Maven RS1.2 2.5-15x44 new model

[4th_point]

I’ll try to take some pictures against timber type backgrounds and darker targets when I get out to shoot it next week. If you’re familiar with SWFA and the mil quad reticle on 3x I’d say this is very similar.

I mean it would function like any “plain” duplex reticle like a leupold vari x 3-9. I have good not great vision and I’d have no issue shooting in dark timber
I tru and remember to snap some comparison pics on Sunday

Thanks!

I'm very familiar with the 4-9x Super Birds. Have owned a few but kept them on 4x due to tunneling

The SWFA reminds me of an upside down #4. The posts are thick enough to be usable.

 

[sndmn11]

Mine came, bummed the reticle doesn't say 22 and 44.

I might try solo testing with video tomorrow, otherwise video might have to wait for voluntold @TheViking to have a free day.

 

[Dioni A]

Mine came, bummed the reticle doesn't say 22 and 44.

I might try solo testing with video tomorrow, otherwise video might have to wait for voluntold @TheViking to have a free day.

Do us all proud!

 

[Mountainrancher]

I probably won’t even buy one of these after the insane optics planet deal on the tenmile but man I hope this scope passes a drop test.

 

[Dobermann]

Mine came, bummed the reticle doesn't say 22 and 44.

The internet really needs a sarcastic font emphasis, similar to bold or italics. I can't tell if you're making a joke or serious.

Reason I say this is that putting up a reticle with that much of a mistake in it online seemed like something that surely wouldn't have got through a good marketing person, or the project 'owner' ... so I'd been secretly wondering all this time if they'd actually done it for real, and on purpose - perhaps with the logic that everyone would know it's not 22 or 44 mils, and having double digits was just a way to visually emphasize what the number was / that it was one of the evens. A bit like Nightforce's hokey 'some stadia up and some stadia down' reticles.

Now I don't know if I'm glad it's just single digits, or disappointed they didn't do something wacky to just annoy us that might have actually worked in practice ...

 

[sndmn11]

The internet really needs a sarcastic font emphasis, similar to bold or italics. I can't tell if you're making a joke or serious.

Jazz hands

I would have appreciated having the 1of1 version with subtension reading uno, 22, 3.14, 44, 5

 

[fwafwow]

@Reburn I think said he’s dropping tomorrow

 

[fwafwow]

@Reburn I think said he’s dropping tomorrow

 

[wind gypsy]

Sold out of the bundle deal with rings/caps. Available full price scope only.. was teetering on the edge of giving one a shot with the deal but prob not at full price.

 

[Dobermann]

Sold out of the bundle deal with rings/caps. Available full price scope only.. was teetering on the edge of giving one a shot with the deal but prob not at full price.

Good to know. I've asked them if they'll be offering again during the bundle period (to end Dec, which will give us time to get some initial drop test results). Will post their reply here.

 

[caberslash]

 

[TheCougar]

I’m waiting with bated breath for everyone to chuck their new scopes. I’m skeptical, but hopeful.

I am surprised with the level of credit given to the claim that Maven is aware of the Rokslide drop tests, and even more so that they have somehow decided to incorporate this testing into the redesign of their scope. I’m just not buying it as anything other than great CS telling customers what they want to hear. A company isn’t going to use some random testing from an Internet forum to drive multimillion dollar decisions and product redesigns. At a minimum, if this were true, you would expect to see two things:

1. Ryan and Form would have been consulted by Maven and part of the testing validation, which doesn’t seem to be the case.
2. Maven would be selling the durability and reliability hard, given that is driving force behind redesigned internals and what separates the scope from competitors.

Neither has happened, behind Mavens lip service to improved erectors.

I’m not saying it can’t happen - if Bushy can do it, anyone can, but I’m highly skeptical given Mavens failure to pass a single drop test thus far.

 

[TxLite]

I’m waiting with bated breath for everyone to chuck their new scopes. I’m skeptical, but hopeful.

I am surprised with the level of credit given to the claim that Maven is aware of the Rokslide drop tests, and even more so that they have somehow decided to incorporate this testing into the redesign of their scope. I’m just not buying it as anything other than great CS telling customers what they want to hear. A company isn’t going to use some random testing from an Internet forum to drive multimillion dollar decisions and product redesigns. At a minimum, if this were true, you would expect to see two things:

1. Ryan and Form would have been consulted by Maven and part of the testing validation, which doesn’t seem to be the case.
2. Maven would be selling the durability and reliability hard, given that is driving force behind redesigned internals and what separates the scope from competitors.

Neither has happened, behind Mavens lip service to improved erectors.

I’m not saying it can’t happen - if Bushy can do it, anyone can, but I’m highly skeptical given Mavens failure to pass a single drop test thus far.

Forms testing procedures are pretty laid out for anyone to repeat. What makes you think they’re incapable of dropping a scope and checking zero on their own?

I’m not jumping to conclusions on whether or not they actually did it, but they would be fully capable of doing drop tests if they wanted to.

It seems like a good business practice to make a scope that has a reputation for holding zero. It’s worked out well for Nightforce.

 

[Dioni A]

Forms testing procedures are pretty laid out for anyone to repeat. What makes you think they’re incapable of dropping a scope and checking zero on their own?

I’m not jumping to conclusions on whether or not they actually did it, but they would be fully capable of doing drop tests if they wanted to.

It seems like a good business practice to make a scope that has a reputation for holding zero. It’s worked out well for Nightforce.

The biggest concern I have with other people testing is controlling other variables. Essentially if they do the testing and it passes it carries significant weight. If it doesn't pass was it the mounting, was it the rifle itself was it the shooter?

 

[ResearchinStuff]

Agreed, if you don't have a scope pass on the exact setup, any fail has to be closely scrutinized. Rifles can and should be set up that way, but without careful attention most rifles have multiple factors contributing to loss of zero during drops.

 

[Wyo_hntr]

How many folks have permanently bonded their rifles action to the stock? If they have not, how can they ensure a shift in zero is from the scope and only the scope?

 

[fwafwow]

I’m waiting with bated breath for everyone to chuck their new scopes. I’m skeptical, but hopeful.

I am surprised with the level of credit given to the claim that Maven is aware of the Rokslide drop tests, and even more so that they have somehow decided to incorporate this testing into the redesign of their scope. I’m just not buying it as anything other than great CS telling customers what they want to hear. A company isn’t going to use some random testing from an Internet forum to drive multimillion dollar decisions and product redesigns. At a minimum, if this were true, you would expect to see two things:

1. Ryan and Form would have been consulted by Maven and part of the testing validation, which doesn’t seem to be the case.
2. Maven would be selling the durability and reliability hard, given that is driving force behind redesigned internals and what separates the scope from competitors.

Neither has happened, behind Mavens lip service to improved erectors.

I’m not saying it can’t happen - if Bushy can do it, anyone can, but I’m highly skeptical given Mavens failure to pass a single drop test thus far.

I get and agree with the skepticism. If they were taking into account drop testing, I would think they would announce it in some fashion - on here, or on their website.

 

[BjornF16]

How many folks have permanently bonded their rifles action to the stock? If they have not, how can they ensure a shift in zero is from the scope and only the scope?

Not many hunters are permanently bonding action to stock.

That’s the purpose of Form’s testing: Eliminate variables to focus on scope. In his case, scope/ring combo.

It’s up to the hunter to select reliable components and install them correctly. We’re all benefiting from his drops

 

[Dioni A]

How many folks have permanently bonded their rifles action to the stock? If they have not, how can they ensure a shift in zero is from the scope and only the scope?

I think enough people on here are shooting reasonably solid enough systems that you can draw some conclusions. If it's a Tikka that they've mentioned that it has properly been torqued or bedded and they're using a direct mount ring like unknown munitions or sports match I'm reasonably confident in their system. I think it would also depend on the degree of failure. If the shot falls a quarter inch out I'm more inclined to think it passed. If the shot falls 7 in off that's a different story.

 

[sndmn11]

How many folks have permanently bonded their rifles action to the stock? If they have not, how can they ensure a shift in zero is from the scope and only the scope?

Test "known" scope models until their setup passes.

If someone sees similar shift with two or more models that should not see significant shift, it's fair to say they probably do not have a suitable setup for evaluating.

If someone can get one other scope to have significantly smaller shift, then the setup is almost certainly proofed. Scope slippage then needs to be checked on the shifting scope.

If a setup can be proofed prior to, a new scope shows shift, and then the original setup does not, then there's a good chance the scope got wonky.