Maven RS1.2 2.5-15x44 new model

[ztc92]

You could consider it a simple check of the design. A validation of the design. You might also consider it a pseudo-accelerated test. But, you have not proven the durability.

Durability has a specific technical definition but maybe you guys are thinking "tough" or "strong like bull!"?

I'm not knocking what you guys are doing with your new Maven scopes. Highly commendable to question your equipment, investigate, and present the results. I would just suggest a little more rigor, and caution against jumping to conclusions.

I don't think a good "baseline" group has been presented yet. I see improvement opportunities. I would suggest that be the focus, before dropping anything.

In other words, I think you guys are "seeing what you want to see".

Semantics perhaps, but I offer my skepticism as a person with 20+ year background in research and product development as a test engineer. You test systems long enough and you see weird things. And yes, I have had to deal with limited samples, compressed schedules, etc.

I started dropping scope-rifle combos ~10 years ago. At that time Carl and Formi provided advice along with others who had been doing it for much longer. Since then, I changed career paths and gained technical expertise relevant to this topic. You don't need that technical background though. Just curiosity and impartiality. We could make this super complicated, but it doesn't need to be!

I don't have a problem with Formi's method. I don't think he's ever called it a test, and has been careful presenting the information. However, the reader needs to be careful, especially regurgitating the information elsewhere. If I had a dollar for everytime I read, "Go to the Rokslide scope evals!"...

Ryan probably loves the traffic but the messengers have misinterpreted the information and made people skeptical. We don't need that here, or anywhere. People who know my background have asked if some here are just Maven shills. I don't think so. If I were with Maven I wouldn't want anything to with the results thus far. And other companies are probably chuckling.

I don't think that you need to do the full meal deal, as Formi mentioned above. Start small man! Just do it really well. Establish a really good baseline. Do a small drop and confirm.

I don't do the whole meal deal. But I drop on harder surfaces or higher, for various reasons. And have been using a lot of SWFA, so I do a quick check and move one. But this is Formi's gig, and I guess Ryan's.

If you are happy with the results of the Maven, rock on!

This was an excellent response and I appreciate you taking the time to explain your position/background. It’s always refreshing when people can discuss facts and leave the emotions and egos out of it.

Given you have experience in the field we’re discussing, I would be very curious to hear your perspective on what a technical definition of durability for a hunting optic would be and then furthermore, what would it take for a hunting optic to get a “stamp of approval” with respect to a that technical definition of durability.

 

[Fire_9]

I may have missed it but have any of you sat down and dialed it up and down a bunch to see if it returns to zero and continues to track?

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

I may have missed it but have any of you sat down and dialed it up and down a bunch to see if it returns to zero and continues to track?

I think @wind gypsy did some dialing with positive results.

I have a ridiculously accurate measured in tracking test I'll run it through next week when mine arrives. It's measured in with a total station so will show any discrepancies in milradian error.

 

[wind gypsy]

I may have missed it but have any of you sat down and dialed it up and down a bunch to see if it returns to zero and continues to track?

Not a bunch, but a little. I put it on a calibrated tracking target in a fixed scope testing mount and ran it up and down to 9 mils (target only goes to 10 mil but i had it zeroed 1 mil up already to start) 3 or 4 times and it was on the nuts along the whole path of travel.

So that test is great for discerning accuracy of tracking without recoil and takes shooter/weapon error out of the picture but obviously is missing the recoil component.

 

[amassi]

Yes I dialed the elevation up and down 10 ish times between shots and rtz was always on. I didn’t shoot a 100 yard tracking test but was shooting a 600 yard ipsc w/ a plumb line


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BjornF16]

Waiting on the sidelines with great expectations…however I’m not going to jump in based on a sample size of three.

With the Trijicons, Form had mentioned he had seen quite a few of them and they “behaved as one would expect a scope to behave”.

Maven doesn’t have that track record; so I’ll wait for a larger sample size.

 

[DangerRanger]

Waiting on the sidelines with great expectations…however I’m not going to jump in based on a sample size of three.

With the Trijicons, Form had mentioned he had seen quite a few of them and they “behaved as one would expect a scope to behave”.

Maven doesn’t have that track record; so I’ll wait for a larger sample size.

We also often forget there has been a trijicon tested that did not simply pass

 

[BjornF16]

We also often forget there has been a trijicon tested that did not simply pass

Which Trijicon “did not simply pass”?

 

[DangerRanger]

Which Trijicon “did not simply pass”?

The first credo 2.5-15 tested before they got a different one

 

[Rybe390]

Boy howdy, let me say this reticle is absolutely awesome. I was playing around on the back deck looking into woods, snow covered burn scar, etc. Illumination works and lights up the center, has some bleed like, at night, but that doesn't matter.

Reticle is visible at all mag ranges. The low end is impressive, more so than most optics I've used.

No plans to drop. I'll report back with zero retention in use along with glass comments. Initial impressions are "Cool, it's fine, glass is good not great, this reticle is sweet, I hope it holds zero."

 

[BjornF16]

The first credo 2.5-15 tested before they got a different one

That one didn’t fail. After adjusting ring screw torque from 16 to 20 in-lbs, it didn’t lose zero. Group size opened up a little, but zero was still good.

 

[DangerRanger]

That one didn’t fail. After adjusting ring screw torque from 16 to 20 in-lbs, it didn’t lose zero. Group size opened up a little, but zero was still good.

I didn’t say it failed, I said it didn’t simply pass.

It missed the dot on multiple drops after being retorqued.

The next post they fit a different scope and it didn’t do that.

“The overall groups are slightly larger than they should be for this lot of ammunition, and dropping it at 36” definitely caused some issues. There is a slight left bias to the zero and it needed .25 MOA right to be correct. However it did not lose zero even though the groups opened up from the drops- that is I did not need to rezero the scope from the drops. This concerning, but whether the POI shifts are from the erector getting bound up or something else I do not know yet. I will take it apart, degrease, loctite and torque it as per standard, and reshoot it.”


We can do the semantics things, but this to me doesn’t count as “simply pass” nor is it a simply fail. Fwiw I hunt with this exact scope(well mrad because I’m not 90) my point here is if we are all ok with trijicons we need to remember that baseline when evaluating the mavens.

 

[BjornF16]

I didn’t say it failed, I said it didn’t simply pass.

It missed the dot on multiple drops after being retorqued.

The next post they fit a different scope and it didn’t do that.

“The overall groups are slightly larger than they should be for this lot of ammunition, and dropping it at 36” definitely caused some issues. There is a slight left bias to the zero and it needed .25 MOA right to be correct. However it did not lose zero even though the groups opened up from the drops- that is I did not need to rezero the scope from the drops. This concerning, but whether the POI shifts are from the erector getting bound up or something else I do not know yet. I will take it apart, degrease, loctite and torque it as per standard, and reshoot it.”


We can do the semantics things, but this to me doesn’t count as “simply pass” nor is it a simply fail. Fwiw I hunt with this exact scope(well mrad because I’m not 90) my point here is if we are all ok with trijicons we need to remember that baseline when evaluating the mavens.

lol…the Maven baseline is failure to maintain zero…which is what my point was.

You failed to highlight the following from to post you quoted:

However it did not lose zero even though the groups opened up from the drops- that is I did not need to rezero the scope from the drops.

 

[DangerRanger]

lol…the Maven baseline is failure to maintain zero…which is what my point was.

i have not been meaning to imply anything about past mavens whatsoever with any comment I have made about trijicons

You failed to highlight the following from to post you quoted:

Because I’m not trying to prove it failed, I’m trying to explain what I meant.

It seems like you think im coming at this from a different angle than I am, so I don’t see much point in continuing

 

[BjornF16]

It seems like you think im coming at this from a different angle than I am, so I don’t see much point in continuing

Fair enough. I’ll just add Form’s comment about the first scope.

I can not say I would recommend this model because I was not able to finish the eval and it is only one scope. Having said that the scope is clearly better than the Ziess V4- it’s not even close. Every V4 I have used has had serious issues with impacts. While the group got larger with the Credo on some 36” drops, the zero remained the same.
The one Trijicon Tenmile has proven to be very good and I would choose that, but this Credo would be suitable for me for most hunting.

I think this scope is what most expect a hunting scope to be- not completely bomb proof, but in general a reliable and durable scope that adjusts and works as it should. This is what I have seen historically from Trijicon hunting scopes.

 

[DangerRanger]

Fair enough. I’ll just add Form’s comment about the first scope.

that comment is exactly why I think it’s important to remember how it performed.

 

[BjornF16]

that comment is exactly why I think it’s important to remember how it performed.

Which is exactly what I originally posted

With the Trijicons, Form had mentioned he had seen quite a few of them and they “behaved as one would expect a scope to behave”.

Maven doesn’t have that track record; so I’ll wait for a larger sample size.

 

[clperry]

Ordered the bundle. It’s a little high, but will roll with it for now. Scope is nice, reticle is awesome. Will update.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[clperry]

Zeroed with no issue. Spun turrets all the way up and down 20 times after zero and it returned perfectly. I like this scope substantially more than my SWFA 3-15. The glass is clearer, especially at max power, the reticle is better, and the turret reset is infinitely better. If it proves to be durable, it is a winner in my book.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Juan_ID]

Ok total newb scope dropper here, I’ve never done a drop test of any kind but decided I’d like to try for no real good reason at all other than to gain an appreciation for those who have done it before after spending their own dollars on said scope and to post here on rokslide for the greater good . It has been a while since I read @Formidilosus testing protocol but I decided to give it a go with what I remembered.
I just swapped the scope over to my 6arc the other day after zero’ing on my nrlhunter rifle last weekend. This rifle weighs in right at 10lbs as pictured.
First I re-zero’d the rifle, it was about 1 mil high and .5 mil right, got it centered and fired 10. This gun typically shot right at 1” for 10 shots, I did see some pressure signs today that I’d not seen before in this rifle. Also maybe worthwhile to mention, I have not shot a 10 shot group with this gun since about the first week of October. Either way initial zero is below.

Then I followed that up with a “return to zero” test. Dialed max elevation which on this gun is 14mil, so I went up 14 mil then back to zero between every shot. Total of 280 mils dialed between the 10 shots.

Then I did my drop “test” 1 18” drop on all 3 sides with 1 shot between each drop. Then onto 1 36” drop on all 3 sides with 1 shot between each drop. Then I did 3 drops on each side with 1 shot between each set of 3 drops. For a total of 9 shots and 15 drops, the shots in this photo are in the correct order. Can’t say the same for all the others with much certainty.

Then I fired another 10 rounds to “re-check” zero after everything.

Below is my drop pad (second photo) and shooting setup. The pad was a soft memory foam cot pad with a blanket folded up a couple times under that. And lastly is a picture of how I typically have the rifle when headed to the range if it’s not laying on the floor board.



I would say this one passed my “test”and is good enough for me. I will plan to shoot it on this rifle more until I get another scope as I think I want this one on my nrlhunter rifle.