Maven RS1.2 2.5-15x44 new model

[Rybe390]

This thread cost me an optic, just ordered on via friends of industry discount. I'll report back with my initial thoughts, sure as heck am not dropping it like you weirdos(but thank you...lol).

 

[ztc92]

Update for anyone following along - I had hoped to share results from doing my own version of Form’s drop test with the Maven but had some issues with my proofing rig. I think I may have damaged my SWFA 3-15 in the process of proving the system. It actually did pass the full eval but I noticed the elevation turret was bent and loose when I got done and then proceeded to have tracking issues when attempting to re-zero it with my suppressor back in place.

In hindsight, I don’t think using a blanket and Matty McMatt Face (my usual prone shooting setup) is a good stand in for a foam shooting mat like Form uses, especially on the packed dirt at the range. The Matty compresses very easily and I think this allowed too much force to trasmit to the scope via the turret. For anyone attempting their own drop tests, hopefully you can learn from my mistake - don’t deviate from the protocol of soft ground and a foam shooting mat unless you’re comfortable breaking your scope.

Given the damage to the SWFA I don’t have any results to share for the maven and likely won’t for some time, if ever. It seems dropping scopes is best left to the experts so I’ll just humbly say I’m glad there are others willing to do this and do it well, because this isn’t something I plan on doing regularly. Perhaps I’ll proof my rigs with 18” drops in the future and call it good as long as that model also passes the formal Rokslide drop eval as well. This seems like a good compromise to avoid breaking expensive things while maintaining trust in the system I’ll be using…

 

[Ucsdryder]

Update for anyone following along - I had hoped to share results from doing my own version of Form’s drop test with the Maven but had some issues with my proofing rig. I think I may have damaged my SWFA 3-15 in the process of proving the system. It actually did pass the full eval but I noticed the elevation turret was bent and loose when I got done and then proceeded to have tracking issues when attempting to re-zero it with my suppressor back in place.

In hindsight, I don’t think using a blanket and Matty McMatt Face (my usual prone shooting setup) is a good stand in for a foam shooting mat like Form uses, especially on the packed dirt at the range. The Matty compresses very easily and I think this allowed too much force to trasmit to the scope via the turret. For anyone attempting their own drop tests, hopefully you can learn from my mistake - don’t deviate from the protocol of soft ground and a foam shooting mat unless you’re comfortable breaking your scope.

Given the damage to the SWFA I don’t have any results to share for the maven and likely won’t for some time, if ever. It seems dropping scopes is best left to the experts so I’ll just humbly say I’m glad there are others willing to do this and do it well, because this isn’t something I plan on doing regularly. Perhaps I’ll proof my rigs with 18” drops in the future and call it good as long as that model also passes the formal Rokslide drop eval as well. This seems like a good compromise to avoid breaking expensive things while maintaining trust in the system I’ll be using…

Another swfa gets damaged…

Don’t worry, they’ll get you taken care of with a warranty replacement sometime in 2026.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

Well... I'm ordering one before @Formidilosus can test it which isn't ideal, but this thing checks a lot of boxes for me to give it a try. Appreciate the guys who have already done some torture testing, my "torture testing" will be a lot different...

It's going onto one of my Tikka .260's using UM rings and bases, that rifle currently has a Stockys Tikka stock but will be switching to the Rokstock once available.

I won't be dropping it on purpose, sorry friends. If you know me at all or seen some threads/posts of mine here, you know that I use the crap out of my gear. This scope will spend the next 9 months living it's life bouncing around in the jeep/truck/atv/horses. If it survives the Arizona desert/Wyoming mountains and a whole lot of predator hunting/target shooting (averaging 400 rounds a month currently) then it might just get the call next hunting season which starts in August for California Blacktail.

I can keep everyone updated here with how the scope is performing if that's appropriate @Dioni A ? Or I can make a separate thread.

 

[Dioni A]

Well... I'm ordering one before @Formidilosus can test it which isn't ideal, but this thing checks a lot of boxes for me to give it a try. Appreciate the guys who have already done some torture testing, my "torture testing" will be a lot different...

It's going onto one of my Tikka .260's using UM rings and bases, that rifle currently has a Stockys Tikka stock but will be switching to the Rokstock once available.

I won't be dropping it on purpose, sorry friends. If you know me at all or seen some threads/posts of mine here, you know that I use the crap out of my gear. This scope will spend the next 9 months living it's life bouncing around in the jeep/truck/atv/horses. If it survives the Arizona desert/Wyoming mountains and a whole lot of predator hunting/target shooting (averaging 400 rounds a month currently) then it might just get the call next hunting season which starts in August for California Blacktail.

I can keep everyone updated here with how the scope is performing if that's appropriate @Dioni A ? Or I can make a separate thread.

I'd just keep people updated here. Outside of Independent drop evals this is a good place for people to have a one-stop shop.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

FYI they are sold out of the all black variant with the MIL reticle. Ordered grey/black.

 

[MidGAHunter]

I had a chance to take a look at one of these at the RMEF outdoor expo in Vegas this week. The MIL reticle is an improvement over much of what is out there but still isn't as good as the SWFA Milquad reticle. To me at first glance it seemed only mildly better than the NF MIL-R reticle but I'd have to compare them side by side in field situations. It is a fairly thin reticle at low power and I'm concerned the reticle will get lost in low light against a dark background without illumination. Glass quality seemed fine to my eyes but the eyebox seemed very tight and unforgiving even at low power (it was mounted on a dummy stock). Hopefully those that have one on an actual rifle can comment on the eyebox and reticle at low light. Overall I was reasonably impressed by the scope considering the price point IF it proves reliable.

 

[amassi]

Eyebox is a non issue
Thin reticle is a non issue


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Juan_ID]

FYI they are sold out of the all black variant with the MIL reticle. Ordered grey/black.

I’ve heard the gray anodizing isn’t as durable. Just kidding, I do like the scope thus far. Have only shot about 40 rounds with it on my 6.5 ctr though. My only complaints are the parallax seems a little finicky to my eye and it is a heavy little sucker for what it is. Hoping to get it out some more this weekend and maybe try it on a hunt soon on either the 223 or 6arc. Also looking to get another swfa 3-15 to compare side x side this winter.

 

[Formidilosus]

I had a chance to take a look at one of these at the RMEF outdoor expo in Vegas this week. The MIL reticle is an improvement over much of what is out there but still isn't as good as the SWFA Milquad reticle. To me at first glance it seemed only mildly better than the NF MIL-R reticle but I'd have to compare them side by side in field situations. It is a fairly thin reticle at low power and I'm concerned the reticle will get lost in low light against a dark background without illumination. Glass quality seemed fine to my eyes but the eyebox seemed very tight and unforgiving even at low power (it was mounted on a dummy stock). Hopefully those that have one on an actual rifle can comment on the eyebox and reticle at low light. Overall I was reasonably impressed by the scope considering the price point IF it proves reliable.

As @amassi stated- the eyebox is good, and the reticle is good. The Mil-R is no where remotely close to as visible on low power.

 

[MidGAHunter]

As @amassi stated- the eyebox is good, and the reticle is good. The Mil-R is no where remotely close to as visible on low power.

Excellent. I appreciate both of you chiming in. My time with this scope was limited and indoors with good lighting (and on a "stock" that didn't fit). Now the only concern I have is durability. If this thing works correctly then Maven has done something with this scope.

 

[mj23polaris]

Good to seeMaven have remembered to put a revolution indicator on the turret... View attachment 626928
Looks to be the exact same system as the LRHS/LRTS... can't see how these will be any different or better apart from being available to buy new!

It looks exactly like the credo also

Sent from my motorola edge 5G UW (2021) using Tapatalk

 

[willfrye027]

Can confirm the reticle is a good one. And the glass is good. Compared to my bushnell LRHS at last light. Similar glass, similar reticle visibility. Much better than the tenmile FFP I looked through (reticle). And much much better than the NF reticles I’ve looked through. The maven illumination can illuminate just the dot, or if you turn it up more it will get the whole reticle. Bleeds out a little but not a big deal to me. Will get it mounted and see how it holds up but so far it’s at least a usable reticle for hunting

 

[HighUintas]

All you guys need to drop those scopes. Maven has a great warranty

 

[PathFinder]

All you guys need to drop those scopes. Maven has a great warranty

Agreed. Isn't the whole idea that Maven MIGHT have finally made a durable scope? It's the only question mark on the optic. And there are enough of them on this thread to start to get a pretty decent sample size. Coupled with Maven's warranty and most hunts being over...
If this is what I end up buying for my next rifle it's getting dropped first thing after it gets zeroed.

 

[HighUintas]

Agreed. Isn't the whole idea that Maven MIGHT have finally made a durable scope? It's the only question mark on the optic. And there are enough of them on this thread to start to get a pretty decent sample size. Coupled with Maven's warranty and most hunts being over...
If this is what I end up buying for my next rifle it's getting dropped first thing after it gets zeroed.

100% agreed. I'd have one I'd be testing right now, but I'm banned from buying stuff until next spring

 

[HighUintas]

On second thought, I do have a Winchester 1886 deluxe 45-90 (new production) that I've been considering selling to find a scope. Color cased action, octagon barrel, beautiful. Any takers?

 

[willfrye027]

All you guys need to drop those scopes. Maven has a great warranty

I trust Forms drop eval more than my own and am patiently waiting for it

 

[HighUintas]

I'd be more interested in seeing if my own setup was solid for drops or not.

 

[ztc92]

Update for anyone following along - I had hoped to share results from doing my own version of Form’s drop test with the Maven but had some issues with my proofing rig. I think I may have damaged my SWFA 3-15 in the process of proving the system. It actually did pass the full eval but I noticed the elevation turret was bent and loose when I got done and then proceeded to have tracking issues when attempting to re-zero it with my suppressor back in place.

In hindsight, I don’t think using a blanket and Matty McMatt Face (my usual prone shooting setup) is a good stand in for a foam shooting mat like Form uses, especially on the packed dirt at the range. The Matty compresses very easily and I think this allowed too much force to trasmit to the scope via the turret. For anyone attempting their own drop tests, hopefully you can learn from my mistake - don’t deviate from the protocol of soft ground and a foam shooting mat unless you’re comfortable breaking your scope.

Given the damage to the SWFA I don’t have any results to share for the maven and likely won’t for some time, if ever. It seems dropping scopes is best left to the experts so I’ll just humbly say I’m glad there are others willing to do this and do it well, because this isn’t something I plan on doing regularly. Perhaps I’ll proof my rigs with 18” drops in the future and call it good as long as that model also passes the formal Rokslide drop eval as well. This seems like a good compromise to avoid breaking expensive things while maintaining trust in the system I’ll be using…

Okay all, seeing all these posts asking for drop test results has made me realize I need to share my full experience, as there is more to the story I’ve withheld for fear of the broken SWFA impacting the results but I now realize despite that, some may find my experience useful.

So I actually did drop the Maven after proofing my rig with SWFA and being pleased with the results. It was only at the end when I tried to re-zero the SWFA on my rig that I realized it was broken. I have a few videos of drops but don’t know that posting them will add much. 18” was knee height and 36” was crotch height. As a reminder, I messed up and used EVA foam + a blanket rather than a shooting mat and was on firm packed dirt/gravel at the range. My rifle/scope weights about 12 pounds, which also may have contributed to increased force. In talking to some other forum members more familiar with scope durability, they noted almost any scope would suffer a broken eyepiece or damaged turret from this amount of force, so keep that in mind as you consider my “results”.

First photo is the drop setup.

Second photo is the SWFA drop test. I used handloads that shoot around 1.5 MOA but I’m more like a 2 MOA shooter, especially without my suppressor. My orange dots are 2”. Top left is initial zero, top right confirmed this zero. Bottom left if 7 shots of drop eval. 18” x 3, 36” x 3 and 9x36”. At this point I felt the SWFA passed. Later on I shot another group to confirm the zero held in the lower right target, which was off and that’s when I realized I’d broken the elevation turret on the SWFA.

Third photo is the maven drop test. Same pattern for targets. The shot that is right and outside the lower left dot is after the second 36” drop, which was onto the windage turret. Given the “miss”, I moved to lower right target and shot 4 more shots, which are labeled. To me, it seems the erector may have bound and reset. I was running out of light so moved on to the 9x36” drops to complete the eval but after these drops I noticed the scope had rotated slightly in the rings and the elevation turret was bent and difficult to turn.

After adjusting the scope to be straight in the rings again I tried to re-zero but due to getting dark I was having trouble seeing my shots. I ended up firing 6 shots at three different aiming points to try and see my impacts but ultimately gave up. Interestingly, upon reviewing the target, I’d say those 6 shots formed an aggragate group that was within 1.5 MOA based on where I was aiming so it appears the scope may still function despite the damage to the turret.

The last photo shows what happened to my SWFA during this test, with the turret fully separating from the tube. I don’t have any photos of the maven as you can’t really tell it’s damaged. In summary, aside from a slightly bent elevation turret it still seems brand new. Windage, parallax and illumination work perfectly. Elevation seems to work but is harder to turn now due to the bend.

All said, the maven held up better than my SWFA and I am very impressed, though also a bit displeased with myself for damaging my gear due to a poorly designed drop test. I may try to get the maven out again to see if it still works but it could be a while as this month is very busy for me. Also tempted to send it in for repairs and see what their assessment is. I’ll try to update if I learn more.