Maven RS.5 4-24x50mm SFP Field Evaluation Q&A

[Formidilosus]

Maven RS.5 Field Eval


Question and Answer thread.

 

[clperry]

I had high hopes after Ryan’s praise…. And I like some of their other offerings… oh well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Stu]

I, personally, am looking forward to the video content. Big thanks to Form and Ryan. I know this is a lot of work.

 

[freddyG]

It’s amazing how fragile some scopes are.

 

[gbflyer]

Love it. Thank you. I’m gonna do a drop test just like that with a new STAC FFP when it gets here.

 

[Formidilosus]

It’s amazing how fragile some scopes are.

If the company isn’t testing for zero retention through impacts, why or how would the scopes hold zero through impacts? It’s pretty clear that scopes must be specifically, and specially designed to do so. Instead almost every company and person just believes it magically happens.

 

[Rob5589]

Actually surprised by the lack of durability. The Vortex LHT did better, by a good margin.

 

[Formidilosus]

Actually surprised by the lack of durability. The Vortex LHT did better, by a good margin.

Eh. Once a zero has shifted by 3-4 moa I don’t think “better” is really a thing. The Maven rezeroed fine, or as fine as it has, and will be rechecked after riding in the truck.

 

[freddyG]

If the company isn’t testing for zero retention through impacts, why or how would the scopes hold zero through impacts? It’s pretty clear that scopes must be specifically, and specially designed to do so. Instead almost every company and person just believes it magically happens.

I don’t think the company thinks it magically happens. I think that there are enough gullible people who believe scopes should hold zero, since that is their primary function. Companies know marketing is all you need to fool most people. This is a $1400 scope for goodness sake.

 

[Stu]

To be fair, I think it’s worth considering that the majority people who make up the scope companies might be living in the “reality” that most consumers live in. Until you test, and shoot under statistical constraints, how would you know? I’m not making excuses, simply not assuming that scope companies are behaving in a sinister manner. My experience with serving the public lends me an understanding with focusing on demand, and the hunting community demands features, not proven baseline performance. I agree with @Formidilosus, that until there is a demand for solid baseline mechanical performance before “Gucci” features, no likely change in that arena will occur.

 

[Formidilosus]

Companies know marketing is all you need to fool most people. This is a $1400 scope for goodness sake.

This is my view, however shaped by experience, that the companies for the most part do not know how bad their products are. What optics company CEO or owner is a legit shooter? What about their engineers (including all the companies who’s engineers are in other countries at the OEM)- how many of them are true shooters? How many of the salesman, “influencers”, or sponsored people that those companies have are true shooters?
Even if someone is a true shooter, how would they have accumulated the round counts and experience while working at something else to nail down the issues? If they could would the company even believe them?
While some companies do have world class shooters as sponsored personnel, and even a couple have them as staff, the focus isn’t on that. I am quite familiar with the competitive shooting world, and most sponsored shooters are not in the top 20 in their field. Most “sponsored” shooters- meaning they get free or discounted items to advertise those items- are that way due to personality and not skill. Of the few who actually are sponsored and are at the top of their game…. most are hesitant to mention anything bad even when they know it.


My view is that companies use return rates as a metric for acceptability, not testing. People can crow all they want about “recoil” machines and shakers- but things happen from field use and shooting that does not happen when a single, constant force is applied. You have to shoot live rounds and lots of them. What company factors in 20,000 rounds for proofing two scopes of a new design? And statistically that’s a joke even at that. What company is checking and ensuring each scope maintains zero with impacts? What company has staff that are world class shooters, and excellent design people?


Base answer is that while not acceptable, it’s more than just that they don’t care.

 

[freddyG]

I’m not saying they do this on purpose. It’s simply a “good enough” attitude. That’s why nothing ever changes with respect to reliability, and most likely won’t. Even after these tests.

 

[freddyG]

Base answer is that while not acceptable, it’s more than just that they don’t care.

Yes. As long as sales are strong, why change things up.

 

[PNWGATOR]

Another excellent example. Thank you.


It’ll be interesting to see which company steps up and embraces the challenge of designing and engineering the correct optic. Rokslide blueprint.

 

[BRTreedogs]

Man I had high hopes

 

[sndmn11]

Man I had high hopes

I've got the 3 to try this weekend or next.

 

[Formidilosus]

Something to note that this scope is a good example of-


If I were not shooting large shot groups- 10 rounds or more per group, the issues wouldn’t be nearly so noticeable. Very easy to say one or tow shots were “pulled” or whatever, until you have literal dozens upon dozens of 10-30 round groups and know without a doubt what the baseline is.

With the standard 3 and 5 shots groups, with almost never getting a pure zero and checking repeatedly, this scope would just exhibit the usual small issues that makes people question whats happening. Pretty much everyone has had a rifle that just won’t consistently shoot right- “flyers”, little weird things that just shouldn’t be there, etc. Most of the issues this scope showed, would not be noticed as an actual failure, but instead would manifest itself in a general distrust of the rifle eventually.

 

[JakeSCH]

Not going to lie, this truth hurts me. Lol. I have 3 of these scopes and now this will always be in the back of mind mind until I replace them.

@Formidilosus do you have a list of scopes you have performed this same test on? And how they compared?

 

[Formidilosus]

Not going to lie, this truth hurts me. Lol. I have 3 of these scopes and now this will always be in the back of mind mind until I replace them.

@Formidilosus do you have a list of scopes you have performed this same test on? And how they compared?

This whole section is making that list. I have done it plenty of times with lots of scopes, but people don’t like hearing it, so it’s just being done like this- open and objective.

 

[Formidilosus]

Not going to lie, this truth hurts me. Lol. I have 3 of these scopes and now this will always be in the back of mind mind until I replace them.

Meant to address this.

Why not test yours before replacing them?