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

[BRTreedogs]

@Formidilosus thanks so much for your time, and the thick skin it took to get here.

I don't mind saving up for the rite products but in no way shape or form could I do this testing. Even if I found the guts to drop it on purpose no way could I produce the rounds.

For the sake of all our time and money this is very helpful and I hope more good choices become available because of it.

 

[Formidilosus]

Update on the Eval thread.

 

[Ryan Avery]

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?

Sorry, I've been in and out the last week.

In regards to still using the scope, I lean towards yes because I had no issues with the RS.5. But I want to talk to the guys at Maven and get the scope back to them to look at it. Maven is a great company that listens to the consumer and can move faster than most optics companies.

 

[BRTreedogs]

Sorry, I've been in and out the last week.

In regards to still using the scope, I lean towards yes because I had no issues with the RS.5. But I want to talk to the guys at Maven and get the scope back to them to look at it. Maven is a great company that listens to the consumer and can move faster than most optics companies.

Well assure them we're not afraid to spend money if they can build something that works.

Personally I'm not to concerned about weight or getting a bunch of features.
Reliable.
Not an overly complicated reticle and a zero stop.

 

[Bones]

Well assure them we're not afraid to spend money if they can build something that works.

Personally I'm not to concerned about weight or getting a bunch of features.
Reliable.
Not an overly complicated reticle and a zero stop.

I agree with what you are saying, and I am not afraid to spend the money. I currently have a March 3-24 on my favorite rig, but if you aren't concerned about weight and cost, just get a heavy Nightforce. I think there are options if you don't care about weight being 28 oz.

All I want is a simple FFP mil based reticle that is usable on low power, adjustable parallax, exposed elevation with zero stop, would prefer capped windage, but not a deal breaker, and 12-14 on the high end is enough for me.

I would be happy with a NXS compact if it was FFP or potentially the 36mm Trijicon Credo, though I don't love the reticle, if it had adjustable parallax.

 

[BRTreedogs]

I agree with what you are saying, and I am not afraid to spend the money. I currently have a March 3-24 on my favorite rig, but if you aren't concerned about weight and cost, just get a heavy Nightforce. I think there are options if you don't care about weight being 28 oz.

All I want is a simple FFP mil based reticle that is usable on low power, adjustable parallax, exposed elevation with zero stop, would prefer capped windage, but not a deal breaker, and 12-14 on the high end is enough for me.

I would be happy with a NXS compact if it was FFP or potentially the 36mm Trijicon Credo, though I don't love the reticle, if it had adjustable parallax.

Cost is a bit of concern, but not to much.
My hold back with nightforce is i do not like the negative attributes of the super high zoom ratio.
Do not like the reticles. Or the reticle sizing at lower power.
Those were my minimum wish list.

For me the perfect scope.
4-20
Simple mil reticle.
Reticle usable at 4x
Parallax
Zero Stop
Locking turrets, especially wind
44mm and 50mm options.
Long enough to use hawkins hybrid rings.

All I'm saying is don't split haits to drop the last once or to and possibly have a failure.

Sure I want it to be lighter.
Just not so light it has failures, ill carry whatever it ends up being.

 

[Bones]

Cost is a bit of concern, but not to much.
My hold back with nightforce is i do not like the negative attributes of the super high zoom ratio.
Do not like the reticles. Or the reticle sizing at lower power.
Those were my minimum wish list.

For me the perfect scope.
4-20
Simple mil reticle.
Reticle usable at 4x
Parallax
Zero Stop
44mm and 50mm options.
Long enough to use hawkins hybrid rings.

All I'm saying is don't split haits to drop the last once or to and possibly have a failure.

Sure I want it to be lighter.
Just not so light it has failures, ill carry whatever it ends up being.

I totally understand what you are saying with the NX8. If it was a lower zoom ratio, the reticle would benefit a lot. If I didn't care about weight, I would probably go SHV 4-14 F1 or ATACR 4-16. Both don't have the huge zoom ratio.

I know they aren't perfect for you, but darn close.

I agree 100% to not shave the extra ounce to make weight and lessen durability, but I would trust the NXS compact or even SHV (if it had exposed elevation) compact if it was a FFP. To me the difficulty is finding one sub 22 oz that is FFP, bombproof, and has parallax adjustment.

 

[BjornF16]

Sorry, I've been in and out the last week.

In regards to still using the scope, I lean towards yes because I had no issues with the RS.5. But I want to talk to the guys at Maven and get the scope back to them to look at it. Maven is a great company that listens to the consumer and can move faster than most optics companies.

Not sure I'm tracking what you're actually saying here.

Form's testing showed a failure from dialing and RTZ...no impacts. Repeatable.

So would you take this scope (as it currently sits) on a hunt of a lifetime?

 

[Ryan Avery]

Not sure I'm tracking what you're actually saying here.

Form's testing showed a failure from dialing and RTZ...no impacts. Repeatable.

So would you take this scope (as it currently sits) on a hunt of a lifetime?

Probably not, over the last eight years, I have primarily used NF and the Swarovski X5.

But I don't discount my own testing either. Why did it track for me with over 20 drops from twelve" on all three sides? I check zero a lot and I used that scope a ton last hunting season, I didn't re-zero one time and I check it constantly. I shot a bull at over 900 yards, my two shots on him were three inches apart. All this lead me to believe the scope was well built. I did the same testing with the LHT and it never RTZ after the first drop at 12". So I want to make sure I didn't give @Formidilosus an F-d up scope to start with. Form will be the first to tell you don't believe him do your own testing. Long story short I want to get this back to Maven, get it looked at, and retested.

But the reason I value @Formidilosus test is it's very repeatable with little to no variables. So results will be similar, I can't say that about my testing or anyone else's I have witnessed.

 

[Formidilosus]

Not sure I'm tracking what you're actually saying here.

Form's testing showed a failure from dialing and RTZ...no impacts. Repeatable.

So would you take this scope (as it currently sits) on a hunt of a lifetime?

My guess, and it is a guess, is that the difference between @Ryan Avery results and mine is the weight of the rifle, and where the rings were mounted on the tube. There are multiple scopes that are known to be very sensitive to ring placement, and while scopes should be able to work fine on a ten pound rifle, two pounds heavier and higher drops makes a difference. Also, I have little doubt that the 36” drop effected the scope greatly, and that’s why it started shifting from 12” plus drops.

Something to note, before the stock broke with @sndmn11, his shifts were similar to mine. The point is that there isn’t anything nefarious going on- standards and repeatability matters. My personal desire is for Maven (and every company), to do what a couple others have done and to start building and testing for zero retention from drops.

 

[BjornF16]

Probably not, over the last eight years, I have primarily used NF and the Swarovski X5.

But I don't discount my own testing either. Why did it track for me with over 20 drops from twelve" on all three sides? I check zero a lot and I used that scope a ton last hunting season, I didn't re-zero one time and I check it constantly. I shot a bull at over 900 yards, my two shots on him were three inches apart. All this lead me to believe the scope was well built. I did the same testing with the LHT and it never RTZ after the first drop at 12". So I want to make sure I didn't give @Formidilosus an F-d up scope to start with. Form will be the first to tell you don't believe him do your own testing. Long story short I want to get this back to Maven, get it looked at, and retested.

But the reason I value @Formidilosus test is it's very repeatable with little to no variables. So results will be similar, I can't say that about my testing or anyone else's I have witnessed.

Ok...copy. I didn't know the history of the scope.

My guess, and it a guess, is that the difference between @Ryan Avery results and mine is the weight of the rifle, and where the rings were mounted on the tube. There are multiple scopes that are known to be very sensitive to ring placement, and while scopes should be able to work fine on a ten pound rifle, two pounds heavier and higher drops makes a difference. Also, I have little doubt that the 36” drop effected the scope greatly, and that’s why it started shifting from 12” plus drops.

Something to note, before the stock broke with @sndmn11, his shifts were similar to mine. The point is that there isn’t anything nefarious going on- standards and repeatability matters. My personal desire is for Maven (and every company), to do what a couple others have done and to start building and testing for zero retention from drops.

I'd like to know more about the issue of ring placement.

Also, didn't you see issues with Ryan's scope before you began the drop testing on your 10lb rifle?

I understand that Ryan's drop testing may have affected your testing; but sndmn11's testing seem to mimic your results (as you mentioned).

 

[Formidilosus]

I'd like to know more about the issue of ring placement.

Scopes are tube in a tube. There are several scopes that are very sensitive to where the rings are placed and how tight they are. In order to make weight, companies make the tube wall thickness very thin, making pressure on the tube effect the erector (it seems). Parallax locking up or not working is common. Also, the consumer is screaming for higher erector ratios and smaller scopes. All of that contributes to issues.

For instance, one well known scope works much better with 12 in-lbs on standard pic rings for correct functioning (still won’t pass a drop eval). The problem is that 12 in-lbs is a joke and will slip. Maybe not noticed on 6 BR 28lb PRS rifles, but in even normal weight 6.5 CM level recoil it will. That same scope at 18 in-lbs, if the rings are spaced as far apart as possible (ring spacing helps zero retention from impacts), will have pretty consistent parallax issues and intermittent shifts. To that, most scopes will not slip at 18 in-lbs torque (again standard pic rings), 16 in-lbs sees slippage, and 20-25 in-lbs is way better. But if you put most scopes at 20+ in-lbs they start having issues left and right.

Also, didn't you see issues with Ryan's scope before you began the drop testing on your 10lb rifle?

I did. Which lead me to suspect differences in placement of rings. It exhibited the same issues as others.

I understand that Ryan's drop testing may have affected your testing; but sndmn11's testing seem to mimic your results (as you mentioned).

Correct. Which is why standardization is important. The eval I do has directly correlated to failures or not that we see in the field. The purpose is instead of finding out over two years of hunting and use that this scope loses zero, it does it in a couple of hours. That the results are consistent with known entities shows that. NF work, the high end Bushnells tend to work with some issues, S&B’s tend to work; SWFA’s generally work with only sporadic issues with the turrets bending, etc, etc.
There is no surprise to a lot of people that some of the scopes have issues, as it is common to find multiple people that have had multiple issues on multiple scopes with those same models. The surprise for some and the real anger that starts is when these “super” scopes have issues. The elephant in the room is that the super scopes aren’t used heavily by most. They’re mostly going on a reputation not built on use to prove ruggedness, but a belief that a $3,000 plus scope has been tested throughly by the manufacturer. For instance, I have never stated that the TT’s all exhibit the problems that the one I saw does. However it wasn’t surprising to me, as the prior Premier scope that the TT is built off of had the same “awesome reputation”, and yet when looked deeper, issues were kind of common. I have seen multiple Premiers have issues, and I haven’t seen all that many of them relative to others.

The baseline is lots of people are going to be upset when the scopes are actually checked, but from that it will be found that there are some scopes that are near bombproof with extremely low rates of failure. Some scopes won’t be quite bombproof, but will be durable and work as they should with low rates of failure. Some scopes will seem to work ok, but will show severe issues with any real use. And lots and lots of scopes will be shown to be total garbage as aiming devices.


I think most people expect legit brands and models to be like number two above- very durable with good reliability, with a very low chance of failure, but maybe not quite totally bombproof.

 

[BjornF16]

Scopes are tube in a tube. There are several scopes that are very sensitive to where the rings are placed and how tight they are. In order to make weight, companies make the tube wall thickness very thin, making pressure on the tube effect the erector (it seems). Parallax locking up or not working is common. Also, the consumer is screaming for higher erector ratios and smaller scopes. All of that contributes to issues.

For instance, one well known scope works much better with 12 in-lbs on standard pic rings for correct functioning (still won’t pass a drop eval). The problem is that 12 in-lbs is a joke and will slip. Maybe not noticed on 6 BR 28lb PRS rifles, but in even normal weight 6.5 CM level recoil it will. That same scope at 18 in-lbs, if the rings are spaced as far apart as possible (ring spacing helps zero retention from impacts), will have pretty consistent parallax issues and intermittent shifts. To that, most scopes will not slip at 18 in-lbs torque (again standard pic rings), 16 in-lbs sees slippage, and 20-25 in-lbs is way better. But if you put most scopes at 20+ in-lbs they start having issues left and right.

I did. Which lead me to suspect differences in placement of rings. It exhibited the same issues as others.

Am I good at 20 in-lbs on SWFA, NF, and Trijicon? (Sportsmatch or NF rings)

Do I need to worry about ring placement on those scopes?

 

[Formidilosus]

Am I good at 20 in-lbs on SWFA, NF, and Trijicon? (Sportsmatch or NF rings)

Do I need to worry about ring placement on those scopes?

Yes, and nope.

 

[SDHNTR]

Yes, and nope.

What about one of your proven favorites, like say a NXS 3-15, In standard rings/bases, or Talley light weights? Does ring placement matter much, and will the standard 15 to 18 inch pounds suffice?

 

[Formidilosus]

What about one of your proven favorites, like say a NXS 3-15, In standard rings/bases, or Talley light weights? Does ring placement matter much, and will the standard 15 to 18 inch pounds suffice?

NXS’s are solid. 20 to 25 in-lbs on every ring.

 

[BjornF16]

Yes, and nope.

I forgot to ask about LRTS/LRHS 3-12 in Talley UL

Also, what LRTS/LRHS 3-12 issues should I be aware of?

 

[Formidilosus]

I forgot to ask about LRTS/LRHS 3-12 in Talley UL

Also, what LRTS/LRHS 3-12 issues should I be aware of?

Same.


Some of the Bushnells that I’ve seen and know about have issues with fogging/water leakage, and some with losing zero from impacts. Not all, and maybe only a small set have problems. Just something to be aware of.

 

[JakeSCH]

My guess, and it is a guess, is that the difference between @Ryan Avery results and mine is the weight of the rifle, and where the rings were mounted on the tube. There are multiple scopes that are known to be very sensitive to ring placement, and while scopes should be able to work fine on a ten pound rifle, two pounds heavier and higher drops makes a difference. Also, I have little doubt that the 36” drop effected the scope greatly, and that’s why it started shifting from 12” plus drops.

Something to note, before the stock broke with @sndmn11, his shifts were similar to mine. The point is that there isn’t anything nefarious going on- standards and repeatability matters. My personal desire is for Maven (and every company), to do what a couple others have done and to start building and testing for zero retention from drops.

Have you noticed if getting the mounts significantly closer to the mechanisms helps or makes it worse? It would make it stiffer, meaning less deflection but put in a higher shock into the system.

Also, where do the scopes normally hit first and has it made a difference in your test? Say hitting windage cap vs objective housing?

I also think I read someone else asking this but I do not recalled if it was answered, have you ever test scope sleeves or covers to see what kind of impact / protection?

Granted, I agree scopes should be designed to not need them but since a majority of scopes fail the test...it would be useful to know if they help (at all?)

Lol if you could design a cover that reduces the shock into scopes significantly then you have a business and a product to help fund more testing! hahaha

 

[Formidilosus]

Have you noticed if getting the mounts significantly closer to the mechanisms helps or makes it worse? It would make it stiffer, meaning less deflection but put in a higher shock into the system.

Historically it makes it worse. I believe for two reasons- one, is that like any object when it has long levers (the eyepiece and objective) unsupported, they bend easier. Two, I think that close to the turret housing they are more susceptible to pressure, but I am not sure on that.

Also, where do the scopes normally hit first and has it made a difference in your test? Say hitting windage cap vs objective housing?

Generally the left side hits the parallax knob first, right side the windage turret, and top the elevation turret. However, with the amount of drops it’s getting hit all over. Other than a couple scopes, “where” it takes the impact first hasn’t seemed to correlate with more or less shift.

I also think I read someone else asking this but I do not recalled if it was answered, have you ever test scope sleeves or covers to see what kind of impact / protection?

Granted, I agree scopes should be designed to not need them but since a majority of scopes fail the test...it would be useful to know if they help (at all?)

Lol if you could design a cover that reduces the shock into scopes significantly then you have a business and a product to help fund more testing! hahaha

Yes. Haven’t seen anything that makes a difference. If a half inch padded mat on soft ground causes a shift, a 1/16th inch thick piece of neoprene isn’t helping.