Maven RS1.2 2.5-15x44 FFP with SHR-W MOA reticle Field Tested and Reviewed

[SteveAndTheCrigBoys]

SHR W reticle, units in MOA:
View attachment 740725

Rounded to 0.8 because of above comments. Converted to MILs -- the fat part of SHR-W reticle is 0.23MILs thick.
View attachment 740724


MIL reticle, units in MILs:
The fat part of reticle is 0.4MIL thick
View attachment 740729

Good ole bluebeam.

 

[Shortschaf]

Good ole bluebeam.

Dont tell my boss

 

[Formidilosus]

I need to know more about the usability of the reticle at low power. Everyone claims the mil version is fine at low power, but that pic above does not impress me much.

Both at 2.5x:

MOA-




SHR-Mil-



While the MOA is usable- it is not so thin that it isn’t suitable; the SHR-Mil is noticeably more visible over all.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

I have 4 of these scopes on Tikka and Sako rifles now... None of them are really ever "turned down" all the way to 2.5x. They live their lives at 4ish to 8ish power, I don't even really look at what they're "zoomed to".

95+% of kills on coyotes and rabbits I treat them like a fixed power scope. From 10 yards to 700ish yards I never mess with "zoom" or parallax. Put the parallax at 200 and leave it alone. As an example with proof of shots, I used one of these scopes for the cold bore challenge... Shots on 10" white gong and 10" sharpie drawn circles on cardboard. Longest was 920 yards, never touched parallax once.

For kills past 700 yards on varmints I tend to zoom in and land somewhere in the 10-12ish range when I look, again, never touching parallax. When shooting targets and steel it's nice to have the 15 power for very long shots.

The only time I'd really ever have the scope zoomed down to 2.5x is purely stalking woods in thick cover, the reticle is perfectly usable in these conditions, including well before or past legal big game shooting light.

I guess what I'm rambling about is, the scope and reticle is usable on all "zoom" ranges from 10 yard shots in the woods in low light, to cranking it to 15 power for 1,200+ yard kills on varmints and target shooting with heavy mirage. You'll be hard pressed to find a better general hunting and shooting scope/reticle than this one, unless you want to spend nearly 3 times the price.

I can try to get some more low light reticle images tomorrow morning when I'm out shooting/practicing in the mountains. I'll try to sneak in some sight pictures on desert big horns, deer, and nasty little dark colored javelina if they stand still long enough (not likely).

Mine will be MIL, of course, but will be a very close representation of the MOA reticle as well.

 

[Formidilosus]

Mine will be MIL, of course, but will be a very close representation of the MOA reticle as well.

I’m lockstep with you on the SHR-Mil reticle, the SHR-W MOA reticle is noticeably thinner and harder to see. For an MOA scope/reticle of what’s available- it would be my choice; but there will be some people a bit upset if they are expecting it to be as visible as the mil version.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

I’m lockstep with you on the SHR-Mil reticle, the SHR-W MOA reticle is noticeably thinner and harder to see. For an MOA scope/reticle of what’s available- it would be my choice; but there will be some people a bit upset if they are expecting it to be as visible as the mil version.

Just saw your photos here, I can see that it does look thinner without a doubt.

 

[SDHNTR]

Both at 2.5x:

MOA-
View attachment 741627



SHR-Mil-
View attachment 741628


While the MOA is usable- it is not so thin that it isn’t suitable; the SHR-Mil is noticeably more visible over all.

Yep. That’s helpful and quite obvious in those pics. We also hashed this out on another thread. The actual stadia dimensions were posted and the mil is almost 2x thicker. Frustrating. The CS person at Maven told me over the phone they were the exact same other than the measurement system, but she didn’t sound very confident. Glad I asked here before buying. Bummer.

 

[SDHNTR]

I’m lockstep with you on the SHR-Mil reticle, the SHR-W MOA reticle is noticeably thinner and harder to see. For an MOA scope/reticle of what’s available- it would be my choice; but there will be some people a bit upset if they are expecting it to be as visible as the mil version.

Yeah, this guy!

 

[Mike D Texas]

Just another reason MIL>MOA.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Matt Cashell]

I have spent some more time behind the scope, and want to relay that the reticle thickness at 2.5x is actually pretty useable in good to moderate light. I have some more practical shooting tests planned in the coming weeks, but just at the range it wasn't too bad.

I can also see my muzzle brake at 2.5x...

It definitely gets bolder at 3x as well, and by 4x is plenty thick. In lowlight thick country I think I might just leave it at 4x for a close shot opportunity.

I really prefer the thickness of the SHR-W at max power to other, thicker FFP reticles. It is just right at the high end of the range.

 

[SDHNTR]

I have spent some more time behind the scope, and want to relay that the reticle thickness at 2.5x is actually pretty useable in good to moderate light. I have some more practical shooting tests planned in the coming weeks, but just at the range it wasn't too bad.

I can also see my muzzle brake at 2.5x...

It definitely gets bolder at 3x as well, and by 4x is plenty thick. In lowlight thick country I think I might just leave it at 4x for a close shot opportunity.

I really prefer the thickness of the SHR-W at max power to other, thicker FFP reticles. It is just right at the high end of the range.

That’s good to know, and helpful, but what would have been even more helpful is if Maven had actually taken a cue from what made the mil reticle version so desirable and successful, and simply built this one to the same dimensions. Common sense would’ve dictated that a good idea, right? Was that not considered? Or is there some logical reason I’m missing why they didn’t? Why do we have to compromise when they already had the secret sauce?

 

[Matt Cashell]

That’s good to know, and helpful, but what would have been even more helpful is if Maven had actually taken a cue from what made the mil reticle version so desirable and successful, and simply built this one to the same dimensions. Common sense would’ve dictated that a good idea, right? Was that not considered? Or is there some logical reason I’m missing why they didn’t? Why do we have to compromise when they already had the secret sauce?

I understand your frustration, I’m just giving my honest take on this reticle as it is. I don’t have any insights into Maven’s decision making on the reticle design.

As far as compromise goes, there are compromises in any reticle design, especially FFP.

I actually think there may be some that will prefer the SHR-W reticle dimensions to the SHR-Mil at higher magnifications.

 

[KU_Geo]

I have spent some more time behind the scope, and want to relay that the reticle thickness at 2.5x is actually pretty useable in good to moderate light. I have some more practical shooting tests planned in the coming weeks, but just at the range it wasn't too bad.

I can also see my muzzle brake at 2.5x...

It definitely gets bolder at 3x as well, and by 4x is plenty thick. In lowlight thick country I think I might just leave it at 4x for a close shot opportunity.

I really prefer the thickness of the SHR-W at max power to other, thicker FFP reticles. It is just right at the high end of the range.

Matt, could you post a picture of the reticle at 4x?

 

[Matt Cashell]

Here are some reticle pics:

2.5x:



3x:



4x:



6x:



10x:



15x:

 

[cktraider]

Just grabbed one of the SHR-MIL back in stock. Another bigger shipment in September last contact I had.