Maven RS1.2 2.5-15x44 new model

[Dobermann]

If this maven holds zero it will check pretty much every box for me. There's a couple things I would like to be slightly different but they're all very minor.

About the only thing that would make it better would be to just use the THLR reticle ...

 

[Dobermann]

Do we know maker? I'm assuming it's LOW?

 

[Dobermann]

With LRHS2 and the Trijicons available, maybe even with new SWFA models, and my preference the SHV, it's an interesting scope but a hard sell when it doesn't win on weight or price. I don't think any of the scopes I've mentioned are hard to get behind or finicky.

Yep, but:

- The LRHS2 went back to the doughnut, which is not as quick to use for holding as a square (but the square, arguably gives you the benefits of centering something in a space, if you want to use a reticle that way). Also, the form factor of the Bushnells feels and looks a little clunky these days (said by someone who has five of them).

- The Trij Tenmile tree is too busy and not what we need for hunting / field use.

- We don't have any details on the new SWFA models (or do we)? To come into the 21st century, they'd need to bring in zero stops, illumination, parallax / side focus, better glass, a 10 or 15 yard start for parallax, and lower-profile turrets. That would represent a huge jump in R&D, and price, for SWFA (unless they just borrow from what LOW has developed over the last 15 years).

- The SHV reticle options are not as good for hunting / field use as any of the options above, and certainly not the SHR-MIL.

 

[amassi]

Yep, but:

- The LRHS2 went back to the doughnut, which is not as quick to use for holding as a square (but the square, arguably gives you the benefits of centering something in a space, if you want to use a reticle that way). Also, the form factor of the Bushnells feels and looks a little clunky these days (said by someone who has five of them).

- The Trij Tenmile tree is too busy and not what we need for hunting / field use.

- We don't have any details on the new SWFA models (or do we)? To come into the 21st century, they'd need to bring in zero stops, illumination, parallax / side focus, better glass, a 10 or 15 yard start for parallax, and lower-profile turrets. That would represent a huge jump in R&D, and price, for SWFA (unless they just borrow from what LOW has developed over the last 15 years).

- The SHV reticle options are not as good for hunting / field use as any of the options above, and certainly not the SHR-MIL.

The only thing swfa needs is inventory.
If that came with a zero stop that would be great
Glass is already totally sufficient.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dobermann]

The only thing swfa needs is inventory.
If that came with a zero stop that would be great
Glass is already totally sufficient.

On the 'needs' - I agree.

My post was in the specific context of @sndmn11 comparing the specs of various scopes, including the 'new' SWFAs, with the RS1.2.

 

[sndmn11]

@Dioni A @Jaden Bales do either of you have one of those en route to review?

 

[Dioni A]

@Dioni A @Jaden Bales do either of you have one of those en route to review?

I dont yet. but I will probably be ordering one of these for a new rifle I'm putting together. I'll drop test it when I get it.

 

[Mike D Texas]

I guess I never think about milling for squirrels because I live on the prairie and people in town get pissed and call the cops when you hunt them. Like I said, not a hill to die on for this reticle. Even with the silly 10 mil stadia, it is still better than the Nightforce offerings or any of those busy-looking Xmas tree reticles.

What is it that you dislike on say the Mil-C reticle?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[ElPollo]

What is it that you dislike on say the Mil-C reticle?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

It’s not bold enough. It disappears in complex backgrounds.

 

[Dioni A]

It’s not bold enough. It disappears in complex backgrounds.

It's easy to use the wrong wind hold. Too busy

 

[Jaden Bales]

@Dioni A @Jaden Bales do either of you have one of those en route to review?

...yes. I think. Haven't gotten the full "OK" from the bossman on here is all.

 

[Mike D Texas]

I would argue that the .2 mil resolution is better in practical use than .5 mil has marks for holdover.

On the F1 versions I agree up until about 8x the subtensions and thin reticle is hard to impossible to use. But typically when you will be using holds it will be at distances where 10x or higher magnification is used.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[RWT]

Everyone on this thread will be sideways when it is revealed the scope that Form is testing and shall not be named is actually a Leupold made in Mexico.

 

[Dioni A]

Everyone on this thread will be sideways when it is revealed the scope that Form is testing and shall not be named is actually a Leupold made in Mexico.

If you're going to try and be funny please do it in meme format.

 

[Clark33]

Maybe I’m weird but the mil-r on the ffp 4-14 seems pretty damn good.

 

[dreamingWest]

Maybe I’m weird but the mil-r on the ffp 4-14 seems pretty damn good.

Agree

 

[NSI]

You are not weird. It is very good. I like it a lot, and it lives on one of my rifles. Is it good enough to justify being 5oz heavier than the Trij 3-18 with less zoom range? Not for me.

-J

 

[sndmn11]

Maybe I’m weird but the mil-r on the ffp 4-14 seems pretty damn good.

I know the SHV version is different, but can't remember if it's just what is illuminated, or if the SHV outer posts are dark longer. I don't have a problem on lower power, and I'm pretty sure @KickinNDishin and my brother both shot deer this year at low power.

 

[Formidilosus]

Maybe I’m weird but the mil-r on the ffp 4-14 seems pretty damn good.

For a dedicated open country reticle it is ok, and certainly the best mil reticle NF currently offers for hunting. It definitely is lacking some for low light, broken woods use. And it compromises low power, low light broken woods use for no functional gain at any other range.

The Trijicon Tenmile 3-18x’s have turned out to be very good trouble free scopes, however, the reticle is compromised for general use. Yes it is workable, it also is thin for all around use in broken terrain/trees for again, no benefit. The tree is unneeded and unused by almost anyone, with thick out posts 12.5 mils from center. Even illuminated, the entire reticle lights up making a huge blob of red or green light that doesn’t have a defined center aiming point.


Having used the Maven SHR reticle in multiple scopes, it is by far better in hunting use than the Mil-R, and is better than all but maybe the SWFA Mil-Quad and THLR reticle. The THLR is different enough that most people have to be educated on why it is the way it is, and then see and shoot with it to understand and want it. The SWFA MQ is only available in their scopes, and while a good reticle lots of people would still prefer a more “duplex” like reticle, and one with a center dot.
Those things are addressed in the SHR Mil reticle- 4x thicker posts 5 mils from center, half mil graduations, and a center dot- pretty solid. The outer posts could be a bit thicker, however they are totally functional in all conditions I have seen it in, and by everyone that I have seen use it.

 

[wind gypsy]

What is the perceived benefit of this scope over LRHS2? RS3.2? Tenmile? SHV?

Assuming it works, that $1200 range has competition.

Reticle and mag range are the 2 items I think are better for a hunting scope than the bushys that I'm quite fond of. Not sure its enough to make me want to sell a bushy to buy one but if starting from scratch i'd consider it.