Maven RS1.2 2.5-15x44 new model

[Dobermann]

At least he didn't put masking tape on it that looks like it was chewed off by a dog Ryan!!!

Fixed it for you!

 

[grfox92]

Forgive me if this has already been asked and answered, but is it safe to say that all the .2 Maven scopes will have the same mechanical system/ erector and have the same reliability as the model Form tested?

Sent from my SM-G990U2 using Tapatalk

 

[atmat]

Forgive me if this has already been asked and answered, but is it safe to say that all the .2 Maven scopes will have the same mechanical system/ erector and have the same reliability as the model Form tested?

Sent from my SM-G990U2 using Tapatalk

It doesn’t seem like this has been answered by Maven, as they’re saying all scopes are built to same robustness.

 

[grfox92]

It doesn’t seem like this has been answered by Maven, as they’re saying all scopes are built to same robustness.

Well their first scopes had a reputation for losing zero. All the .2s are the next gen. I would think they all have the same mechanics but like you said it's not confirmed.

Sent from my SM-G990U2 using Tapatalk

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

Forgive me if this has already been asked and answered, but is it safe to say that all the .2 Maven scopes will have the same mechanical system/ erector and have the same reliability as the model Form tested?

Sent from my SM-G990U2 using Tapatalk

Been asked but no clear answer/confirmation yet.

 

[ropeup79]

Well their first scopes had a reputation for losing zero. All the .2s are the next gen. I would think they all have the same mechanics but like you said it's not confirmed.

Sent from my SM-G990U2 using Tapatalk

Was it all the 1st gen scopes or just the one model tested?

 

[grfox92]

Was it all the 1st gen scopes or just the one model tested?

I've heard multiple accounts, not just on rokslide.

Sent from my SM-G990U2 using Tapatalk

 

[sndmn11]

Well their first scopes had a reputation for losing zero.

Sent from my SM-G990U2 using Tapatalk

I don't agree with this statement, but I am not knocking your perspective or trying to incite any argument. It is just a good example of when I pulled this thread up of what my perspective is in my last sentence in this post.

I said this earlier, but I don't believe a majority of their line of scopes has been tested. I am fairly certain it was two or three models; RS5 by Form, I seem to have it in my head there may have been another one but I cannot find it, and I did an RS.3.

Maven RS.5 4-24x50mm SFP mil/mil Field Evaluation

Maven RS.5 4-24x5mm, field eval. This scope was handed to me from Ryan Avery for an evaluation. The baseline 30 round group with this lot of ammunition was 1.37” at 100 yards. The scope and weight- Turrets: Elevation turret is exposed, revolution indicated, 10 mils per rev, zero...

rokslide.com

Maven RS.3 5-30x50 FFP mil/mil field evaluation

Q&A here https://www.rokslide.com/forums/threads/maven-rs-3-5-30x50-ffp-mil-mil-q-a.251009/ Maven RS.3 5-30x50mm evaluation. The test rifle is a 22BR Tikka T3 with 200ish bullets down the tube. It has shown to group under 1.5" for 10 shots at 100 yards in that time. The scope was sent to me...

rokslide.com

No testing of the RS1, RS2, RS4, RS3.2, or CRS series exists to my knowledge. I think it would be more appropriate to single out the RS5 and RS3 models in the links above as "using zero", rather than assign a reputation that eludes to some sort of absolute result to all the others. There's been OODLES of speculation going on this thread and it's a big part of why I stopped participating. I think "we" need to look at this model on its own and not attribute anything from this model to other models. They all need to be evaluated on their own merit, win or lose, and I think there have been a lot of folks who got out their jump-to-conclusion mats on this one rather than do the objective on face value thing.

 

[grfox92]

I don't agree with this statement, but I am not knocking your perspective or trying to incite any argument. It is just a good example of when I pulled this thread up of what my perspective is in my last sentence in this post.

I said this earlier, but I don't believe a majority of their line of scopes has been tested. I am fairly certain it was two or three models; RS5 by Form, I seem to have it in my head there may have been another one but I cannot find it, and I did an RS.3.

Maven RS.5 4-24x50mm SFP mil/mil Field Evaluation

Maven RS.5 4-24x5mm, field eval. This scope was handed to me from Ryan Avery for an evaluation. The baseline 30 round group with this lot of ammunition was 1.37” at 100 yards. The scope and weight- Turrets: Elevation turret is exposed, revolution indicated, 10 mils per rev, zero...

rokslide.com

Maven RS.3 5-30x50 FFP mil/mil field evaluation

Q&A here https://www.rokslide.com/forums/threads/maven-rs-3-5-30x50-ffp-mil-mil-q-a.251009/ Maven RS.3 5-30x50mm evaluation. The test rifle is a 22BR Tikka T3 with 200ish bullets down the tube. It has shown to group under 1.5" for 10 shots at 100 yards in that time. The scope was sent to me...

rokslide.com

No testing of the RS1, RS2, RS4, RS3.2, or CRS series exists to my knowledge. I think it would be more appropriate to single out the RS5 and RS3 models in the links above as "using zero", rather than assign a reputation that eludes to some sort of absolute result to all the others. There's been OODLES of speculation going on this thread and it's a big part of why I stopped participating. I think "we" need to look at this model on its own and not attribute anything from this model to other models. They all need to be evaluated on their own merit, win or lose, and I think there have been a lot of folks who got out their jump-to-conclusion mats on this one rather than do the objective on face value thing.

Good point. And all that I've heard of them losing zero is second hand and from the internet.

My thought process was that all of their dialing scopes would have the same mechanics, so if one model was bad, then they would all be bad, and inversely the new .2 models would share the same mechanics and all of those would function the same which would be good based on Forms results.

HOWEVER.....I called Maven this morning and asked if all of the .2 models share the same internals, and was told that they share the same internals as the first gen scopes as well. Which would mean that this scope that Form put through the wringer shares the same mechanicals as the first one he tested that failed. So I don't know what to think of any of it.

Also, I'm not trying to hate on Maven. I'm not brand loyal to anyone....except Maven. I'm a bit of a Maven fan boy lol.

Sent from my SM-G990U2 using Tapatalk

 

[BBob]

HOWEVER.....I called Maven this morning and asked if all of the .2 models share the same internals, and was told that they share the same internals as the first gen scopes as well. Which would mean that this scope that Form put through the wringer shares the same mechanicals as the first one he tested that failed. So I don't know what to think of any of it.

Would it not be possible to use the same design but maybe make some revisions to improve on that design? Same design but improved. Maybe tighten some tolerances? Maybe a different material for the internal pivot point? Could be the same design but they figured out why it might have moved before and did something to correct it.

 

[grfox92]

Would it not be possible to use the same design but maybe make some revisions to improve on that design? Same design but improved. Maybe tighten some tolerances? Maybe a different material for the internal pivot point? Could be the same design but they figured out why it might have moved before and did something to correct it.

100% , but I have no idea, that's why I'm asking questions that hopefully someone knows the answers to. It maybe as simple as a different adhesive here, a locking ring there.....I have no idea how scopes are held together, I just want more options of stuff that can handle abuse. I'm extremely hard on equipment and break shit all the time.

Sent from my SM-G990U2 using Tapatalk

 

[Marshfly]

100% , but I have no idea, that's why I'm asking questions that hopefully someone knows the answers to. It maybe as simple as a different adhesive here, a locking ring there.....I have no idea how scopes are held together, I just want more options of stuff that can handle abuse. I'm extremely hard on equipment and break shit all the time.

Sent from my SM-G990U2 using Tapatalk

This is the key. I have friends that miss because they don't practice, use junky gear, etc. Had a buddy miss an elk this year at 250 yards. We can't be missing 2 foot kill zones at 250 yards. Just...no.

I don't want to be that guy so I practice and buy stuff that lots of people have shown not to break under normal western hunting usage. That means banging into trees, dropping a pack with a rifle on it. Crawling on the ground and in the rocks. Etc. I don't care how they are made. I just don't want them to break.

 

[sndmn11]

called Maven this morning and asked if all of the .2 models share the same internals, and was told that they share the same internals as the first gen scopes as well. Which would mean that this scope that Form put through the wringer shares the same mechanicals as the first one he tested that failed. So I don't know what to think of any of it.


Sent from my SM-G990U2 using Tapatalk

Nobody tested an RS1, this scope is the RS1.2.

So, if a fact checker came along they would either:
A) Cut open a RS1 and RS1.2 with a water jet to compare
B) Test a RS1
C) Grab the build list/spec sheet/whatever it is called that Maven and the OEM use for each model.

If you wanted to take their statement (which is the same as I have been told as well) and apply it to the RS3.2 (if you think my test is legit) or if an RS5.2 was created (since one doesn't currently exist), then I think it is a fair piece of logic.

What I think is best is to just say "The RS1.2 seems to exhibit _________ capabilities, and the entire line is likely to seem to also exhibit ______ capabilities." and leave whatever you choose to put in the blank space as only applicable to this model. Do the same for other/future models until "we" can learn more about the overall brand development and traits of Maven.

I will tell you I LOVE their RF.1 and binoculars. I like the RS1.2s I have, I want to see more of the same on the rifle scope front.

 

[Ophidian]

I talked to someone from maven today and they indicated they should have more of the MIL version by the end of the month. Once they drop I’m ordering one.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

I talked to someone from maven today and they indicated they should have more of the MIL version by the end of the month. Once they drop I’m ordering one.

I ordered one a couple days ago (non bundle) and it was in stock. The all black was out of stock but the black/grey was in stock.

 

[JollyRoger]

I talked to them earlier this month. Grey/black was going to be back in stock mid month (and it is), and all black by the end of the month.

 

[willfrye027]

The black/gray looks great in person FWIW. Prefer it slightly to the all black one I have for what ever reason

 

[Amos Moses]

Is Maven offering a Rokslide discount code yet?

 

[Ophidian]

I’m doing the black with the orange zoom lever. I was going to do the rings but they are just going to be covered by caps anyway.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

The black/gray looks great in person FWIW. Prefer it slightly to the all black one I have for what ever reason

#metoo