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

[BRTreedogs]

I had I scope bind up the zoom ring because I had it too close to the rear mounting ring. It actually held zero for quite some time.
Till it didn't.

 

[Kyle Wheeler]

I am considering this scope but am also looking at NXS 5.5-22x56. I’m looking for a good SFP option and don’t mind the weight of the NXS or the cross instead of dot but I would assume the Maven may have better glass? Based on these two scopes which one would you guys choose and why? And thank you all for the time put in these. It saves headaches down the road for sure and allows us to see how the company handles this type of situation.

 

[Clark33]

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.

This is very important. You guys shouldn't panic and sell all your mavens or Vortex LHT's or whatever optic doesn't pass this "test". Each test is a sample size of 1 with a lot of variables. It does provide some insight but I wouldn't toss the baby out with the bath water.

 

[Formidilosus]

This is very important. You guys shouldn't panic and sell all your mavens or Vortex LHT's or whatever optic doesn't pass this "test". Each test is a sample size of 1 with a lot of variables. It does provide some insight but I wouldn't toss the baby out with the bath water.

I agree fully with the sample size of one aspect. However, what leads you to believe that those two scopes were the one bad ones in those lines?

I mean being that at least two other LHT’s were dropped on another forum and results were nearly identical; and a member here did the same drops with another Maven and it it too shifted like the one I shot…. yet the Nightforce held without issue.
I can state factually that based on history, if the very first scope tried loses zero from impacts, the odds that other scopes of the same model won’t lose zero is extremely low. As in I have never seen it happen.

 

[Justin Crossley]

I am considering this scope but am also looking at NXS 5.5-22x56. I’m looking for a good SFP option and don’t mind the weight of the NXS or the cross instead of dot but I would assume the Maven may have better glass? Based on these two scopes which one would you guys choose and why? And thank you all for the time put in these. It saves headaches down the road for sure and allows us to see how the company handles this type of situation.

I would choose the NXS without question.

 

[Clark33]

I agree fully with the sample size of one aspect. However, what leads you to believe that those two scopes were the one bad ones in those lines?

I mean being that at least two other LHT’s were dropped on another forum and results were nearly identical; and a member here did the same drops with another Maven and it it too shifted like the one I shot…. yet the Nightforce held without issue.
I can state factually that based on history, if the very first scope tried loses zero from impacts, the odds that other scopes of the same model won’t lose zero is extremely low. As in I have never seen it happen.

Look, I'm not trying to get into some sort of argument, you keep doing what you're doing. I'm just trying to be some what objective here. I simply quoted someone saying the same scope was dropped and held zero. A year or so back on another forum, a guy had a NF that wouldn't hold zero, it was never dropped either. Went back and forth with NF until lawyers got involved. Scope was the issue, NF said it was fine, scope was given to multiple seasoned shooters, different rings/mounts tried, different rifles tried, scope would not hold zero. Now, are all NF bad, not at all.

I think the same is for Maven and Vortex. It is what it is, I'm not bashing your tests

 

[Kyle Wheeler]

I would choose the NXS without question.

Thank you!!

 

[Formidilosus]

Look, I'm not trying to get into some sort of argument, you keep doing what you're doing. I'm just trying to be some what objective here. I simply quoted someone saying the same scope was dropped and held zero. A year or so back on another forum, a guy had a NF that wouldn't hold zero, it was never dropped either. Went back and forth with NF until lawyers got involved. Scope was the issue, NF said it was fine, scope was given to multiple seasoned shooters, different rings/mounts tried, different rifles tried, scope would not hold zero. Now, are all NF bad, not at all.

I think the same is for Maven and Vortex. It is what it is, I'm not bashing your tests

Bash away, why would I care. I’m not being paid for nor have any reason to BS or have any personal interest in the results.

Who dropped there rifle in a test and the LHT held zero? Despite what those with an emotional attachment to an inanimate object try to push, I’m actually after real data and as much legitimate results as I can get. That is the only thing of value that I get out of this.

The laughable thing about the NF example that you used is that it is literally the only one that people can use. They screwed the pooch on that one, and have adjusted how they test scopes so it doesn’t happen again.

Again, NF does not offer a single scope that I find suitable for general hunting. 8 different Nightforces have went through the drop eval since it was started two months ago- every single one of them has had zero detectable shift through the eval, nor any shift when mounted correctly from shoulder to head height. There is no other scope make/model that I or anyone that has come out or tried it, that has been able to do that.

The reality is that every person that I know personally, and every one that has replicated the drop eval that I know of online with the Vortex and Maven publicly has had them shift. Those same people, when tested, did not experience a shift with a Nightforce. Why is it so hard for people to believe that a scope company that officially and publicly states, and shows, that they specifically design and test their scopes to not lose zero from impacts- have scopes that are better at holding zero than companies who state it’s stupid for scopes to be drop tested?

 

[Formidilosus]

@Clark33

I do not mean the above for arguing. I am asking why do you believe that there isn’t an issue?What evidence that the LHT or Maven will hold zero from the same impacts have you seen? To me it would be quite different if four or five people were recreating the exact drop eval and some of the scopes were holding zero and some were not. But all evidence (if you believe it) is saying that they do not. Which to me makes logical sense, as neither company has ever stated to my knowledge that they design or check for zero retention from dropping or impacts.

 

[Clark33]

Where can I find the other test with Maven and the LHT? Genuinely curious.

 

[Formidilosus]

In the optics sub forum from @sndmn11, and in the SH thread you posted in.

 

[sndmn11]

Where can I find the other test with Maven and the LHT? Genuinely curious.

I actually snuck the Maven one into the eval sub forum

Maven RS.3 5-30x50 FFP mil/mil field evaluation

Q&A here https://www.rokslide.com/forums/threads/maven-rs-3-5-30x50-ffp-mil-mil-q-a.251009/ Maven RS.3 5-30x50mm evaluation. The test rifle is a 22BR Tikka T3 with 200ish bullets down the tube. It has shown to group under 1.5" for 10 shots at 100 yards in that time. The scope was sent to me...

www.rokslide.com

My Nightforce and Bushnell evals are in the optics

Nightforce 4-14x50 SHV F1 Drop Test/mini evaul

Nightforce 4-14x50 SHV F1 drop testing and mini evaluation. It was pointed out to me that I need to proof the rifle/mount/rings system. @HawkinsPrecision rings, Tikka T3 action with 22BR barrel from Preferred, in a Bell and Carlson stock. This scope is my own, one of two, and I have had it...

www.rokslide.com

Bushnell LRTSi 4.5-18x44 Drop test/mini eval

Bushnell LRTSi 4.5-18x44 Drop test/mini evaul. Rifle/mount/rings proofed see here consisting @HawkinsPrecision rings, Tikka T3 action with 22BR barrel from Preferred, in a Bell and Carlson stock. Sight in shots (middle black circle) were low and a little left. Corrections of .2mil up and...

www.rokslide.com

Bear in mind too, if you look on the Rokide home page you will see two reviews by me of Maven products, and the evaluated RS.3 was sent to me for free to fuddlefiddle with. There's a fair chance they won't ask for it back until they want me to fuddlefiddle with something else. The Nightforce and Bushnell in the links above are my own, my own risk, my own money, my own rifle, my own ammo. I did break a tie stock doing this. So, point being if there was a reason to muck with data or screw with results, I'd have done it for the Maven scope or I wouldnt have posted anything ESPECIALLY after I broke a stock.

What I think is being drastically overlooked is the idea of this testing being an expedited way of predicting the TESTED scope's chances of holding zero for as close to indefinitely as possible. A person has to buy into the idea that Form has dones played with scopes and rifles enough that rather than spend thousands of shots and years of un-babied abuse, he believes this method accomplishes that in a handful of shots and 10min. If a person doesn't buy into that, then this testing protocol will be scoffed at.

What this has done for me is eliminate a variable in my mind if something goes off. After testing each of my scopes, I can put that variable in the back of something isn't right. I would still check my zero if I dropped my rifle from waist high, BUT I wouldn't freak out and panic.

What I like about Form's method is that I saw it first hand, and it ended up being predictable. I want to try more scopes to see what happens, but I do believe in his idea of this being an expedited method of proofing a scope to as small of a percentage of possible failure as I can practically achieve.

 

[HaydenLane]

Look, I'm not trying to get into some sort of argument, you keep doing what you're doing. I'm just trying to be some what objective here. I simply quoted someone saying the same scope was dropped and held zero. A year or so back on another forum, a guy had a NF that wouldn't hold zero, it was never dropped either. Went back and forth with NF until lawyers got involved. Scope was the issue, NF said it was fine, scope was given to multiple seasoned shooters, different rings/mounts tried, different rifles tried, scope would not hold zero. Now, are all NF bad, not at all.

I think the same is for Maven and Vortex. It is what it is, I'm not bashing your tests

This is exactly the example I would use if I wanted to say Vortex is probably full of shit, and the scope did actually lose zero.

 

[Clark33]

This is exactly the example I would use if I wanted to say Vortex is probably full of shit, and the scope did actually lose zero.

What? I’m not saying the vortex or maven didn’t have a shift in zero after being dropped. I’m just saying I wouldn’t panic if I owned or was thinking of owning one.

I’m trying to be level headed about it, and everyone’s acting like these things are about as good as a Tasco because it got dropped on its head under a 12lb gun. I own a mk5 and a couple LRTS’ so no dog in the fight. But damn, I’m not gonna write off two brands with a pretty solid reputation.

It is definitely something to think about but I wouldn’t hesitate to take either one into the hills on my rifle.

 

[HaydenLane]

What? I’m not saying the vortex or maven didn’t have a shift in zero after being dropped. I’m just saying I wouldn’t panic if I owned or was thinking of owning one.

I’m trying to be level headed about it, and everyone’s acting like these things are about as good as a Tasco because it got dropped on its head under a 12lb gun. I own a mk5 and a couple LRTS’ so no dog in the fight. But damn, I’m not gonna write off two brands with a pretty solid reputation.

It is definitely something to think about but I wouldn’t hesitate to take either one into the hills on my rifle.

I think you’re vastly exaggerating the response people have had to these tests. I’m also not accusing you of claiming they didn’t shift. You’ve just clearly been a skeptic and I found the example you chose of a failed NF interesting, because it can clearly be used to put doubt into the response from Vortex.

As far as the reputations, though, what Vortex scope under 30oz has had a good reputation? I’m genuinely asking, because I don’t know of any.

I’d say Maven has a solid reputation as far as binos. Most people have still never heard of them, period, let alone put a scope through years of abuse.

 

[Clark33]

I think you’re vastly exaggerating the response people have had to these tests. I’m also not accusing you of claiming they didn’t shift. You’ve just clearly been a skeptic and I found the example you chose of a failed NF interesting, because it can clearly be used to put doubt into the response from Vortex.

As far as the reputations, though, what Vortex scope under 30oz has had a good reputation? I’m genuinely asking, because I don’t know of any.

I’d say Maven has a solid reputation as far as binos. Most people have still never heard of them, period, let alone put a scope through years of abuse.

Andy Stumpff shoots with Mavens, he seems to be an experienced shooter. Honestly out of all the LHTs out in the wild I would have guessed their would be more complaints of failure to track or hold zero than there has been.

PST, I would never own one, I’m not going to write off the LHT based on this though. As of now I’ve read or heard more positive than negative.

Also I see absolutely nothing wrong with being skeptical.

 

[freddyG]

Honestly out of all the LHTs out in the wild I would have guessed their would be more complaints of failure to track or hold zero than there has been.

Most dudes think nothing of re-zeroing a rifle, and think it’s normal. They certainly don’t think of it as a scope failure.

 

[Stu]

Most dudes think nothing of re-zeroing a rifle, and think it’s normal. They certainly don’t think of it as a scope failure.

Most dudes check zero?

 

[Ryan Avery]

Most dudes think nothing of re-zeroing a rifle, and think it’s normal. They certainly don’t think of it as a scope failure.

DING! DING! We have a winner.

 

[Clark33]

Most dudes think nothing of re-zeroing a rifle, and think it’s normal. They certainly don’t think of it as a scope failure.

I 100% agree, so what am I missing here? You drop your gun and don’t confirm zero? Regardless of scope I think that’s bs