Maven RS1.2 2.5-15x44 new model

[T_Widdy]

It didn't work on the bundle for me but worked on the scope only.

Nice, ok thanks

 

[sierracharlie338]

Just did a quick up and down to 9 mills on the tracking fixture today and it was gnats ass. View attachment 640097

I probably need to read the instructions and try a new battery to make sure it’s not a bad battery or operator but the illum wasn’t working just by sticking the battery in.

Reticle thickness looks at least as thick as my LRHS. Guessing it’s 0.1, might even be heavier?

Gun was acting funny today so didn’t shoot much. Factory ammo that was hammering is all of a sudden very sticky on bolt lift. Not wowed, not sure I really prefer it over LRHS yet.

Freehanded through the scope pics of the maven and an LRHS2:
View attachment 640106View attachment 640107

Dang I was hoping for more positive feedback from a fellow LRHS user. I really like the reticle of the maven over the bushy from pictures but definitely want to put my hands on it.

As a side note, you like that SAC mounting set up?

 

[BAKPAKR]

Just did a quick up and down to 9 mills on the tracking fixture today and it was gnats ass. View attachment 640097

I probably need to read the instructions and try a new battery to make sure it’s not a bad battery or operator but the illum wasn’t working just by sticking the battery in.

Reticle thickness looks at least as thick as my LRHS. Guessing it’s 0.1, might even be heavier?

Gun was acting funny today so didn’t shoot much. Factory ammo that was hammering is all of a sudden very sticky on bolt lift. Not wowed, not sure I really prefer it over LRHS yet.

Freehanded through the scope pics of the maven and an LRHS2:
View attachment 640106View attachment 640107

Thanks for posting the photo. What power is the Maven on?

 

[wind gypsy]

Thanks for posting the photo. What power is the Maven on?

I’m not positive but I think they were both on max mag, 15x and 18x respectively.

 

[Carl Ross]

I’m not positive but I think they were both on max mag, 15x and 18x respectively.

It did look to me as if the Bushy was on a higher mag (possibly part of why the Bushy images look better). It also looked like there was some CA on the Maven, but I REALLY try not to put much weight in through-the-scope pictures, they're so often misleading.

How did you like the eyebox on the Maven at 15x?

Based on my experience with scopes of similar design, magnification range, objective diameter, and often manufacturer (L.O.W.), my observations are:

3-12 LRHS: totally useable at 12x, not a "luxurious" image like a high end 56mm objective scope, but totally functional at max power.

3-15 SWFA: I used it as a 3-12, didn't like it very well at 15x, otherwise seemed reasonably similar to the LRHS optically, is obviously behind the curve on the 5 mil/turn reticle with no zero stop, also the exposed windage turret isn't my choice of configurations.

4.5-18 LRHS: never loved the long design and never owned one, the ones I have used I thought probably should have stopped at 12x, maybe 14x, didn't like them at 18x.

4-16 ATACR: (different price point, somewhat heavier, still an option on the decision matrix for a bunch of people): has an optical quirk of its own (relatively small perceived image when looking through it, big black ring around the image), but despite the small objective diameter I'm just fine using it at the full 16x magnification.

 

[willfrye027]

In the video one can see the groups above when I put the phone in the spotting scope. I did some RTZ and 5 mil adjustments, and then had two boo-boos resetting the zero stop. My only complaint so far is that the turrets move "easily", especially lacking feel with gloves on. The shots on the dots above are me figuring out I rotated the turret while taking the little cap off or setting the zero stop.


View attachment 640064

For the first drop, shot#2, the possibilities are that I did bad, or the scope shifted. Shot #3 was without a drip to see if the bullet would find zero. It did, so I either did better, or the scope returned. The remaining shots were back in schedule. Do your own conclusioning. I did test a second RS1.2 and it did fine. So, the odds are that I was the weak link.

Side note I think your 36” drops are a bit higher than 36” unless you are like 5’ tall

On a serious note greatly appreciate you doing this. I have one on the way and hope to add some experience to the thread.

 

[wind gypsy]

It did look to me as if the Bushy was on a higher mag (possibly part of why the Bushy images look better). It also looked like there was some CA on the Maven, but I REALLY try not to put much weight in through-the-scope pictures, they're so often misleading.

How did you like the eyebox on the Maven at 15x?

Based on my experience with scopes of similar design, magnification range, objective diameter, and often manufacturer (L.O.W.), my observations are:

3-12 LRHS: totally useable at 12x, not a "luxurious" image like a high end 56mm objective scope, but totally functional at max power.

3-15 SWFA: I used it as a 3-12, didn't like it very well at 15x, otherwise seemed reasonably similar to the LRHS optically, is obviously behind the curve on the 5 mil/turn reticle with no zero stop, also the exposed windage turret isn't my choice of configurations.

4.5-18 LRHS: never loved the long design and never owned one, the ones I have used I thought probably should have stopped at 12x, maybe 14x, didn't like them at 18x.

4-16 ATACR: (different price point, somewhat heavier, still an option on the decision matrix for a bunch of people): has an optical quirk of its own (relatively small perceived image when looking through it, big black ring around the image), but despite the small objective diameter I'm just fine using it at the full 16x magnification.

I only put like 20 rounds through it today from a bench, all on 15x. Burned up most of my time setting up a plumb target and the static scope mount.. I’ve always been content with image quality at 18x on the LRHS, they aren’t real forgiving there but I THINK the image is better and less fussy than the maven was @15. Don’t hold me to that though! I’m sure I’ll shoot it a bit side by side with a 12x LRTS but that gun is about to be down a bit for a new barrel too.

Was refreshing as usual to get behind the 624i on my heavy gun after the maven.

 

[sndmn11]

Side note I think your 36” drops are a bit higher than 36” unless you are like 5’ tall

On a serious note greatly appreciate you doing this. I have one on the way and hope to add some experience to the thread.

The other rs1.2 I skipped 18" and just did 36" and then a few higher. I had to fit it into the other shooter's break, so I didn't video and didn't follow the outline.

 

[wind gypsy]

As a side note, you like that SAC mounting set up?

Yeah, I do. The other one available was that targetUSA one from Frank Galli and Marc Taylor - The SAC was cheaper and seemed little more solid. I have seen Frank and Marc put a bunch of scopes on their contraption and it seems to work well too though.

 

[Macintosh]

Awesome. Thanks for the pictures.

What surface are you going to be dropping on, if you don't mind me asking?

The reason I ask is because the last report mentioned soft ground. And the other appeared to be open cell foam. Looked like a bit of trampoline effect too, with concave portions taking the initial contact. And there seemed to be a baseline issue.

It's up to the user/owner to determine what criteria to use for their needs. Just curious what your plan is.

I'm not suggesting that you get crazy and break your setup either! I know Carl R. has damaged things. When I drop setups the noise of vibrating parts can be disconcerting!

Good luck. I hope it works!

On this topic—although not aimed at anyone in particular: Deceleration rate has a huge effect on peak force of the impact. That means that the TIME it takes for a falling object to decelerate from full speed to full stop has a massive impact (no pun intended) on the actual highest measured force the object has to withstand. It’s the difference between bungee jumping onto bungee cord vs steel cable, or landing on a trampoline versus a concrete floor, or applying the brakes on your car gently versus slamming your brakes on to avoid a collision. The total force is the same to cause the object to stop moving, but when concentrated in a shorter time the PEAK force is massively higher. Also, a harder surface will concentrate the higher peak force onto a smaller surface area, which also greatly increases peak force at that location. In both cases tiny, almost un-measurable (without high tech specialized equipment) differences make a big, VERY significant difference in peak force. From a true scientific repeatability standpoint having a more standardized surface to ensure the actual force applied between one eval to the next is closer to the same, is one of the biggest opportunities to improve the eval protocol, and my strong suspicion is this is one of the particular “gripes” that some scope companies have with the evals. It is a significant factor that almost certainly affects some of the results, so my guess is that there will always be those who dismiss the results until this element of the eval itself is more standardized.

 

[MidGAHunter]

so my guess is that there will always be those who dismiss the results no matter how the variables are corrected because their scopes can't pass regardless

FIFY

 

[fwafwow]

On this topic—although not aimed at anyone in particular: Deceleration rate has a huge effect on peak force of the impact. That means that the TIME it takes for a falling object to decelerate from full speed to full stop has a massive impact (no pun intended) on the actual highest measured force the object has to withstand. It’s the difference between bungee jumping onto bungee cord vs steel cable, or landing on a trampoline versus a concrete floor, or applying the brakes on your car gently versus slamming your brakes on to avoid a collision. The total force is the same to cause the object to stop moving, but when concentrated in a shorter time the PEAK force is massively higher. Also, a harder surface will concentrate the higher peak force onto a smaller surface area, which also greatly increases peak force at that location. In both cases tiny, almost un-measurable (without high tech specialized equipment) differences make a big, VERY significant difference in peak force. From a true scientific repeatability standpoint having a more standardized surface to ensure the actual force applied between one eval to the next is closer to the same, is one of the biggest opportunities to improve the eval protocol, and my strong suspicion is this is one of the particular “gripes” that some scope companies have with the evals. It is a significant factor that almost certainly affects some of the results, so my guess is that there will always be those who dismiss the results until this element of the eval itself is more standardized.

This is very helpful and thorough, but as I expect we all know, the likelihood of any material change is low. First, this is being done on a quasi-volunteer basis, so there is little likelihood that there is the time, funds or ability to eliminate all of the variables. Second, hunters drop their $hit in all sorts of places, so the type of surfaces dropped upon are arguably similar to the real world. Third, what variables would be next - the road and vehicle used for the road test?

As for the manufacturers, where to begin? Not one has come out publicly with any gripes (of which I'm aware). If they are complaining privately about the methodology, then they are in a (the best?) position to make suggestions (instead of just whining), and to create a more controlled test - with multiple scopes. But their silence means (to me) they don't want a more scientific test. The one manufacturer I spoke to really believes there is no need for these tests - that scopes don't lose zero, and when they do, it's usually user error, that they already test for 1000g's (no where shown on their site), etc.

 

[atmat]

On this topic—although not aimed at anyone in particular: Deceleration rate has a huge effect on peak force of the impact. That means that the TIME it takes for a falling object to decelerate from full speed to full stop has a massive impact (no pun intended) on the actual highest measured force the object has to withstand. It’s the difference between bungee jumping onto bungee cord vs steel cable, or landing on a trampoline versus a concrete floor, or applying the brakes on your car gently versus slamming your brakes on to avoid a collision. The total force is the same to cause the object to stop moving, but when concentrated in a shorter time the PEAK force is massively higher. Also, a harder surface will concentrate the higher peak force onto a smaller surface area, which also greatly increases peak force at that location. In both cases tiny, almost un-measurable (without high tech specialized equipment) differences make a big, VERY significant difference in peak force. From a true scientific repeatability standpoint having a more standardized surface to ensure the actual force applied between one eval to the next is closer to the same, is one of the biggest opportunities to improve the eval protocol, and my strong suspicion is this is one of the particular “gripes” that some scope companies have with the evals. It is a significant factor that almost certainly affects some of the results, so my guess is that there will always be those who dismiss the results until this element of the eval itself is more standardized.

You’re correct on different landing substrates having different effects. You can see this in gas mileage in concrete vs. asphalt roads, for exactly the same reason.

Most of us aren’t asking for an indestructible scope though. We just don’t want crap that loses zero from tipping over on a 6” bipod, or you know, driving to our hunting destination.

Scope companies will dismiss the test no matter how standardized if their scope fails. Its deflecting blame and common throughout all society.

 

[ztc92]

On this topic—although not aimed at anyone in particular: Deceleration rate has a huge effect on peak force of the impact. That means that the TIME it takes for a falling object to decelerate from full speed to full stop has a massive impact (no pun intended) on the actual highest measured force the object has to withstand. It’s the difference between bungee jumping onto bungee cord vs steel cable, or landing on a trampoline versus a concrete floor, or applying the brakes on your car gently versus slamming your brakes on to avoid a collision. The total force is the same to cause the object to stop moving, but when concentrated in a shorter time the PEAK force is massively higher. Also, a harder surface will concentrate the higher peak force onto a smaller surface area, which also greatly increases peak force at that location. In both cases tiny, almost un-measurable (without high tech specialized equipment) differences make a big, VERY significant difference in peak force. From a true scientific repeatability standpoint having a more standardized surface to ensure the actual force applied between one eval to the next is closer to the same, is one of the biggest opportunities to improve the eval protocol, and my strong suspicion is this is one of the particular “gripes” that some scope companies have with the evals. It is a significant factor that almost certainly affects some of the results, so my guess is that there will always be those who dismiss the results until this element of the eval itself is more standardized.

Wanted to share my thoughts on this as I prepare to do my own drop eval on the new Maven later today and have been thinking about this very topic of ground surfaces.

For reference, here is the drop eval standard established by Form and described in his original post:

12). Drop evaluation. A correctly sized target is placed. On soft ground- standard grass range- a half inch padded shooting mat is placed down. The rifle is dropped once on each side (left, right, top) from 18 inches with a confirmation shot taken after each drop. Any shot that misses the sized target is noted. If it loses zero- that is a shot does not hit the sized target, then it is immediately shot on another target to check if the drop bound up the erector and if the recoil from the next round settled. If it does or does not, it is noted. Then the exact same procedure is conducted at 36 inches. Any errors noted. Then the scope/rifle is dropped three times on each side from 36”, for a total of nine drops for this portion and zero is checked. The total a out of drops from both 18” and 36” is fifteen (15).

What I think makes these drop evals so relevant is the fact that the scopes aren’t being dropped onto an extremely hard surface like concrete or gravel and furthermore that the soft grassy surface is then also covered by 1/2” foam shooting mat.

I’m all for standardizing things as much as possible to have better data but to be honest, I think until the majority of scopes can pass this minimally abusive test of soft ground + a padded foam mat, then standardizing the drop surface further doesn’t really matter. As I see it, the current drop eval is still easier on the scope than most hunting scenarios involving a scope hitting the ground, so if anything we should standardize towards a surface that creates a harder impact force to make it more reflective of hunting scenarios. That said, it seems completely unnecessary to do this when so few scopes can even pass the current eval protocol.

 

[Macintosh]

Guys, its not meant to undercut the existing eval., merely provide context on why this matters since it came up as people are doing their own tests. Regardless of what anyone thinks (or feels), physics is real, and its a real weakness when something as significant as this is loose in a protocol. There is less difference from soft landing to soft landing, as opposed to hard landing to soft landing so erring on the side of soft isnt bad, just pointing out why its important that the landing surface ISNT hard, and why its important to all use as close as possible to the same surface.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

On the reticle, for those who have looked through it and shot targets with it, did some low light testing, etc...

How does your eye like the horizontal/vertical lines for half MIL and MIL hold over? They seem overly "long" to me. I really really like that center dot focal point surrounded by the first half MIL hash marks forming a box, that seems like its going to be a bad ass hunting aim point and will fit how my eye works really nicely.

What's up with the 22 and 44 in the vertical hold over, shouldn't those read 2 and 4? I know I've been out of the professional shooting game for quite a while now, is this some new thing I don't know about?

How thick are the thick posts for bracketing animals/larger targets in low light and low zoom?

Is there a TLDR for who's done some form of durability testing so far? If so what rings were used and on what rifle? Hoping for a Tikka and UM rings personally.

 

[sndmn11]

What's up with the 22 and 44 in the vertical hold over, shouldn't those read 2 and 4? I know I've been out of the professional shooting game for quite a while now, is this some new thing I don't know about?

How thick are the thick posts for bracketing animals/larger targets in low light and low zoom?

Is there a TLDR for who's done some form of durability testing so far? If so what rings were used and on what rifle? Hoping for a Tikka and UM rings personally.

I am working on getting answers for reticle subtensions with Mollie as we speak; I aim to submit my short-term review to the Rokslide bosses before Christmas.

22 and 44 are boo-boos.

I am using TPS TSR aluminum rings on a bedded area 419 rail, tikka action in unbeded KRG bravo.

 

[amassi]

My test rifle is a t3 in 223 that’s bedded to a t3x stock w/ no release compound. Um rings with front and rear recoil pins with blue lock tite on all screws and on the rail/ ring interface


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

I am working on getting answers for reticle subtensions with Mollie as we speak; I aim to submit my short-term review to the Rokslide bosses before Christmas.

22 and 44 are boo-boos.

I am using TPS TSR aluminum rings on a bedded area 419 rail, tikka action in unbeded KRG bravo.

Thank you! I assume boo-boos meaning typos on the website drawing?

 

[sndmn11]

Thank you! I assume boo-boos meaning typos on the website drawing?

si