Maven RS1.2 2.5-15x44 new model

[Dioni A]

Anybody know if form has one of these to test? Honestly the 3ft drops are “good enough” for me to jump in, but I think some extra publicity for Maven might help these scopes take off a bit more. I don’t want to, but I will, hoard a closet full of a one-hit-wonder like I am with the bushnell LRHS

Pretty sure it was mentioned on here earlier that Ryan Avery was given one or two of them which I'm sure means that they will end up in forms hands at some point.

 

[JGS8163]

Would like to see that review when done. Still like my Trijicons.

 

[ljalberta]

I think if Form performed and posted the formal drop sequence using the bonded rifle, shot it a bunch more, drove around with it etc and it passed, a boatload of people would jump right in.

I would for sure.

 

[sndmn11]

Swap it out, then test the new one. 2x data points on one purchase.

I purchased a second one today to do the sample size thing.

 

[wind gypsy]

I'm not sure a new scope release has ever been so publicly physically abused

 

[intunegp]

Somewhat general question for you guys that I've been pondering for a bit. Everyone agrees that a big part of Form's testing is that his action is bonded to the chassis...this is how we know the failure is in the scope, not the platform, right?

Would a rifle like a Sig Cross be a good emulation of this, being that it has a "monolithic" design and there isn't a chassis for the action to move around in? I get that the rifle could still fail, but I don't know that repeated 18 and 36" drops on the sides/top would do much more than shift the handguard around.

Asking both because I'm consider the new Maven and I'd be willing to throw it around a bit if I do pick one up, and I've been pondering dropping my old VX-5 and maybe another scope or two...for science.

My Cross is the gun I'd have the least qualms about dropping so it would be even better if Rokslide told me it was a good platform for testing

 

[ResearchinStuff]

if any scope can pass on it repeatably, it's a good platform for testing. IMO, any results prior to the first "pass" on your test rifle are meaningless, because there are many points of failure outside the scope itself. Once you get the setup to pass a scope consistently you're at a point where subsequent failures tell a story about the scope.

 

[intunegp]

if any scope can pass on it repeatably, it's a good platform for testing. IMO, any results prior to the first "pass" on your test rifle are meaningless, because there are many points of failure outside the scope itself. Once you get the setup to pass a scope consistently you're at a point where subsequent failures tell a story about the scope.

For sure. I was just curious about opinions relating to the Cross and other rifles with a "receiver" design rather than a traditional action/chassis design.

 

[Jimbee]

For sure. I was just curious about opinions relating to the Cross and other rifles with a "receiver" design rather than a traditional action/chassis design.

Drop it, if it passes then everything is solid.

 

[gbflyer]

Somewhat general question for you guys that I've been pondering for a bit. Everyone agrees that a big part of Form's testing is that his action is bonded to the chassis...this is how we know the failure is in the scope, not the platform, right?

Would a rifle like a Sig Cross be a good emulation of this, being that it has a "monolithic" design and there isn't a chassis for the action to move around in? I get that the rifle could still fail, but I don't know that repeated 18 and 36" drops on the sides/top would do much more than shift the handguard around.

Asking both because I'm consider the new Maven and I'd be willing to throw it around a bit if I do pick one up, and I've been pondering dropping my old VX-5 and maybe another scope or two...for science.

My Cross is the gun I'd have the least qualms about dropping so it would be even better if Rokslide told me it was a good platform for testing

I think your rifle setup would be a fine base to test a scope. If all the components are tight to spec, you won’t see a huge shift associated with anything other than the scope unless there is an obvious mechanical failure such as breaking a mount, etc. As has been noted by the tester, a 3 foot drop onto a pad really isn’t that hard of a lick.

I don’t know if they still do but we used to glue in our short range benchrest guns. But we’re talking “results” measured in .001’s, not 2” 10 shot groups. They would eventually shoot loose from cleaning solvents (not that Form has ever cleaned a gun) and switching barrels, and have to be re-bedded. Point being is a permanent bond of epoxy can also fail. I did hear of a shooter that had his Stolle Panda TIG welded into a shop built Aluminum stock but I never saw it. It was reputed that he took it to the water hose between yardages to clean it.

 

[TimeOnTarget]

So when do we get to see this thing worked over by @Formidilosus ?

 

[sndmn11]

Somewhat general question for you guys that I've been pondering for a bit. Everyone agrees that a big part of Form's testing is that his action is bonded to the chassis...this is how we know the failure is in the scope, not the platform, right?

Asking both because I'm consider the new Maven and I'd be willing to throw it around a bit if I do pick one up, and I've been pondering dropping my old VX-5 and maybe another scope or two...for science.

I disagree. I think his setup being bonded makes it likely to not shift, nearly impossible. I don't think that is anywhere near a requirement. The known component of failure is easy to determine by changing one variable at a time. If a test results in a shift, you change a variable. That could be try a new rifle I suppose but the better change is to try a new scope. I would bet a lot of money most people on here have a rifle and mount system that is adequate.

I am in Morrison, and if you want to test your scope that would be awesome. We can do it with my rifle and my ammo, we can even do it with my rings. That would give me three samples for the review.

 

[intunegp]

I disagree. I think his setup being bonded makes it likely to not shift, nearly impossible. I don't think that is anywhere near a requirement. The known component of failure is easy to determine by changing one variable at a time. If a test results in a shift, you change a variable. That could be try a new rifle I suppose but the better change is to try a new scope. I would bet a lot of money most people on here have a rifle and mount system that is adequate.

I am in Morrison, and if you want to test your scope that would be awesome. We can do it with my rifle and my ammo, we can even do it with my rings. That would give me three samples for the review.

Right...I know you could change variables until you found the weak link in the setup, but I think minimizing the variables that could cause failure improves the test with a small sample size. It simplifies the process. I am also truly was curious about the opinions of a Cross-style "receiver" rifle vs. "action in chassis" from both a durability and precision standpoint.

I'll let you know if I pull the trigger on the Maven and maybe we can get together and abuse some scopes together. I've been scolded lately for buying myself everything I want, thus making Christmas shopping for me impossible, so it might have to wait until 2024

 

[Jimbee]

Right...I know you could change variables until you found the weak link in the setup, but I think minimizing the variables that could cause failure improves the test with a small sample size. It simplifies the process. I am also truly was curious about the opinions of a Cross-style "receiver" rifle vs. "action in chassis" from both a durability and precision standpoint.

I'll let you know if I pull the trigger on the Maven and maybe we can get together and abuse some scopes together. I've been scolded lately for buying myself everything I want, thus making Christmas shopping for me impossible, so it might have to wait until 2024

First, drop it and find out if there are any weak links.

 

[4th_point]

Would a rifle like a Sig Cross be a good emulation of this, being that it has a "monolithic" design and there isn't a chassis for the action to move around in? I get that the rifle could still fail, but I don't know that repeated 18 and 36" drops on the sides/top would do much more than shift the handguard around.

In my opinion, the short answer is - it depends!

The Cross uses a barrel extension and barrel nut. There could be issues, but I would be more concerned with the rail mounted to the top of the receiver. Have you checked yours for fit and fastener torque? If you remove it, look for any signs of relative motion between the interface surfaces.

I would also pay attention to the folding stock as you perform your drop test evaluation. If it loosens or develops play, it could affect the test. Unlikely, but something to consider.

I really like the way that you are thinking about this though! My hope is that the firearm industry gets out of the stone age. Screwing actions to stocks and chassis systems can be effective, but obviously leaves a potential problem on the table.

I have lost track of the number of people that have told me that their action screws loosened, or we found them loose while troubleshooting.

The Cross, Fix, and MRAD are a step in the right direction, in my opinion, for a more robust solution but they can introduce their own problems. And I know... some people think that they are hideous. But, you also get a level of adjustability that is not available with most stocks.

All that stated, a few months back I learned about some issues with the MRAD, but have not received an update. Sounded like an issue with barrel or extension fixation, but have not heard anything since.

Good luck, and let us know how it goes!

 

[4th_point]

I don’t know if they still do but we used to glue in our short range benchrest guns. But we’re talking “results” measured in .001’s, not 2” 10 shot groups. They would eventually shoot loose from cleaning solvents (not that Form has ever cleaned a gun) and switching barrels, and have to be re-bedded.

Point being is a permanent bond of epoxy can also fail.

Excellent point - adhesives and bedding can fail. And perhaps more importantly, detection can be difficult for partial failures of bonded/glued setups unless there's an obvious change in performance.

Bedding is not perfect, but at least you can periodically inspect it for integrity. The issue is that there can still be relative motion.

 

[B_Reynolds_AK]

Optical quality, and functionality.
Really I should just stop following this thread. I've already made my mind up on a baby atacr but im looking for a reason to save $1300 and buy the tenmile or this maven...but I know in the end I'll get the atacr.

Why did you write my post for me? Lol

 

[PNWGATOR]

Why did you write my post for me? Lol


View attachment 639006

If they’d only incorporate a functional hunting reticle….

 

[intunegp]

In my opinion, the short answer is - it depends!

The Cross uses a barrel extension and barrel nut. There could be issues, but I would be more concerned with the rail mounted to the top of the receiver. Have you checked yours for fit and fastener torque? If you remove it, look for any signs of relative motion between the interface surfaces.

I would also pay attention to the folding stock as you perform your drop test evaluation. If it loosens or develops play, it could affect the test. Unlikely, but something to consider.

I really like the way that you are thinking about this though! My hope is that the firearm industry gets out of the stone age. Screwing actions to stocks and chassis systems can be effective, but obviously leaves a potential problem on the table.

I have lost track of the number of people that have told me that their action screws loosened, or we found them loose while troubleshooting.

The Cross, Fix, and MRAD are a step in the right direction, in my opinion, for a more robust solution but they can introduce their own problems. And I know... some people think that they are hideous. But, you also get a level of adjustability that is not available with most stocks.

All that stated, a few months back I learned about some issues with the MRAD, but have not received an update. Sounded like an issue with barrel or extension fixation, but have not heard anything since.

Good luck, and let us know how it goes!

Thank you for a thoughtful response addressing my idea rather than just telling me to drop it and find out! I'm just speculating and asking for opinions at this point and no one has had much to share. I never thought of the Cross as a bombproof rifle or anything like that prior to going down the scope-dropping rabbit hole but it seems like the potential is there with this type of design.

I checked the top rail, cleaned everything, and loctited/torqued it in place when the rifle was new. I haven't checked it for movement since then but wouldn't be a bad idea before I started this type of testing. Same for the stock. Nothing about the 3-400 rounds I've shot leads me to believe any part of the rifle is moving right now.

 

[Jimbee]

Thank you for a thoughtful response addressing my idea rather than just telling me to drop it and find out! I'm just speculating and asking for opinions at this point and no one has had much to share. I never thought of the Cross as a bombproof rifle or anything like that prior to going down the scope-dropping rabbit hole but it seems like the potential is there with this type of design.

I checked the top rail, cleaned everything, and loctited/torqued it in place when the rifle was new. I haven't checked it for movement since then but wouldn't be a bad idea before I started this type of testing. Same for the stock. Nothing about the 3-400 rounds I've shot leads me to believe any part of the rifle is moving right now.

Keep us updated on your speculation!