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

[JakeSCH]

Meant to address this.

Why not test yours before replacing them?

I definitely will, but will need to load up quite a few rounds to go through the entire test. Maybe move them to a gun less expensive to shoot my like 308 vs my 338 RUM. But the drop test leaves me uncomfortable, especially with 12" or above results.

I will say that I have put 200 rounds through one of my RS.5 on my 338 RUM and taken on 2 (successful) elk hunts without a perceivable change in zero. But I was not doing 200 mils worth of dialing between shots or more than 5 shot groups.

I have one sitting in a box waiting on a build and another on a 300 WM that has only seen range time.

Also a simple search I found quite a few more of you field evals....definitely appreciate the work you put into it.

 

[Ryan Avery]

The results are interesting and puzzling to me and the reason I wanted a standard test. I dropped this scope a bunch at 12" and saw no shift. I also shot a bull with this scope at 906 yards. The only difference is my total rifle set up is 8.5 pounds and I think Forms is around 12 pounds.

 

[Dobermann]

Thanks again, Form.

Gotta admit, I"m torn between wishing that all scope companies made scopes that work, so that we'd have a wider choice.

On the other hand, given that so few do, it kinda simplifies things a little ...

 

[prm]

I enjoy reading these. Kind if hope any of the scopes I currently have are not tested. I might be disappointed. Ignorance is bliss…
Actually, I’ll do a similar test for my own confidence. Rifle falls while leaning against tree, dropped from hand height while walking, etc.

What I believe we’ll eventually find, is that a certain erector system design(s) does hold up, while the traditional leaf spring design used by so many does not. Manufacturers are focused on features that can be seen, while sticking to the old internal design.

Also, it would seem that a properly designed cover or coating on the scope could significantly reduce the force felt by the internals of some direct scope impacts. Not a cure all, but an added margin of survivability. I don‘t think neoprene is dense enough.

 

[TX_Diver]

On one of the other scopes that had a shift you remounted the scope (S&B) to rule that out.

Doubtful that was the case here but any reason to skip the remounting here? Was the S&B remounted just because of a single "flyer" vs widespread change of zero?

 

[zrodwyo]

On one of the other scopes that had a shift you remounted the scope (S&B) to rule that out.

Doubtful that was the case here but any reason to skip the remounting here? Was the S&B remounted just because of a single "flyer" vs widespread change of zero?

It sounds to me like it was removed and remounted during the drop test after the initial failure.

 

[Formidilosus]

On one of the other scopes that had a shift you remounted the scope (S&B) to rule that out.

Doubtful that was the case here but any reason to skip the remounting here? Was the S&B remounted just because of a single "flyer" vs widespread change of zero?

The Maven was remounted. Any time a scope fails, it will get completely disassembled and remounted. In this case, I knew that it wasn’t a mount or slippage issue as it shifted way out, and the the other side drop brought it back some. In the case of the S&B it shifted and stayed. The Maven will still get a tried a third time.

 

[Ens Entium]

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.

As a quality engineer by trade I think it's important to highlight the design aspect you bring up. The scope must be designed to handle such impacts. If the scope has the appropriate design and consistent manufacturing methods then quality testing only becomes an indicator that something happened to the consistency of the manufacturing methods rather than a sorting exercise to weed out bad parts.

I think that's why SWFA who is known for their reliability are able to keep costs down. The design is robust yet simple since the work was put up front in the design/manufacturing so they don't have to spend a lot of money on doing a subsequent quality checks in the US or on marketing.

 

[nobody]

This is really disheartening. I had high hopes for this scope and have had one in my cart on their website for awhile now waiting on this evaluation. I love Maven and feel they really are doing great things in the optics markets, but is it too much to ask for a scope to just hold zero?

@Ryan Avery after packing it all fall with great success, and after seeing this result, is this a scope you can still say you'd recommend, or at this point would you walk back your previously glowing comments on the other thread? Form's test is pretty hardcore, but it seems the Maven failed relatively easy. Care to give your opinion and final thoughts/recommendations from an in-field perspective while taking both experiences into consideration?

 

[SDHNTR]

Form, have you noticed any commonalities in construction with the scopes you have tested that pass? As in, steel erectors, a certain retention system, tube wall thickness, etc? Have you identified any universal construction or design elements that either regularly work or don't work?

 

[Dioni A]

As a guy who recently chucked his gun on the ground a bunch of times to test this I want to stress that you know you're testing multiple things when you do this. Not every mounting system is created equal not every stock to action interface is created equal and not every barrel is torqued properly. All that to say you may want to go through and reevaluate some of your mounting system before you get rid of a scope that may or may not have been the problem. Odds are decent that you have multiple things to address probably including the scope.

 

[nobody]

As a guy who recently chucked his gun on the ground a bunch of times to test this I want to stress that you know you're testing multiple things when you do this. Not every mounting system is created equal not every stock to action interface is created equal and not every barrel is torqued properly. All that to say you may want to go through and reevaluate some of your mounting system before you get rid of a scope that may or may not have been the problem. Odds are decent that you have multiple things to address probably including the scope.

Not sure if you're directing this at Form (OP and tester), but if so, you may wanna check out the thread and explanation below talking about his test. I can guarantee his rifles and mounts and the tolerances they're assembled to are tighter than pretty much anybody on the market. His actions are permanently bedded/bonded to the chassis and stocks on his test rifles, this is as close as a pure "scope test" as is out there, and he's done tons of them. I would trust his testing protocols before pretty much anybody else on the market, and I've never even met the guy.

Scope Field Eval Explanation and Standards

This will be about the “why” of the field evaluations- specifically the drop “tests”. Let’s have a thought experiment. Let’s say you have spotted a buck across a valley, planned and executed a stalk which when you get to the last little knob up ahead, will put you within 400-450 yards of the...

www.rokslide.com

 

[Dioni A]

Not sure if you're directing this at Form (OP and tester), but if so, you may wanna check out the thread and explanation below talking about his test. I can guarantee his rifles and mounts and the tolerances they're assembled to are tighter than pretty much anybody on the market. His actions are permanently bedded/bonded to the chassis and stocks on his test rifles, this is as close as a pure "scope test" as is out there, and he's done tons of them. I would trust his testing protocols before pretty much anybody else on the market, and I've never even met the guy.

Scope Field Eval Explanation and Standards

This will be about the “why” of the field evaluations- specifically the drop “tests”. Let’s have a thought experiment. Let’s say you have spotted a buck across a valley, planned and executed a stalk which when you get to the last little knob up ahead, will put you within 400-450 yards of the...

www.rokslide.com

100% not directing this at him. He was my counsel in finding out that I probably had a bunch of crap wrong when I tested mine. Lol

 

[mtnwrunner]

Great evals. How long does it take for you to do this process?

Randy

 

[BjornF16]

100% not directing this at him. He was my counsel in finding out that I probably had a bunch of crap wrong when I tested mine. Lol

I'd certainly be interested in knowing this wise counsel...

 

[Formidilosus]

Great evals. How long does it take for you to do this process?

Randy

Depends on whether scope works or not. For a scope that works the eval as outlined here is 4-6 hours, though that’s not the field shooting. For the Vortex LHT it was 18 hours, and 48 hours for the Tangent Theta.

 

[ljalberta]

I'm loving these tests. Thanks Ryan and Form for getting this section organized.

 

[BjornF16]

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?

I’m not Form, but he kinda answered this question:

Meopta Optika6 3-18x50mm FFP Field Evaluation

Aaaannnd, she’s done. Two weeks ago it was working without issue and being used on a 12.5” 6.5 CM out to 1250m on 12x15” targets. Made a road trip, shot it yesterday- it had lost zero and did not adjust correctly. Shot it at 593 and 770. Impacts were all over the place. Shot it again today...

www.rokslide.com

Nightforce, SWFA, Bushnell LRHS, S&B, Trijicon AccuPoint, Trijicon AccuPower (some were re-badged to Credo, TenMile).

 

[mtnwrunner]

Depends on whether scope works or not. For a scope that works the eval as outlined here is 4-6 hours, though that’s not the field shooting. For the Vortex LHT it was 18 hours, and 48 hours for the Tangent Theta.

Wow. I knew it took awhile but that is dedication. Thanks for all you do Form.

Randy

 

[JakeSCH]

I’m not Form, but he kinda answered this question:

Meopta Optika6 3-18x50mm FFP Field Evaluation

Aaaannnd, she’s done. Two weeks ago it was working without issue and being used on a 12.5” 6.5 CM out to 1250m on 12x15” targets. Made a road trip, shot it yesterday- it had lost zero and did not adjust correctly. Shot it at 593 and 770. Impacts were all over the place. Shot it again today...

www.rokslide.com

Nightforce, SWFA, Bushnell LRHS, S&B, Trijicon AccuPoint, Trijicon AccuPower (some were re-badged to Credo, TenMile).

Yeah I found there is an entire section of them. Been mostly offline for the last month so this was the first one I saw. A ton of solid info in these reviews.