You should start a new thread and post your thoughts along with a review on it.  Include pictures as well.

I suspect that once the r&d is dealt with, the 1-4x would cost pretty much the same (and be about the same size) as a 1-8x and that isn't what their market research says will sell at that price point.

That being said, I love my NX8, and if NF came out with a new 1-4x (and I agree that on a 1-4x sfp makes more sense) it would have to be either significantly cheaper while maintaining the same quality (not gonna happen) or significantly smaller and lighter for me to be interested.

A 12oz/6" 1-4x NF would certainly be appealing, but I don't know that the engineering is there.

With a 1-4 or a 1-6 that’s generally the way they’re used.

That being said, I’ve absolutely used intermediate power, but only at ranges in which the holdovers are of little use.

With a 50 meter zero I'm generally holding point blank, or at most “top of target” with the center dot so the reticle doesn’t really matter.

With a 1-8 or 1-10 it’s a different story.

Preach, sistah.

Yes on side parallax.  Illumination and parallax are built into the same knob on the left side.

I’m new to March and took a leap of faith on it.
But for everything I see and know about it, it’s a little tank.

I went uncapped tactical knobs, and everything feels strong and tight.

All those other ways are slower than taking the time to learn quick references for estimating ranges.

I seriously looked at them but their non standard, heavy mounts turned me away.

Me too :(

That's what turned me off too.

That mount is really hard to find also and is $300 and change.

I ended up getting a March 1-10x24 compact tactical in SFP and to be honest I'm not sure on the side parallax if it's needed even though it's effin amazing and goes down to 6 feet, yes 6 feet not 10 yds like the specs say. I'm torn as far as that goes.

I wonder if they will be as quick as a FFP daylight bright reticle?

I'm also having a hard time getting over that I would have to ship it to Japan if anything goes wrong with it.

In my research I found only two incidences where someone had to do this and it was a pleasant experience so, IDK? Maybe I'm being too noid

In another incidence someone dinged their tube and Deon wanted $800 to fix it being it was the owner's fault. It is comforting to know that if I bent a tube on one of my vortex optics they would just fix it or send me a new one so I guess I'm kind of spoiled that way.

The company (Deon Optical Design) is getting bigger and moving to a larger facility. They are made up of Japanese Optical engineers and are hand built and supposedly inspected twenty something times before they leave the factory. They built and designed some of their own machines for inspections.

Someone here correct me if I'm wrong but I believe they were one of the first to do a high-end 1–10x?

It does feel like it is built like a tank and the finish on them seems like it's very durable. The turret clicks are also some of the most positive I've ever experienced.

Glass wise it's a bit better than my Razor Gen lll 1-10x and a couple of oz lighter. 18oz

I shelled out for the Unimount, 33/30 mm ring setup.
Weight is the same as anything else except Scalarworks, which I use on just about every other rig.

For the things I cared about and the shortfalls of the other high end lpvos I own, this one brought a lot to the table.

My current LPVOs for comparison:  S&B 1-8x DFP, swaro 1-8 SFP, kahles 1-6 SFP, and vortex 1-10x FFP

My concerns:

1. Short (same length as comp m5 + magnifier), only thing that comes close is the NX8, which I don’t personally like.

2. No questions asked usable at 1x without illumination.

3. Good glass, S&B level not required but that is nice glass

4. Ranging at all usable ranging levels.
It’s nice using an FFP between 4x - 10x and not being married to max mag for ranging.

5. Bright SFP red dot

Only the March has checked these boxes especially as it was intended to go on a pistol.

Every other LPVO I listed fails #1.  The DFP/FFP glass fails #1 and #2.  The SFP fails #4 except the Kahles as I really only use it at 1x and 6x.  

March really did something cool and I’m not stuck using an Elcan or Aimpoint for small footprint.

Finally, I like how March handled the diopter, similar to nightforce.

That sounds like an effin winner to me.

Congrats OP.

How long was the turnaround time on this?

Also where did you find the mount to be available?

It’s about 2 months.

The mount came from March Uk and arrived in about 1 week.

The whole setup is legit.  If there is a complaint the SFP lines are thick at 10x.  That said, this was a more of a 1x focused setup anyway and not intended for long-range dialing at 10x so even this con is negligible.

Most of the other 1-8, 1-10x FFP’s seem more focused on the high end of the magnification and sacrifice something on the low end.

The other positives, especially size and features, outweigh this con.

Thanks for answers

The only thing I didn't like about a few of my higher-end LPVO's was the fact that on 1x I had to rely on battery power.

They were all doable on 1x with no illumination but it did seem to slow me down a bit.

I'd LOVE an updated NXS 1-4 with a brighter reticle. Something simple too, more along the lines of a German #4 with a nice bright red dot in the center and a single stadia line that would give you a reliable 400 yards. Oh, and capped turrets. I get it though, this scope would not be mall ninja enough to appeal to the masses but it would be perfect for general use.

I think the problem is that the market at large isn’t driven by specs like weight and size, it’s driven by magnification. For 99% of buyers, a 1-8 is better than a 1-6, than a 1-4 etc. I don’t see this happening any time soon unless a .gov entity requests something along the lines.

The Army Direct View Optic (DVO) that was awarded to SIG for the 2FP TANGO6T would have been a nice excuse to make lightweight and tactical SFP 1-6.

Yeah if I remember right they didn’t spec the requirements for that contract too stringent for weight. IIRC (and this is offhand) I got the impression they more or less knew which optics they wanted competing and drew a lot of specs around those optics.

Which is a shame, look what happens when they spec aggressively and make the market figure it out. That’s how we got all those badass micro AR-ish things like the Maxim PDX and MCX Rattler. I want to see whatever the LPVO equivalent is of those rifles.

I would think weight would be a bigger factor into the market of LPVOs, just considering how big 3 Gun competition shooting is to the LPVO market.

What is a "clean" reticle?

Why is daylight bright such a big deal?

What kind of distances are you typically shooting?

Lol.  All of them (including Vortex, the fanboys notwithstanding) are 2nd-tier optics or below.  This can’t be a serious question.

Oh, a Nightforce Fan boy want's to get serious. Please tell us how an optic not in yet existence is somehow first-tier??

Don't they actually have to build it first??

I'll wait...

It is, but to a lesser degree than you’d think.

Optic weight on a 3-Gun stick is right over the receiver so it’s not really effecting the kinematics of the gun.  If it were forward of the receiver it’s would really slow down transitions.  It matters, but where it’s located means the weight matters less than anywhere else so it’s not a huge deal for development.

A reticle that gives me enough information to make accurate hits at reasonable ranges on practical size targets under field conditions without obstructing the target.

I like Steiner and Kahles reticles.

Daylight bright means you can use it like a RDS at 1X which is most of the utility of a LPVO to begin with. I wouldn’t consider one without it.

Typically contact distance to 600/700 yards.

The Razor is certainly not a 2nd Tier optic.

I see, probably don't have too many guys running cans either? I remember back when I had an original 25 oz Vortex Razor the weight and balance wasn't too bad until I screwed another lb of weight in the muzzle lol.

No.

Running a can in a 3-Gun match is utterly retarded.