Maven RS1.2 2.5-15x44 new model

[4th_point]

This response is meant as a query and not in a combative tone please take it as such.

You seem to either have alot of opinons or alot of very specific knowledge in the realm of scope drops and the physics behind it.

If you know all of this why dont you buy a scope from somewhere and participate in showing us how it should be done outside of a labatory setting.

Thanks for the post, Reburn.

I don't have this Maven model, or plan to buy it anytime soon. I am more than mildly interested in it though. Hey, I got hooked by the HYPE man!

And as posted above, I do my own checks. But this is Formi's gig. And Mr. Avery's subforum. I'm not going to shit in their punch bowl so to speak, with a different procedure. Not saying it is better even. Just works for me.

As previously stated, I don't have a problem with Formi's procedure. I have ZERO issue with the way that he presents it. He's been very careful in wording and interpretations.

I do have some concerns with the conclusions that people jump to here. And their regurgitation of info at other sites. Especially if it encourages someone to buy an expensive item, based on arguably thin evidence.

I am not going to be the police of terminology, as long as the meaning/intent is understood, but there have been some silly things posted. Some, maybe most would not notice it, but there are various different sets of eyes watching, right? Some "technical" people.

How do we look, as a group, with not just wrong terminology but people acting like authorities when they clearly are not? Does that factor into some of the manufacturers dismissing "drop tests"? I think so, but that doesn't diminish the value of at-home experiments. The message can get lost in the noise of silly statements though, no?

I also realize that some people feel a need to use their prior experiences, their reasoning, and try to apply it to a very fragile and intricate black box. I have seen it with a lot of engineers and it doesn't reflect well on them, but would fool most non-technical people.

I am totally fine stating, "I don't know" about something. But if I say something wrong or make a stupid conclusion, then I want you guys to check me on it. You can certainly flick some shit too. Just don't act like an expert when it is clear you are not. Not saying "you" in particular, Reburn.

So, I offer a little different view maybe. I hope the shooting community can start to speak (type) a little more intelligently. Why? So that manufacturers see that we are not idiots using words and concepts that we don't understand. And maybe add some rigor to these member activities, maybe?

It is not an easy product to evaluate though!

Jason

 

[4th_point]

So your statement is you don't think there is a compentent person at maven?

Yes. I doubt very much that there is a highly technical and competent person at Maven that truly understand impact testing.

Do you have any inside knowledge to prove otherwise? I would be thrilled to have them join this thread.

 

[Reburn]

Yes. I doubt very much that there is a highly technical and competent person at Maven that truly understand impact testing.

Do you have any inside knowledge to prove otherwise? I would be thrilled to have them join this thread.

Your changing statements here. Lets please not do that. This was your statement.

Maybe because the company reps don't have the necessary competence. I'm not sure Maven has the appropriate person though.

I didn’t ask if there was someone that has a highly technical understanding of scope impact testing at maven.

I didn’t ask this because that statement proves to be false for most scope companies based on the products ability to work as designed.

However a competent person given the opportunity can understand the problem and fix it if inclined. Some scope companies obviously have as their scopes work as intended.

If I had inside knowledge at maven do you think I would share that on an open public forum?

 

[Reburn]

Thanks for the post, Reburn.

I don't have this Maven model, or plan to buy it anytime soon. I am more than mildly interested in it though. Hey, I got hooked by the HYPE man!

And as posted above, I do my own checks. But this is Formi's gig. And Mr. Avery's subforum. I'm not going to shit in their punch bowl so to speak, with a different procedure. Not saying it is better even. Just works for me.

As previously stated, I don't have a problem with Formi's procedure. I have ZERO issue with the way that he presents it. He's been very careful in wording and interpretations.

I do have some concerns with the conclusions that people jump to here. And their regurgitation of info at other sites. Especially if it encourages someone to buy an expensive item, based on arguably thin evidence.

I am not going to be the police of terminology, as long as the meaning/intent is understood, but there have been some silly things posted. Some, maybe most would not notice it, but there are various different sets of eyes watching, right? Some "technical" people.

How do we look, as a group, with not just wrong terminology but people acting like authorities when they clearly are not? Does that factor into some of the manufacturers dismissing "drop tests"? I think so, but that doesn't diminish the value of at-home experiments. The message can get lost in the noise of silly statements though, no?

I also realize that some people feel a need to use their prior experiences, their reasoning, and try to apply it to a very fragile and intricate black box. I have seen it with a lot of engineers and it doesn't reflect well on them, but would fool most non-technical people.

I am totally fine stating, "I don't know" about something. But if I say something wrong or make a stupid conclusion, then I want you guys to check me on it. You can certainly flick some shit too. Just don't act like an expert when it is clear you are not. Not saying "you" in particular, Reburn.

So, I offer a little different view maybe. I hope the shooting community can start to speak (type) a little more intelligently. Why? So that manufacturers see that we are not idiots using words and concepts that we don't understand. And maybe add some rigor to these member activities, maybe?

It is not an easy product to evaluate though!

Jason

I'm going to use a few concise words as possible here.

You say you don’t want to shit in the punch bowl. But then use statements like, based on arguably thin evidence.

Then say, And as posted above, I do my own checks.

But then wont specially say how you perform your check. And if you did I apologize I missed it in the 33 pages here.

Fact is you don’t have to be an engineer to understand the problem.
Scopes don’t hold zero.
I think we can agree here.

The more people that are out there that understand the problem and do some kind of testing to see if the product works as designed is good for us as consumers.

The more people that share how they do these tests is good for everyone as a whole.

 

[Ranger 692]

Maybe because the company reps don't have the necessary competence. That's not an insult to their intelligence, but a statement of technical competence only. It happened to at least two other companies at another site, as I am sure you may know. The intent and spirit were commendable, but they didn't realize what they were getting into.

I'm not sure Maven has the appropriate person though. Based on some of the other companies in the industry, I highly doubt it. But that is part of the reason why I ask!

You’re kind of overdoing it now and cluttering this thread up for the rest of us. Maybe start your own thread?

 

[4th_point]

However a competent person given the opportunity can understand the problem and fix it if inclined. Some scope companies obviously have as their scopes work as intended.

I'm going to use a few concise words as possible here.

You say you don’t want to shit in the punch bowl. But then use statements like, based on arguably thin evidence.

Then say, And as posted above, I do my own checks.

But then wont specially say how you perform your check. And if you did I apologize I missed it in the 33 pages here.

Fact is you don’t have to be an engineer to understand the problem.
Scopes don’t hold zero.
I think we can agree here.

The more people that are out there that understand the problem and do some kind of testing to see if the product works as designed is good for us as consumers.

The more people that share how they do these tests is good for everyone as a whole.

I think that you are confused. Thin evidence for the Maven passing. Formi, et al have not posted their results yet, right?

Have not commented on other scopes. There is value in the procedure and information sharing done in the subforum.

 

[Ryan Avery]

These threads are a crack up.

Maven has people there smart enough to listen which is more than I can say about most of the other optics companies.

How would them coming on this thread help?

Rokslide has a drop standard. We aren’t changing it.

If you want to drop yours in a different manner thats fine but stop comparing that to ours.

 

[Dioni A]

I'm going to use a few concise words as possible here.

You say you don’t want to shit in the punch bowl. But then use statements like, based on arguably thin evidence.

Then say, And as posted above, I do my own checks.

But then wont specially say how you perform your check. And if you did I apologize I missed it in the 33 pages here.

Fact is you don’t have to be an engineer to understand the problem.
Scopes don’t hold zero.
I think we can agree here.

The more people that are out there that understand the problem and do some kind of testing to see if the product works as designed is good for us as consumers.

The more people that share how they do these tests is good for everyone as a whole.

@4th_point obviously knows more than everyone but seems to only cast shade on things. Heaven forbid people get excited about something that excites them. I sure hope we get more essays about how none of this means anything and I'm somehow a shill even though I've never used anything from maven (assuming he was talking about me).

 

[Brontosaurus]

Maven RS1.2 2.5-15x44mm Field Eval

This is a field evaluation of the Maven RS1.2 2.5-15x44mm SHR-Mil reticle scope. This scope was given to me by Ryan. The baseline 30 round group with this lot of ammunition was 1.5” at 100 yards. The scope and weight- Turrets: Elevation turret is exposed, revolution indicated, 10...

rokslide.com

ope

 

[Dobermann]

And sorry, but the hype is a little fishy too but I know some people might just be super duper excited. Plus some inside information?

Not sure what you'd consider 'hype' vs 'excitement'.

For me, it's that - if this scope proves to be reliable - no other scope exists that does the combination of things it does / has the useful features it has.

Given how many scopes have some (and only some) of these features, but are not reliable, this one would bring something pretty unique to the table.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

Maven RS1.2 2.5-15x44mm Field Eval

This is a field evaluation of the Maven RS1.2 2.5-15x44mm SHR-Mil reticle scope. This scope was given to me by Ryan. The baseline 30 round group with this lot of ammunition was 1.5” at 100 yards. The scope and weight- Turrets: Elevation turret is exposed, revolution indicated, 10...

rokslide.com

ope

My scope delivery date got changed from Monday to out for delivery today and now this?!? Christmas came a few days early for sure!!!

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

Thanks for the post, Reburn.

I don't have this Maven model, or plan to buy it anytime soon. I am more than mildly interested in it though.

Jason

Maybe watch from the sides then until you get one and do your own testing. Instead of posting multiple of the same response over and over again and cluttering up a good thread.

Thanks Jason.

 

[freddyG]

It’s going to be interesting to see if this scope holds up to the hype, or if there will be a lot of them for sale in the classifieds.

My bet is it won’t pass the 36” drops completely.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

We’re already off to “durability testing” haha.

Thanks UPS…

 

[TimeOnTarget]

@Formidilosus results up. Mine should be here Tuesday, will be mounted on a t3x 22-250.

 

[willfrye027]

Glad to see it’s doing well on forms test. Makes me happy that we came to the same conclusion!

If I recall the meopta did well on the eval but after some hard use ended up failing. So maybe a ways to go before being “proven”.

Solid work maven

 

[Formidilosus]

Glad to see it’s doing well on forms test. Makes me happy that we came to the same conclusion!

If I recall the meopta did well on the eval but after some hard use ended up failing. So maybe a ways to go before being “proven”.

Solid work maven

The Meopta Optika 6 didn’t go through the full drop eval (did not do the 9x36” drop portion).

Just FYI.

 

[clperry]

Sweet. No.2 on the way. This scope is what I wanted my lht’s to be. Glad maven is doing what they’re doing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

Before I mounted the scope I was able to test on all axis’, rotating the scope 90 degrees then re-leveling and rechecking until full 360 degrees has been reached. Overkill for sure on testing milradians in a rifle scope. It’s tracking as good as any scope I’ve put on the collimation verification tool which was exciting.

10 mil up and 10 mil down with each 90 degree check and an additional 1,000 mil up and down, I then return to zero, and then 10 mil up then down again. It’s still tracking well within spec. RTZ is spot on.

On scopes that “don’t track” you will see slight deviation against the board, but what’s really telling is how far out they can be after 1,000 mils up and down then trying to return to zero.

TLDR. This maven is accurately dialing and retuning to zero out of the box.

The clicks feel good there is no “mushiness” to them at all. A bit on the “fine” side but both audible click and click “feel” are good.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

It’s now mounted on a very proven rifle that got a new stock last month.

Tikka T3X .260 Rem
Stockys VG2
UM Rings/Bases/Level

Everything is properly torqued, loktited in, and ready for the desert tomorrow for sight in and target/varmint shooting. I’ll probably end up getting some sight pictures on some big game animals as well for practicing with the reticle.