Maven RS1.2 2.5-15x44 new model

[4th_point]

Nicely done, Juan!

Low recoil and a good deal of attenuation from the padding are my only observations, but you did all 3 sides and it's your field check and money, not mine.

Good shooting, too!

Jason

 

[Juan_ID]

Nicely done, Juan!

Low recoil and a good deal of attenuation from the padding are my only observations, but you did all 3 sides and it's your field check and money, not mine.

Good shooting, too!

Jason

It’s the gun I plan to hunt with the most so figured that was the best one to test it on. And I had to look up the meaning of attenuation , I wouldn’t have been opposed to using less padding if I had another scope to use if I broke this one. But it’s the only scope I have at the moment and didn’t want to be without in case something popped up.

 

[Ikmclean]

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

Mine was too high as well, I contacted warne and they are exchanging for lows free of charge

 

[4th_point]

I wouldn’t have been opposed to using less padding if I had another scope to use if I broke this one. But it’s the only scope I have at the moment and didn’t want to be without in case something popped up.

I totally understand. You could always increase the severity later, if you wanted. I know it took a good deal of time to run this check today, and you did great.

One suggestion, if you are open to it. Have you ever considered a slightly smaller aiming point? Your groups are excellent, but I would not be surprised if they shrunk with a smaller dot. Not that you need to, but just a thought for the future.

 

[clperry]

Mine was too high as well, I contacted warne and they are exchanging for lows free of charge

Oh wow. I’ll have to reach out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[willfrye027]

Maybe forms test is a little more sensitive to small shifts in zero? Looking back at some of his eval threads…the ones that seemed to fail, fail miserably. None of those tested so far have failed miserably. Fingers crossed this maven is a winner because I really like the reticle, glass, and ergonomics!

 

[Dobermann]

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.
View attachment 642732
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.
View attachment 642734
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.
View attachment 642731
Then I fired another 10 rounds to “re-check” zero after everything.
View attachment 642733
Below is my drop pad and shooting setup. The pad was a softish 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.
View attachment 642735
View attachment 642736
View attachment 642737
I would say this one passed 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.

Juan - just checking - did you do the drops on the opened-up shooting mat in the first pic, or on the thicker mat in the second pic?

 

[Juan_ID]

I totally understand. You could always increase the severity later, if you wanted. I know it took a good deal of time to run this check today, and you did great.

One suggestion, if you are open to it. Have you ever considered a slightly smaller aiming point? Your groups are excellent, but I would not be surprised if they shrunk with a smaller dot. Not that you need to, but just a thought for the future.

Out of curiosity what would you do as far as padding if wanting to do the test without fear of being scopeless?

I used to shoot 1” dots but when I switched to the 3-9 I preferred the 1.5” dots. I felt I had a bit of a hard time holding center with the lower zoom and just never made the change back I suppose. With the 1.5” dots and even the 1” and higher than 9x zoom I am always aiming for the very center. Could try it next time out and see if it changes anything.

 

[Juan_ID]

Juan - just checking - did you do the drops on the opened-up shooting mat in the first pic, or on the thicker mat in the second pic?

Thicker mat in the second pic, I was only using the thin mat to lay on while shooting.

 

[Dobermann]

Thicker mat in the second pic, I was only using the thin mat to lay on while shooting.

Got it. Looks pretty thick - from what you saw compared to Form's videos. do you think it would have absorbed more of the impact?

 

[Juan_ID]

Got it. Looks pretty thick - from what you saw compared to Form's videos. do you think it would have absorbed more of the impact?

I would have to guess it absorbed a little more. It is thick but compresses very easily and is not very dense. The rifle did bounce off and onto the dirt a couple times on the higher drops, I didn’t take a tape measure to measure the actual drop heights so I was guessing. The lower drops were from knee height which is right around 18” and all the higher drops except maybe the first one were from about my belly button height which is actually about 40” for what that’s worth.

 

[4th_point]

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.

You can think of durability as reliability for a non-repairable item. Reliability being quality over time. For a repairable item, durability is one aspect of reliability - how frequently it fails during the product life (your vehicle for example, especially if it is a Ford?). For a non-repairable item, failure is end of life. To me, scopes are non-repairable items but you could certainly argue that they are. Doesn't really matter for this discussion.

SME for this topic would be a Reliability Engineer. I did risk analysis and test cases for development, but the Reliability dudes are often times in Quality. I have also worked in Quality Assurance, but not Reliability. That stated, there is collaboration and some cross functional activities.

One thing to keep in mind is that hunting scopes are obviously consumer grade products. Failures, even catastrophic, would be nuisance level. We are not talking safety or mission failure.

Another point to consider is that a well engineered item must last for the mission duration, but not significantly past it. Something like five lifetimes is not realistic, right? Who is willing to pay for that? And how heavy would it be?

So, what you really want to define are the conditions (use) and the time (service life). But remember that we are talking about probabilities here. It starts to get very complicated for even simple systems.

I think you want a robust design, but that is a different topic.

I am not an optical engineer though. Just a guy that knows how to break things for a living. And figure out what companies are doing right and wrong.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

Good stuff @Juan_ID !!

 

[atmat]

the reticle is better,

You like it more than the milquad reticle?

 

[4th_point]

Out of curiosity what would you do as far as padding if wanting to do the test without fear of being scopeless?

With the 1.5” dots and even the 1” and higher than 9x zoom I am always aiming for the very center. Could try it next time out and see if it changes anything.

You could try less energy (lower height) and harder surface. There is a technical reason for it but it may not always cause an error in the system.

I have another trick, but out of respect for Formi (and Mr. Avery's subforum?), I won't post any deviations. Not my gig man!

ETA - a dot that is just barely covered by the cross or floating dot is very easy to center... either it is, or it isn't. It's like sizing a peep to a target. I don't think most people can quarter a circle well.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

You like it more than the milquad reticle?

I think I’m going to end up liking the center dot and half mil box that surrounds the dot more than the standard cross hair on the Milquad. I think I’m going to still like the hold over marks/diamonds on the mil quad. Just a guess though. We will know on Monday

 

[Juan_ID]

I think I’m going to end up liking the center dot and half mil box that surrounds the dot more than the standard cross hair on the Milquad. I think I’m going to still like the hold over marks/diamonds on the mil quad. Just a guess though. We will know on Monday

You like it more than the milquad reticle?

Could you imagine if the milquad and maven made a baby and made the perfect reticle? Milquad with a center dot? Take my money!

 

[Juan_ID]

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

So are you gonna sell that swfa 3-15?

 

[mtnwrunner]

So are you gonna sell that swfa 3-15?

Ha!

Randy

 

[clperry]

You like it more than the milquad reticle?

Yes. I don’t know if it’s functionally better, but I like a floating dot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk