Maven RS1.2 2.5-15x44 new model

[4th_point]

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.

That might be the case with some offerings, but I am not privy to contract particulars to know if that applies across the board. Do you have that information?

If I had to wager, this Maven is the same base model as the 30mm Tract. But that's pure speculation. I would not be surprised if the OEM is who you claim though.

And I agree with you that the excitement for this Maven seems a bit blown out of proportion based on the wrapper with high hopes for robust guts.

I'm all for new optics and options. But also more than a bit suspicious!

 

[Balderdash]

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 appappeal

I agree with Dioni. The main thing they need to do to set themselves apart is build a reliable dialing scope.

As far as the reticle, I hate to comment too extensively before seeing one first hand, but I don't see it as a cookie cutter FFP. Most notably, it has thick enough lines that come far enough to center to serve as quick aim/bracketing points on low X; conversely, I'd describe what many others offer, i.e. only thin reticle lines that include 8-10 mils windage on each side of center, because I don't know why, which effectively eliminate aiming at low X. Further, the "tree" component is unobtrusive yet utilitarian.

 

[Macintosh]

Where did I read that maven had been very receptive to the rokslide-inspired durability testing and was actively working on something along those lines, ie more reliable? I know I read that somewhere…question is whether thats legit, and if this scope is that project. But I think thats what has people more interested, not so much the other parts of the scope.

To me that ^^^, in combination with an acceptable footprint and reticle, is whats interesting and different. It doesnt have to be at all “interesting” or “innovative” or “differently featured” to be more or less revolutionary when the only thing people really care about, and are missing, is a scope that actually works while checking off a few basic requirements.

 

[Balderdash]

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.

Not that it impacts how the scope functions in any way, but the Apex looks a lot like the Leupold knock offs that were for sale seemingly everywhere about 10-15 years ago.

Ironically, some of the Chicom knock offs might've actually held zero better than the genuine article!

 

[Beetroot]

Not that it impacts how the scope functions in any way, but the Apex looks a lot like the Leupold knock offs that were for sale seemingly everywhere about 10-15 years ago.

Ironically, some of the Chicom knock offs might've actually held zero better than the genuine article!

That's a pretty harsh criticism, those Leupold knock offs looked terrible!

Knowing a little about where the Apex scopes are made, I find this 3-15 pretty interesting as they seem to have made quite a few changes from the standard scope that OEM produces.

while tree reticles aren't everyone's cup of tea, I think the Apex HLR is better thought out than the Maven reticle.

A comparison of these two scopes (both being aimed at the same demographic) would be interesting.

 

[Balderdash]

That's a pretty harsh criticism, those Leupold knock offs looked terrible!

Knowing a little about where the Apex scopes are made, I find this 3-15 pretty interesting as they seem to have made quite a few changes from the standard scope that OEM produces.

while tree reticles aren't everyone's cup of tea, I think the Apex HLR is better thought out than the Maven reticle.

A comparison of these two scopes (both being aimed at the same demographic) would be interesting.

I apologize. Wasn't my intent to criticize. Just an observation from when I looked at them sometime back.

Ultimately, I care very little about esthetics. I'm still running an Optika 6 3-18 on a rig (FWIW, Its still tracking ok), and those were universally panned for their looks. I liked the feature set and reticle, so I gave one a try.

Overall, I still think the Leupold VX 3, 5, 6 lines are the best looking scopes. Unfortunately, a long time ago I had to learn the hard way that looks are a poor thing on which to base an optics decision.

 

[prm]

Nightforce is made at the same factory, so there are clearly differences in brand specifications.

 

[amassi]

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.

I.

Vastly superior?
Have you used both ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dobermann]

Vastly superior?
Have you used both ?

@amassi - good call, and thanks for picking me up on it. No, I haven't used both, so probably shouldn't have phrased it like that - better would be more 'appears superior to me for hunting applications'.

Some key differences for me:

• more space around the centre dot - both allowing the dot to be more easily seen, as well as more space for situational awareness, spotting misses, and so on
• use of the 'box' around the dot that provides both clear mil marking as well as the ability to use for a flash sight picture
• 10 mil total windage stadia vs 24 - we don't need 24
• less windage stadia / space means likely better 'aiming picture' / more prominent crosshairs for low magnification shots (as others have mentioned below)
• a less busy tree - just crosses / hatches where they need to be on the vertical, rather than 'wind dots'
• only 5 mils of elevation holdover
• each windage mil clearly marked, not just the evens
• a subtle, but present distinction for the 2.5 mil mark, which some find handy for movers
• while we don't know what part of the reticle will be illuminated, hopefully it will just be the centre dot - but if they stupidly do the whole tree, it looks like it won't 'bloom' as much as when the entire Tenmile tree is illuminated. Speculation on my part, but looks likely.

Like I said earlier, I wouldn't be surprised if someone at Maven took a good look at both the THLR and the original G2 reticles, and really analysed which features of those got knowledgeable people's attention.

Again, the above are what appeal to me / just my opinion ... but I think some of them also objectively do make for a better reticle than the Trij offering.

I should also say that I usually dislike when we get excited about a new scope that hasn't been tested yet - and passing the drop test is the most important criteria for me. But there's so much else on offer here (as @Formidilosus said above) that if this proves durable, it could genuinely be one of the best offerings out there.

 

[amassi]

I agree it looks better on paper, and from what those who have used are saying it’s exciting especially given that those opinions are from someone who’s seen and used them all.

And if the scope is robust it will be an easy decision to chose it over the tenmile.

That’s said, the ffp tenmile reticle is a functional reticle in a functional scope for the time being.

I really hope maven got it right on this one. I’m tempted to try one when they release before they get the rokslide approval and sell out


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Beetroot]

I apologize. Wasn't my intent to criticize. Just an observation from when I looked at them sometime back.

I was only joking not need apologize.

I 100% agree tha Leupold makes the nicest looking scopes, some wood/blued rifles only look right with a Leupold scope.

 

[4th_point]

I really hope maven got it right on this one. I’m tempted to try one when they release before they get the rokslide approval and sell out

I'm curious what you and others feel is Rslide-approval?

One sample that passes a drop test? More than one? If so, how many? Is that it, a drop test, or is there more?

I'm not trying to single you out, amassi, so please don't feel that this is directed at you.

 

[Dioni A]

I might be misremembering but I thought I heard that Avery was getting multiple of them to test. @4th_point
It doesn't seem like it happens on accident when one of these things passes. I think a few scopes going through the test would be enough for me to put my money on one to try for myself. Anything I get is getting tested regardless.

 

[amassi]

I'm curious what you and others feel is Rslide-approval?

One sample that passes a drop test? More than one? If so, how many? Is that it, a drop test, or is there more?

I'm not trying to single you out, amassi, so please don't feel that this is directed at you.

It’s ok I don’t feel singled out.
Passing the drop test then feedback from members I trust on here is a good start.

But regardless of the drop test results and feedback here I’m still going to try and get that scope to fail well before hunting season so that I have time to swap it out with a known commodity.
Luckily I know that the rifle and ring system isn’t going to cause any issues

 

[Dobermann]

I'm curious what you and others feel is Rslide-approval?

One sample that passes a drop test? More than one? If so, how many? Is that it, a drop test, or is there more?

I'm not trying to single you out, amassi, so please don't feel that this is directed at you.

Do a search here about both Form's general caution about samples of one, but also the difference statistically about what it means when one scope passes the test vs when one doesn't. Some folks had a hard time understanding this; it was also covered on one of the recent-ish Hornady podcasts.

 

[Reburn]

Do a search here about both Form's general caution about samples of one, but also the difference statistically about what it means when one scope passes the test vs when one doesn't. Some folks had a hard time understanding this; it was also covered on one of the recent-ish Hornady podcasts.

@4th_point

Right one pass isnt gospel but its a strong indicator.

One fail is darn near gospel.

Its statstically unlikely to get the 1/100 or 1/1000 that passes when the rest would fail. But it is possbile. 3 random or more that pass is getting as close to 99.9% as you can possibly get. Because you know. Murder bunnies.

 

[Balderdash]

@4th_point

Right one pass isnt gospel but its a strong indicator.

One fail is darn near gospel.

Its statstically unlikely to get the 1/100 or 1/1000 that passes when the rest would fail. But it is possbile. 3 random or more that pass is getting as close to 99.9% as you can possibly get. Because you know. Murder bunnies.

I like reading about these tests. But I also complete my own vetting process.

 

[Reburn]

I like reading about these tests. But I also complete my own vetting process.

Sure its important to vet your system as a whole.

What form has that I don't is a rifle thats bonded so the shift has to come from the scope it can't come from the system.

When I drop mine it could be a couple things that isnt the scope. I had a suppressor come 1/4 turn unscrewed today and send some shots a couple inches low at 100.

 

[ResearchinStuff]

Suppressor came loose last week and muddied my drop test results, going back to redo it tomorrow

 

[Balderdash]

Sure its important to vet your system as a whole.

What form has that I don't is a rifle thats bonded so the shift has to come from the scope it can't come from the system.

When I drop mine it could be a couple things that isnt the scope. I had a suppressor come 1/4 turn unscrewed today and send some shots a couple inches low at 100.

Seems like a good opportunity to improve the whole system. Through the years I've had to move to more robust scopes and scope mounting systems, actions, bottom metals, mags, and stocks. Sometimes the upgrades were necessitated by failures while afield, which I find very frustrating and to be assiduously avoided. I have rigs these days that I'm confident wont let me down; however, I wouldn't had I been reticent to test limits.

Other than stocks cracking due to falls and drops, I can't say that I've experienced a poi shift due to a stock not being bonded to the action. I generally bed at least the front lug.