product announcement from some constructive criticism from the rest of us?


I look forward to seeing how the scope develops between now and full scale production.

ILya

Actually, we are looking for input and constructive criticism. This is what allows the engineers to do a better job of giving the consumer the product that will make them happy for years to come. You can bet that all the good and logical comments made here and at the show in Europe will be taken into account and the Genesis that will eventually be delivered to customers will have several of those enhancements incorporated.

I am a "fan boy", actually bought 13 March scopes over the years from Kelbly's before I was offered the March distributorship. I tried every high end brand out there as I was a consumer, just like anyone else out there, and wanted the best performance out of a scope. The only reason I took on the March distributorship was because I believed in the product and had first hand experience with its tracking as well as the fact that I liked the feel of the knobs of the March. I am still shooting the scope that I shot at the 2009 World Championship for Team USA. You are right, just because World Championships and many long range national championship matches have been won by shooters using March scopes does not automatically mean that every March scope that is introduced is an automatic "gold medal winner", or that gives a pass on lack of features that should be for that discipline of shooting. Each has to stand on its own merit. However, as a fan of March scopes, I don't disrespect any other brand on Forums and sometimes have to bite my tongue at what is lashed out at me personally. All brands have fan boys, but civility should always be paramount in Forum discussions.
 

koshkin

Dark Lord Of Optics
Feb 22, 2006
1,373
570
113
Los Angeles
www.opticsthoughts.com
Actually, we are looking for input and constructive criticism. This is what allows the engineers to do a better job of giving the consumer the product that will make them happy for years to come. You can bet that all the good and logical comments made here and at the show in Europe will be taken into account and the Genesis that will eventually be delivered to customers will have several of those enhancements incorporated.

I am a "fan boy", actually bought 13 March scopes over the years from Kelbly's before I was offered the March distributorship. I tried every high end brand out there as I was a consumer, just like anyone else out there, and wanted the best performance out of a scope. The only reason I took on the March distributorship was because I believed in the product and had first hand experience with its tracking as well as the fact that I liked the feel of the knobs of the March. I am still shooting the scope that I shot at the 2009 World Championship for Team USA. You are right, just because World Championships and many long range national championship matches have been won by shooters using March scopes does not automatically mean that every March scope that is introduced is an automatic "gold medal winner", or that gives a pass on lack of features that should be for that discipline of shooting. Each has to stand on its own merit. However, as a fan of March scopes, I don't disrespect any other brand on Forums and sometimes have to bite my tongue at what is lashed out at me personally. All brands have fan boys, but civility should always be paramount in Forum discussions.
This may be a bit out of character for me, but I do not think I have anything to argue with in this post (this does not happen much since I am sorta abrasive and argumentative by nature).

I suspect that you and I are using the word "fanboy" in different ways. In forum lingo, the word fanboy seems to have come to define people who are so obsessed with a particular product tor company that they are blind to its limitations. It goes quite beyond being a fan of the product or the company.

ILya
 

Clearlight

Full Member
Jul 23, 2014
701
218
43
Brisbane Australia
1) Comparing erector ratio of a riflescope to horsepower of a car is at best a silly comparison. At worst... well I promised to keep it civil, so I'll let you fill in the blanks.

2) I have looked through HM scope a couple of times, but not enough to get a detailed evaluation and I am a detail oriented guy. What does it have to do with NXS? These do not compete against each other. Just like the Bugatti thing, this is just a false comparison. A little intellectual honesty instead of fanboy-ism seems to be in order.

3) This is a loaded question. For a dedicated long range scope, I do not think zoom ratio is anywhere in my list of things to consider. By itself, it is not important enough. For other scope types it is important. For this one, I am not so sure.

4) I am not looking to have a custom scope made and I have talked to Deon people a few years ago when they were all at SHOT. Given the language barrier with them and the fact that Shiraz with whom I do not have a language barrier seems to be on this thread, input is exactly what I am providing here. A larger diameter eyepiece that keep the eye relief a little longer with wide FOV may not be a bad idea.

5) Cheap ELR practice is a great thing, but unless you plan to sell these to airgunners somehow, I do not understand a need for 10m parallax in lieu of more precise long range parallax adjustment. As for the World Champion stuff, this seems to be brought up all the time. We all know that some exceedingly capable shooters in their disciplines are involved with March scopes, for example Shiraz and Denys who have posted on this thread. Does that excuse the product announcement from some constructive criticism from the rest of us?

6) I am very curious how that will work. There are two illumination modules I have seen for March FFP scopes: Lo and Hi intensity. Low is not quite low enough and High is not quite high enough. If the dynamic range was extended and combined into a single unit, that is a very good thing.

I look forward to seeing how the scope develops between now and full scale production.

ILya
Again , I’ll ask you , in your ‘ expert ‘ opinion what zoom ratio do think is appropriate for
an ELR optic ? You are obviously not a car guy , so analagies referring to automotive
industry innovation will not be relevant . Max magnification is perhaps a better reference
to max horsepower .

Why do you think S & B put a 9x zoom ratio in the 5 - 45 FFP model ? Is that unnecessary
as well ? What would you suggest would have been better ? The LRR MIl reticle and good
elevation travel suggests this is an ELR friendly optic .

I’ll explain why I mentioned the NXS and the NF Competition scopes . The Competition
x 55 model is a step up in quality over the NXS . High Master lens system is a step up
compared to the ( already very good ) lens system used in previous March deigns . I
wasn’t sure if you had looked through both designs , and was attempting to give you
some terms of reference . Hope that clarifies things .

The Deon team are at Shot every year . Mr S always travels with an interpreter if you
want to chat with him . Thank you for your input here , your experience in optical
system design is no doubt valuable in assessing riflescopes . What type of devices
do you design / work on ?

10 yard minimum focus range will probably be extended to 25 or more . No doubt
as this is a prototype built from existing ( optical ) components , things will change
in the production version . Thanks for the suggestion with the eyepiece , most
March optics generally have good eye relief due to the eyepiece design . As I saw
in another thread on here , depth of field vs parallax / focus is in the eye of the
beholder ....

For the record , I’m more of a Hensoldt enthusiast , having spent a lot of time
using their products in previous employment . I still have something of an
emotional attachment to my old ZF 16 .
 

koshkin

Dark Lord Of Optics
Feb 22, 2006
1,373
570
113
Los Angeles
www.opticsthoughts.com
Again , I’ll ask you , in your ‘ expert ‘ opinion what zoom ratio do think is appropriate for
an ELR optic ? You are obviously not a car guy , so analagies referring to automotive
industry innovation will not be relevant . Max magnification is perhaps a better reference
to max horsepower .

Why do you think S & B put a 9x zoom ratio in the 5 - 45 FFP model ? Is that unnecessary
as well ? What would you suggest would have been better ? The LRR MIl reticle and good
elevation travel suggests this is an ELR friendly optic .

I’ll explain why I mentioned the NXS and the NF Competition scopes . The Competition
x 55 model is a step up in quality over the NXS . High Master lens system is a step up
compared to the ( already very good ) lens system used in previous March deigns . I
wasn’t sure if you had looked through both designs , and was attempting to give you
some terms of reference . Hope that clarifies things .

The Deon team are at Shot every year . Mr S always travels with an interpreter if you
want to chat with him . Thank you for your input here , your experience in optical
system design is no doubt valuable in assessing riflescopes . What type of devices
do you design / work on ?

10 yard minimum focus range will probably be extended to 25 or more . No doubt
as this is a prototype built from existing ( optical ) components , things will change
in the production version . Thanks for the suggestion with the eyepiece , most
March optics generally have good eye relief due to the eyepiece design . As I saw
in another thread on here , depth of field vs parallax / focus is in the eye of the
beholder ....

For the record , I’m more of a Hensoldt enthusiast , having spent a lot of time
using their products in previous employment . I still have something of an
emotional attachment to my old ZF 16 .
Putting "expert" in parenthesis is a nice touch, I suppose.

That having been said, I think I said very clearly that erector ratio, in my opinion, expert or otherwise, is not very important for a scope of this type. Since I do not consider it very important for an ELR scope, I obviously do not have any particular preferences on the magnification ratio. My interest is on the side of that: what was compromised to achieve that magnification ratio? For example, a common compromise is depth of field and feature resolution in the reticle (both stemming from short focal length objective systems). The way the Genesis is designed may work around that, but it is a valid question: what are we giving up to get that magnification ratio. There are no free lunches and there is a compromise somewhere in there.

I am familiar with NXS and Comp and a vast majority of all decent scopes made in the last twenty years (there is some very new stuff that I havn't looked yet, but I will eventually rectify that). However, I am not convinced these serve as a very relevant reference for the High Master scopes.

The erector ration for long range scopes seems to be largely driven my marketing more than by anything else. Still, there is a reasonable case to be made for a high erector ration if this is to be a general purpose precision scope. The S&B in question while suitable for ELR is clearly not intended for that market only. Having observed S&B a bit over the years, I think we can confidently assume that they do not give a gnat's ass about designing a scope specific for the ELR world. When they design a new optic, the specifications are usually driven by some upcoming military tender or, in rare cases, by a significant market demand that could give them large sales numbers, which ELR is not.

Talking through an interpreter is a reasonably torturous process, especially for the interpreter (I used to do that as a side job, albeit obviously not with Japanese), so given a choice, I avoid that.

Depth of field is a measurable qunatity and is not in the eye of the beholder. Same for parallax, etc.

The company I work for sells electro-optical test equipment for cameras, laser, riflescopes, binoculars, multi-sensor payloads, targeting systems, MTF testers, etc. If you are curious about specific products, here is our website: www.ci-systems.com

The factory is in Israel and there is a separate company in the US that is responsible for the North American market for the most part. Out of the US office, we primarily do sales, marketing, service and system integration for ITAR-sensitive projects.

ILya
 

Clearlight

Full Member
Jul 23, 2014
701
218
43
Brisbane Australia
Yes there are always compromises somewhere in optical design , something you
no doubt deal with on a daily basis . Thanks for the link to your employer , some
interesting equipment there .

Electrooptical integration in the civilian world is a long way behind military development .
As you mentioned above , that’s very much market and cost driven though . For quite
a few years I’ve wanted Flir capabilities and big elevation capabilities for ELR scenarios ,
in one unit , not as an add on . Maybe one day ....
 

koshkin

Dark Lord Of Optics
Feb 22, 2006
1,373
570
113
Los Angeles
www.opticsthoughts.com
Electro-optic integration is a little tricky when you get to long range. If you are not going thermal, there are some tricks you can play with image sensors that really help (I used to develop image sensors for broadcast and cinema cameras some years ago).

However, once you add thermal to the equation, to get into the long range world, you just start adding zeros to the price tag. The basic problem is that if you go uncooled, you need ultrafast lenses made out of exotic (read expensive) materials and if you go cooled, while you can work with lower F-numbers your image sensor alone can get into six figures.

My first experience with electro-optics was when I switched from telecom into imaging right around we needed to get the last Hubble imager upgrade going. I was only peripherally involved with it, but the guy who turned out to be a friend and a mentor over many years was the lead designer for it (I finally got him into guns a couple of years ago). After that, I worked on a few space-based imagers, then fused NVGs, then it was into commercial world for movie cameras (our sensors were in Oscar wining cameras they used for Slumdog Millionare). Only after that I got involved with test equipment.

I run the US company, so I get peripheral involvement with all sorts of interesting projects as we work with different customers.

ILya
 

orkan

Primal Rights, Inc.
Oct 27, 2008
2,737
51
48
South Dakota, USA
Ok, perhaps I'm just seeing this wrong... but I can't see how there's any way that dude can see full sight picture with his head in that position in the video shown.

When he starts out, his eye is centered on the ocular... by the end of that, his eye seems significantly beneath the ocular center. Even in this shakycam vid, you can see the ocular being raised up... and at the very end of the video you can see his eye aligned with the ocular once again... and his face is well off the rifle.

It will be interesting to see the reports from users in the field as to whether cheek weld does indeed change... because it would seem that it would absolutely have to if the ocular is moving up and down physically. If the ocular were fixed, and only the objective end of the scope moved... then clearly it would work. ... but that's not how this scope is.
 
Feb 14, 2017
236
26
28
Ok, perhaps I'm just seeing this wrong... but I can't see how there's any way that dude can see full sight picture with his head in that position in the video shown.

When he starts out, his eye is centered on the ocular... by the end of that, his eye seems significantly beneath the ocular center. Even in this shakycam vid, you can see the ocular being raised up... and at the very end of the video you can see his eye aligned with the ocular once again... and his face is well off the rifle.

It will be interesting to see the reports from users in the field as to whether cheek weld does indeed change... because it would seem that it would absolutely have to if the ocular is moving up and down physically. If the ocular were fixed, and only the objective end of the scope moved... then clearly it would work. ... but that's not how this scope is.
You are seeing it wrong. More details on the March FB page and stand by for the next round R&D to occur.
 

Clearlight

Full Member
Jul 23, 2014
701
218
43
Brisbane Australia
Ok, perhaps I'm just seeing this wrong... but I can't see how there's any way that dude can see full sight picture with his head in that position in the video shown.

When he starts out, his eye is centered on the ocular... by the end of that, his eye seems significantly beneath the ocular center. Even in this shakycam vid, you can see the ocular being raised up... and at the very end of the video you can see his eye aligned with the ocular once again... and his face is well off the rifle.

It will be interesting to see the reports from users in the field as to whether cheek weld does indeed change... because it would seem that it would absolutely have to if the ocular is moving up and down physically. If the ocular were fixed, and only the objective end of the scope moved... then clearly it would work. ... but that's not how this scope is.
‘ Dude ‘ in video is Doc Beech from AB . No doubt he will give us a more info down the track .
 

Denys

F-TR Competitor
Mar 26, 2012
642
8
18
Spring, TX
It's not terribly complicated to calculate. Say it's 3.5 inches from the ocular to the fulcrum point; the maximum angle being 5 degrees, the ocular will move up about 0.31 inches.
 

DocUSMCRetired

Applied Ballistics
Apr 16, 2014
844
92
28
Texas
www.appliedballisticsllc.com
Ok, but I don't see this as being super complicated. Ocular goes up, you're face will need to go up. The ocular moved in that vid... quite obviously.
But the movement is minor, and I can still maintain good posture for shooting, without having to adjust the cheek piece of the rifle.

Denys is correct. It is easy to calculate.

For a little fun, if anyone here has been to IWA, S&B puts a target up outside across the parking lot. As marked here in this photo I took:

1521208444133.png

We decided to take the first prototype up to the second floor of the hall, and take a picture of the smallest (air rifle) target they had setup. If you look closely you can see people standing up next to the glass testing scopes. We are at about 3 times the distance the target was intended for. Shooting through tinted glass (you should notice a blue hue), in rainy weather. You can clearly see the center bullseye, given all the variables and using a cell phone camera. You could easily shoot this target, with this scope as is. I will note, the reticle you see here was a demo reticle, and not what will be available. The second prototype has a different reticle from number 1 (which this image was taken through), and Prototype 3 has even more updates. What you see at launch will look slightly different, with some improvements and upgrades having been made as well as reticle options.

1521208770556.png

You can see details and rivets that are holding the target board together, from a good distance away.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom