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

[Matt Cashell]

You need to look through one
It’s useable at 2.5


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree. I have been doing some shooting with it at 2.5x, and it certainly usable. I do keep it at 4x for walking around, though.

 

[HighCascadeHunter]

I am almost certain this will be my next scope so thanks for starting this review and sharing the information. I shoot moa, so I would get this scope in the Moa version.
. I’ve read Forms drop eval for mil version. Would there be any reason to expect different results on the Moa version or is it safe to assume it’s just as reliable?

 

[lelliott8]

I am almost certain this will be my next scope so thanks for starting this review and sharing the information. I shoot moa, so I would get this scope in the Moa version.
. I’ve read Forms drop eval for mil version. Would there be any reason to expect different results on the Moa version or is it safe to assume it’s just as reliable?

Maven RS1 2.5-15x44mm MOA Drop Evaluation

This is a drop evaluation of the new the original Maven RS1 2.5-15x44mm SHR-W MOA scope. There have been questions as to whether the RS1 and RS1.2 were “the same” scope, and whether or not the RS1 is as reliable in zero retention. This scope was sent to @Ryan Avery from a forum member to be...

rokslide.com

This might be exactly what you are looking for.

Ignore this I was mistaken. I thought someone had tested the moa version

 

[The Guide]

Maven RS1 2.5-15x44mm MOA Drop Evaluation

This is a drop evaluation of the new the original Maven RS1 2.5-15x44mm SHR-W MOA scope. There have been questions as to whether the RS1 and RS1.2 were “the same” scope, and whether or not the RS1 is as reliable in zero retention. This scope was sent to @Ryan Avery from a forum member to be...

rokslide.com

This might be exactly what you are looking for.

That is a review on the RS 1.0 scope and not the RS 1.2 scope. They are not the same animal.

Jay

 

[HighCascadeHunter]

Maven RS1 2.5-15x44mm MOA Drop Evaluation

This is a drop evaluation of the new the original Maven RS1 2.5-15x44mm SHR-W MOA scope. There have been questions as to whether the RS1 and RS1.2 were “the same” scope, and whether or not the RS1 is as reliable in zero retention. This scope was sent to @Ryan Avery from a forum member to be...

rokslide.com

This might be exactly what you are looking for.

Thanks, I did read that one too. But that review is going over the original RS1 not the updated RS1.2 which I believe is really a whole new animal.

 

[Matt Cashell]

I am almost certain this will be my next scope so thanks for starting this review and sharing the information. I shoot moa, so I would get this scope in the Moa version.
. I’ve read Forms drop eval for mil version. Would there be any reason to expect different results on the Moa version or is it safe to assume it’s just as reliable?

The only difference is the reticle, so any conclusions you are willing to make about the Mil version you can make about the MOA version.

 

[Jake33]

Back in stock this morning

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

I am almost certain this will be my next scope so thanks for starting this review and sharing the information. I shoot moa, so I would get this scope in the Moa version.
. I’ve read Forms drop eval for mil version. Would there be any reason to expect different results on the Moa version or is it safe to assume it’s just as reliable?

From what has been seen, the MOA is also a reliable optic. I was able to shoot with one of my MIL variants side by side with the MOA variant last week.

Both of us instantly noticed that the MIL reticle is bolder and easier to see at all power levels.

This fact, combined with the shooting benefits of the MIL system has him switching to the MIL version. We spent 4 hours shooting in high wind and at long range last week, with a few of my other old buddies as well. That’s all it took for him to make the switch to MILs and he’s a very good shooter and has used MOA for 20 years.

 

[Matt Cashell]

From what has been seen, the MOA is also a reliable optic. I was able to shoot with one of my MIL variants side by side with the MOA variant last week.

Both of us instantly noticed that the MIL reticle is bolder and easier to see at all power levels.

Which reticle thickness did you prefer at high powers?

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

Which reticle thickness did you prefer at high powers?

I rarely shoot mine past 8 power, he used his on 15x for several targets when we went out to 1,000-1,300.

I did not look through or shoot his on more than about 10 to maybe 12 power so couldn’t give an honest answer there.

 

[Matt Cashell]

I rarely shoot mine past 8 power, he used his on 15x for several targets when we went out to 1,000-1,300.

I did not look through or shoot his on more than about 10 to maybe 12 power so couldn’t give an honest answer there.

I see. I really like the thickness of the SHR-W at and above 10x. I don’t have any desire for it to be thicker, although I’m sure I could get by fine with the SHR-Mil’s thickness.

 

[300remum]

Good review

 

[BjornF16]

How does the Maven RS1.2 glass compare to SWFA 3-9 and 3-15?

 

[Marbles]

How does the Maven RS1.2 glass compare to SWFA 3-9 and 3-15?

Quite a bit nicer. I can make out bullet holes at 100 yards with the RS1.2, I cannot do that with the 3-9. It is not just higher magnification, but also a clearer image.

My RS1.2s are pretty new, so I can't give much more details with confidence, but I immediately noticed the clearer image when shooting @B_Reynolds_AK RS1.2 next to my 3-9 over the summer.

Put differently, the SWFA 3-9 is an aiming device. The RS1.2 is an aiming device and also a viewing device.

 

[Mike D Texas]

How does the Maven RS1.2 glass compare to SWFA 3-9 and 3-15?

Quite a bit nicer. I can make out bullet holes at 100 yards with the RS1.2, I cannot do that with the 3-9. It is not just higher magnification, but also a clearer image.

My RS1.2s are pretty new, so I can't give much more details with confidence, but I immediately noticed the clearer image when shooting @B_Reynolds_AK RS1.2 next to my 3-9 over the summer.

Put differently, the SWFA 3-9 is an aiming device. The RS1.2 is an aiming device and also a viewing device.

I agree the Maven glass is much brighter/sharper/clearer than any of the SWFA scopes that I have run including my 5-20HD.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[mt terry d]

Just a FYI:

You might want to check the screw that holds the magnifier adjustment lever thingy.
Mine fell off yesterday while hunting. Hopefully Maven will give me another.

 

[Flymost]

I couldn’t take it any longer and ordered one today. Just wanted everyone to know that there are like 10 different customization options (cap colors all the way to having your name on the scope) and best part is they were all free except for the custom name! If I wasn’t such an old man I’d really have tricked it out.

 

[Blooze]

So as someone who is looking to upgrade from a VX Freedom 3-9x on my Xbolt 6.5CM that is mainly used for hunting, would a mil or moa be easier for me to “learn”? I’m really looking at one of these hard as a replacement that should last me a long time. I’ve always used simple duplex reticles without holdover marks. Just sighted in at 200 yard zero and know what the drop is at 300 yards and called it a day. Set and forget.

 

[Wiscgunner]

So as someone who is looking to upgrade from a VX Freedom 3-9x on my Xbolt 6.5CM that is mainly used for hunting, would a mil or moa be easier for me to “learn”? I’m really looking at one of these hard as a replacement that should last me a long time. I’ve always used simple duplex reticles without holdover marks. Just sighted in at 200 yard zero and know what the drop is at 300 yards and called it a day. Set and forget.

Mils.


I see too many people confuse MOA with inches at distance. Mils people don't correlate as well so they are easier to focus on the measurement being just Mils and not equivalents to some random correlation. Mils are smaller, easier numbers and faster to work with. I honestly would never recommend to someone to go MOA on a scope meant to dial.

 

[Blooze]

Mils.


I see too many people confuse MOA with inches at distance. Mils people don't correlate as well so they are easier to focus on the measurement being just Mils and not equivalents to some random correlation. Mils are smaller, easier numbers and faster to work with. I honestly would never recommend to someone to go MOA on a scope meant to dial.

Well, I guess the good thing is I’ve never used a scope in 40 years that any other markings except the crosshairs, so I’m pretty open.