Maven RS1.2 2.5-15x44 new model

[prm]

At any point has Maven indicated this might be more robust than their others? I’m sensing a lot of hope without any real backing.

 

[Beetroot]

I believe that I've mentioned the similarity of this Maven to the 30mm Tract a few times in this thread, and I understand what you are thinking.

They appear to have the same basic design, simply based on the specs.

That doesn't mean that they have the same exact design, assembly, or inspections but I don't think that you're crazy to ask the question of what is different.

What are the chances, that two companies that are known to outsource products to Japan happen to offer the same/similar product, just in a different wrapper?!

The way it tends to work with most of these companies is that they just take a base model offered by an OEM (LOW in this case) make a few changes and put there name on it.

I'm not suggesting this is a bad business model, or suggesting that a company cannot make meaningful changes.

More just think this particular base model is pretty uninspiring and the one place they could make a meaningful change (reticle) they haven't exactly knocked it out of the park.

That being said, if they have sized the reticle right (stadia thickness) this could be a decent scope, and if they make made it robust enough it may be what a lot of Roksliders were looking for.

Between this and the Apex Hunter 3-15x44 I think the Apex looks the better all round package (specs wise not necessarily the reticle) but again they don't provide the full reticle subtensions, so hard to know how good it'll actually be.

 

[dreamingWest]

At any point has Maven indicated this might be more robust than their others? I’m sensing a lot of hope without any real backing.

I believe the little catalog Maven just sent out describes the RS1.2 as having a "more robust erector". Which most of us could use

 

[fwafwow]

Unless they've gotten LOW to do something magic that Tract didn't do then the only real advantage is the elevation turret isn't 6ft tall

For me, something magic would be a design that is intended to, and can, pass a drop test.

 

[BRTreedogs]

26oz is a danty little lightweight scope to me. But apparently that's porky to some people.

 

[Reburn]

26oz is a danty little lightweight scope to me. But apparently that's porky to some people.

trijicon tenmile, swfa 5-20, nightoforce nx8, maven rs1.2 are all in the 24-26oz range.
That seems to be the weight most scopes have to be at to function correctly.
Hopefully the maven passes the drop tests.

 

[fwafwow]

trijicon tenmile, swfa 5-20, nightoforce nx8, maven rs1.2 are all in the 24-26oz range.
That seems to be the weight most scopes have to be at to function correctly.
Hopefully the maven passes the drop tests.

I know it has been asked and maybe I’ve missed the replies, but how do the internals in the scopes that pass the drop tests differ from the norm? Are they metal vs plastic, which might explain (at least partially) why they are porkier?

 

[BRTreedogs]

Weight is not even a talking point for me. Whatever it takes to hold zero.
5oz is what most guys complain about.

Do these people have 1 percent body fat and hunt in a loin cloth to save weight to?

 

[wind gypsy]

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.

That's funny. In 2015'ish i was looking for advice on a LR hunting scope so I asked a friend from HS that was running one of the green beret group sniper schools at the time. The Loopy MK 6 seemed like the perfect package for a weight conscious hunting rifle and happened to be common issued scope. He advised me against because they had a number of them fail. Surprised me that even green berets were getting issued stuff that they felt was inferior from a reliability standpoint. He pointed me towards lower priced LOW manufactured scopes.

 

[Choupique]

how do the internals in the scopes that pass the drop tests differ from the norm?

I wish there were a good article out there of teardown and comparison of them.

Likewise, I really wish there were something like a 2.5-8x36 leupold vx3 (dimensionally perfect hunting scope for me) that was reliable. Most people don't want a 30mm scope with 2" turrets poking out and a mil reticle.

 

[Brontosaurus]

So just showed back up to this thread and I don’t really have anything to add but…

View attachment 627837

Besides us needing you to drop it.
What do you think of the subjective stuff ? I.e. glass quality at high zoom, ease of eyebox, turret clicks etc.

 

[Beetroot]

Weight is not even a talking point for me. Whatever it takes to hold zero.
5oz is what most guys complain about.

Do these people have 1 percent body fat and hunt in a loin cloth to save weight to?

The point is scopes don't have to be heavy to be reliable, not too mention how many heavy scopes aren't even reliable.

The NXS 2.5-10 and SWFA are probably the most popular scopes I'm the category this will be playing in and both are around 20oz.

Hence my comments about this being uninspiring.

 

[Dioni A]

I wish there were a good article out there of teardown and comparison of them.

Likewise, I really wish there were something like a 2.5-8x36 leupold vx3 (dimensionally perfect hunting scope for me) that was reliable. Most people don't want a 30mm scope with 2" turrets poking out and a mil reticle.

SWFA 2.5-10 did very well in forms test if I remember correctly. Didn't pass everything but did very well. It's a 1-in tube scope that weighs around 10 ounces.

 

[Formidilosus]

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

It is very good. The people that are saying “the reticle is like all the others” haven’t used it.

The reticle is good. I legitimately have no real complaints about the reticle.

 

[MidGAHunter]

It is very good. The people that are saying “the reticle is like all the others” haven’t used it.

The reticle is good. I legitimately have no real complaints about the reticle.

Great to hear. Now we wait to see how the reliability is...

 

[BRTreedogs]

The point is scopes don't have to be heavy to be reliable, not too mention how many heavy scopes aren't even reliable.

The NXS 2.5-10 and SWFA are probably the most popular scopes I'm the category this will be playing in and both are around 20oz.

Hence my comments about this being uninspiring.

The point is who cares.
Man up and carry the damn thing.

Its litterly the lowest priority thing on my list.

 

[Dobermann]

The point is scopes don't have to be heavy to be reliable, not too mention how many heavy scopes aren't even reliable.

The NXS 2.5-10 and SWFA are probably the most popular scopes I'm the category this will be playing in and both are around 20oz.

Hence my comments about this being uninspiring.

I'm guessing you were referring to the SWFA 3-9 x 42 at 19.4 oz - which is not in the same magnification or feature class as te RS1.2. I think the more comparative scopes are:

- SWFA 3-15 x 42, which has a stated weight of 23.9 oz, but has a smaller objective, lesser 'glass', and fewer features
- the LRHS 2 4.5-18 x 44, which has a stated weight of 27.34 oz
- original LRHS 3-12 x 44 - mine's actual weight is 26.4 oz, which is the exact same as the stated weight for the RS1 2.5-15 x 44
- Trijicon Tenmile 3-18 x 44, which has a stated weight of 24.4 oz, and is potentially the lightest we'd see in this class and have true reliability.

Of course, the scope that 'should' have been a comparison is the LHT 3-15 x 42 at 19.1 stated oz, but again, smaller objective and ... no weight savings is worth unreliability.

In that case, based on weight alone, if we take just the 44 mm objective options above, we have a weight range of 24.4oz to 27.34 oz. The RS1.2 sits comfortably in this range.

It's the same weight as what was regarded as getting us nearer to ideal by those who wanted more mag than the SWFA 3-9, in the LRHS 3-12. It's 2oz more than the Tenmile, which is currently the lightest in this class that has passed the drop test - but the RS1.2's reticle is vastly superior.

From what I've seen on screen, I think the SHR-MIL reticle is also better than either the G2H, G3, or G4P - the main stadia might possibly be thinner, but the rest is more functional and less cluttered (and the G3 was championed for a long time by Jacob Bynum for its comparative lack of clutter).

I think these are some of the factors that others, myself included, are seeing as inspiring in this offering.

 

[Beetroot]

I'm guessing you were referring to the SWFA 3-9 x 42 at 19.4 oz - which is not in the same magnification or feature class as te RS1.2. I think the more comparative scopes are:

- SWFA 3-15 x 42, which has a stated weight of 23.9 oz, but has a smaller objective, lesser 'glass', and fewer features
- the LRHS 2 4.5-18 x 44, which has a stated weight of 27.34 oz
- original LRHS 3-12 x 44 - mine's actual weight is 26.4 oz, which is the exact same as the stated weight for the RS1 2.5-15 x 44
- Trijicon Tenmile 3-18 x 44, which has a stated weight of 24.4 oz, and is potentially the lightest we'd see in this class and have true reliability.

Of course, the scope that 'should' have been a comparison is the LHT 3-15 x 42 at 19.1 stated oz, but again, smaller objective and ... no weight savings is worth unreliability.

In that case, based on weight alone, if we take just the 44 mm objective options above, we have a weight range of 24.4oz to 27.34 oz. The RS1.2 sits comfortably in this range.

It's the same weight as what was regarded as getting us nearer to ideal by those who wanted more mag than the SWFA 3-9, in the LRHS 3-12. It's 2oz more than the Tenmile, which is currently the lightest in this class that has passed the drop test - but the RS1.2's reticle is vastly superior.

From what I've seen on screen, I think the SHR-MIL reticle is also better than either the G2H, G3, or G4P - the main stadia might possibly be thinner, but the rest is more functional and less cluttered (and the G3 was championed for a long time by Jacob Bynum for its comparative lack of clutter).

I think these are some of the factors that others, myself included, are seeing as inspiring in this offering.

I was more responding to the idea assumption a robust scope has to be heavy, while two of the most reliable scopes in the drop tests have been around the 20oz mark, and most of the 26-46oz scopes haven’t passed the tests.

You are right in that weight is the by product of the features of a scope but doesn’t guarantee anything to do with reliability.

I don’t really care about the weight anyway, 26oz is fine if the rest of the scope is excellent but as I’ve said previously I find this entire scope pretty uninspiring, based on the specs and the reticle.
Most of my scopes weight more than this scope and I don’t think twice about it, but there are lots of people who do care, and I think 24oz or less would be enough to win those people over.

If Maven wants to stand out as being ahead of all the other companies in regards to creating the perfect hunting/crossover optics they’ll have to do a lot better than a cookie cutter base model, with a marginal reticle, that may pass a drop test.

I’ll just leave it at that, and await the reviews.

 

[Dioni A]

If Maven wants to stand out as being ahead of all the other companies in regards to creating the perfect hunting/crossover optics they’ll have to do a lot better than a cookie cutter base model, with a marginal reticle, that may pass a drop test.

I’ll just leave it at that, and await the reviews.

I think the mix up is what your seeing as cookie cutter we're seeing as practical and utilitarian. In a world full of fancy trinkets this looks like a simple practical tool to me. That's the whole appeal.

 

[4th_point]

At any point has Maven indicated this might be more robust than their others? I’m sensing a lot of hope without any real backing.

I would be surprised if Maven has anyone with the technical competence to make such a claim with high level of confidence. They would most likely restate whatever the OEM tells them.

I don't have any experience designing or manufacturing optics, however I do have a background in product development, and testing relevant to this topic. And I happen to know a little bit about what does and doesn't get done by a few companies. A couple are completely clueless and it seems to be the norm not the exception but I don't know enough about all of the companies. So take that info with a heap of salt!