Maven RS1.2 2.5-15x44 new model

[TxLite]

Hahahahah that’s great.
Hopefully it was just so they could fix the errors on the spec sheet or something trivial


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They wrote 26oz. But what they meant was 16oz.

 

[Macintosh]

The reticle diagrams on manufacturer websites are universally terrible. Many are bordering on grossly misrepresenting what they actually look like on ffp scopes—honestly many are so bad I dont know why they bother. Huge kudos to maven for even bothering to include a diagram showing both low and high magnification.
Also, based on that, I cant say I put much weight behind any of the manufacturer diagrams beyond a “rough idea”. Until I have a look through it on that scope, or at least a in-focus “through the scope” photograph, I am always highly skeptical since so many suck for my eyes and my uses, even some that others here either like or find acceptable. But at a minimum it’ll make me go out of my way to check one out when I can.

 

[Redwing]

Huge kudos to maven for even bothering to include a diagram showing both low and high magnification.

Agreed! It's shocking how many companies don't do this. Three images would be even better, one each at low, mid, and high magnification.

Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk

 

[prm]

Hmmm rs1.2 isn't on their website anymore

Form and Ryan must have broke it. Back to the drawing board.


Just kidding…

 

[prm]

Question about Mavin, and really many other newer optics sellers. Do they have their own design, engineering, and testing capability in-house, and provide that design to a manufacturing facility (e.g. LOW) to produce? Or, do they select most of the design elements from a menu of options offered by the manufacturer with just a few elements such as visual look, reticle, coming from Mavin?

 

[Macintosh]

Question about Mavin, and really many other newer optics sellers. Do they have their own design, engineering, and testing capability in-house, and provide that design to a manufacturing facility (e.g. LOW) to produce? Or, do they select most of the design elements from a menu of options offered by the manufacturer with just a few elements such as visual look, reticle, coming from Mavin?

I can’t say for maven or optics in general, but I have worked in technical outdoor product manufacturing for going-on 30 years now. Most companies I am familiar with have differing levels of design capability, but very, very few of them don’t rely somewhat on a manufacturer for some level of support in design, engineering and specifications during the design process. It’s often/usually a collaborative effort between the marketing company’s in-house design and the contracted manufacturers in-house design. I have not really run into too many high-end consumer goods that are outright “standard” offerings from a manufacturer—thats the realm of el-cheapo stuff mostly. The manufacturer may have some open molds or programs to make parts such as a turret cap or something like that that could be used for various brands, but they’re going to also have the ability to take design drawings or CAD info or a 3d print or machined prototype or whatever, and turn that into a finished part as well— so the design process is often a back-and-forth working with a factory to figure out what makes sense to utilize that is existing, and what needs to be designed and built from the ground up in order to meet a particular set of requirements. Usually if the guts of a product are proprietary, there is a contractual obligation for the manufacturer not to share it with other brands or for their own house brand, etc… but they can certainly learn from it in terms of manufacturing techniques or design advantages and use that in the future. So most companies would be idiots not to work closely with the manufacturers in-house knowledge because of this. We are also talking about pretty complicated products that probably involve four or five or more manufacturing facilities to make parts, and then assembly and finishing, so there’s nothing that says multiple different factories won’t be involved in the process along the way.
Regarding testing, unless there is a standard test, such as ASTM or an EN requirement for a particular market, there may be some basic standard stuff, but many companies and factories need to develop their own rudimentary testing to ensure that the actual production products meet the same requirements that prototypes did— a lot of the difficulty in manufacturing is in taking the requirements that you built into a prototype product, and putting it into mass production and getting the same result.

 

[Mike D Texas]

I haven’t looked through one yet but on 2.5 I bet it looks like a standard leupold duplex which if your shooting on 2.5 is certainly useable
15 on the top end is excessive but so is 16 on the atacr
I don’t put any stock in 6x differntial would 4x be better? Sure, we’ll I guess maybe. I’m also not an expert in this regard but if it were a 3-15. (5x) or 3-12 I doubt it would be anymore or less useable purely based on the mag ratio
The nx8 are totally useable in my experience and all the “drawbacks” are overblown- if they had a better FFP mil based reticle even more so. I noticed a sharp uptick in nx8 claims by non nx8 owners.
Regardless the only thing that matters and remains to be seen… will it retain zero from aggressive field use in the backcountry.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

15x is excessive?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[amassi]

Yes and no, 15 is too much for me in all but long range ground squirrels
15 obviously has a place as does 20 et el
For my style of hunting 10 is plenty and gets me comfortable practice out to 1k.
I have a 4-20 atacr that’s never been shot in the field above 12x and that was only to count points, just did t adjust the mag back down.
3-18 tenmile s live on 6.5 power and haven’t killed anything over 10x
I compromised with sfp optics that needed max mag to subtend accurately, once I started shooting ffp low mag and wide fov have proved to be significantly more valuable


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mike D Texas]

Yes and no, 15 is too much for me in all but long range ground squirrels
15 obviously has a place as does 20 et el
For my style of hunting 10 is plenty and gets me comfortable practice out to 1k.
I have a 4-20 atacr that’s never been shot in the field above 12x and that was only to count points, just did t adjust the mag back down.
3-18 tenmile s live on 6.5 power and haven’t killed anything over 10x
I compromised with sfp optics that needed max mag to subtend accurately, once I started shooting ffp low mag and wide fov have proved to be significantly more valuable


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Interesting. When I’m target shooting I want really high magnification. Hunting I want to spot shots. Generally speaking hunting shots are taken at 16x or less depending on how heavy recoiling the rifle is.

Typically low magnification and FFP is less desirable on most reticles. The one exception in the scopes I own at least is the Leupold TMR. It’s heavy enough that it’s usable through pretty much the entire magnification range. I would however prefer better than .5 mil graduations on the reticle.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Project

 

[Steve O]

I got a small Maven catalog today. Never really paid ANY attention to them until I started reading this thread. It was really a nice little piece of literature. Had all the scope silhouettes lined up next to each other and specs for all broke out between FFP and SFP.

 

[Dobermann]

Hmmm rs1.2 isn't on their website anymore

Back up now: https://mavenbuilt.com/products/rs1-2-2-5-15x44-ffp?variant=42954112729259

Virtual prize for anyone who spots any before and after differences in specs!

Weight is still showing as the same.

 

[BBob]

Back up now: https://mavenbuilt.com/products/rs1-2-2-5-15x44-ffp?variant=42954112729259

Virtual prize for anyone who spots any before and after differences in specs!

Weight is still showing as the same.

Still shows the 22 and 44 on the MIL reticle. Anyone figure out that one or is it still an error?

 

[MidGAHunter]

Again, not saying anything about the scope, just that I’ve shot and used the reticle in others and it’s good.

How does this Maven reticle compare to the SWFA Milquad reticle in actual field use in FFP scopes? Thanks!

 

[ElPollo]

This thread is currently 6 pages of wishful thinking. I really hope that companies like Maven are paying attention. When you have a market where only about 3-4 companies are producing scopes that hold zero, you’d think it’s a potential growth opportunity for a business.

 

[HighUintas]

This thread is currently 6 pages of wishful thinking. I really hope that companies like Maven are paying attention. When you have a market where only about 3-4 companies are producing scopes that hold zero, you’d think it’s a potential growth opportunity for a business.

I think it's likely not that easy. Think about the innards of a scope and how a variable power works. Think about the tiny increments in trajectory we make with 1 click of a turret. Think about all the crap people want the scope to be: lightweight, small turret, illuminated, huge zoom range, good eye relief without tunneling, absolute zero retention..... Ability to withstand a 36" drop onto a hard surface and not lose zero at all?

Seems hard to me to be able to do that and sell the scope at a reasonable price

 

[ElPollo]

I think it's likely not that easy. Think about the innards of a scope and how a variable power works. Think about the tiny increments in trajectory we make with 1 click of a turret. Think about all the crap people want the scope to be: lightweight, small turret, illuminated, huge zoom range, good eye relief without tunneling, absolute zero retention..... Ability to withstand a 36" drop onto a hard surface and not lose zero at all?

Seems hard to me to be able to do that and sell the scope at a reasonable price

You’re right that a lot of people want things that aren’t realistic. I’m not one of those people. I’d just like to see more options available that reliably hold zero and I’m willing to deal with some of the trade offs. That’s why I’m primarily using SWFA scopes that are technology that is straight out of the 1990s.

 

[Dioni A]

From what I've heard it sounds l

I think it's likely not that easy. Think about the innards of a scope and how a variable power works. Think about the tiny increments in trajectory we make with 1 click of a turret. Think about all the crap people want the scope to be: lightweight, small turret, illuminated, huge zoom range, good eye relief without tunneling, absolute zero retention..... Ability to withstand a 36" drop onto a hard surface and not lose zero at all?

Seems hard to me to be able to do that and sell the scope at a reasonable price

SWFA seems to be able to accomplish most that and regularly sell their scopes for as little as $200 when they go on sale. Your excuse would hold a lot more water if that wasn't the case.

 

[Balderdash]

From what I've heard it sounds l

SWFA seems to be able to accomplish most that and regularly sell their scopes for as little as $200 when they go on sale. Your excuse would hold a lot more water if that wasn't the case.

I was going to respond with the same. I'll go further and add that the Bushy LRHS/LRTS can be had BNIB right now through GAP for under 1k and NF SHV F1 can be had for near the same price. Multiples of each have been excellent for me over a lot of shooting and hard use.

While I've stockpiled enough LRHS/LRTS through the years for my near term needs, I'm still hoping that the Maven in reference proves to be a solid option. The reticle looks well designed to offer the ability to bracket game on low X with the outer lines. I mostly live on 6-10x, but I end up snow tracking and still hunting timber often enough that low power usability on close game in heavy cover is a deciding factor.

 

[fwafwow]

One story is an anecdote, so FWIW. A scope company principal I spoke to just believes there are no problems that need to be fixed. He's aware of these tests and think they are not well designed, and are biased - as evidenced (as an example), by the comment even some scopes "used by the military" never pass. Their customers never complain about losing zero in their scopes, which are tested to 1000Gs, and the few that do always end up being due to user error. If you drop your rifle on a hunt, you should re-zero. Etc. etc.

 

[Reburn]

One story is an anecdote, so FWIW. A scope company principal I spoke to just believes there are no problems that need to be fixed. He's aware of these tests and think they are not well designed, and are biased - as evidenced (as an example), by the comment even some scopes "used by the military" never pass. Their customers never complain about losing zero in their scopes, which are tested to 1000Gs, and the few that do always end up being due to user error. If you drop your rifle on a hunt, you should re-zero. Etc. etc.

Sometimes I wonder if these guys even understand the issue.