Maven RS1.2 2.5-15x44 new model

[sndmn11]

I don't think that your two field drops have proven much, yet.

There's a bit more than two, and I'm also not offended with your skepticism.

 

[prm]

The shooting setup: property is getting sold so my bench and usual target is gone. This will have to do for now. This is a tikka with a SPR chambered brux in 25 creedmoor. Stock is an alterra that they bedded for me. Sportsmatch t084 rings with 50in/lb on bases and 25in/lb on the rings. View attachment 642349

Shot a bore sight, adjusted based on the reticle, then shot this group and set the turrets to zero. More shots would be ideal, but pretty confident in the zero. For reference this gun with this load shoots .8-1.2” 10 shot groups. Mostly gets shot at steel and animals.View attachment 642353

Was not set up to video. Here’s the drop setup. 1/2 thick foam mat on top of recently plowed soil. Still fairly hard which made me nervous. I did 3x drops on top, left, right sides all in a row. Height ranged from 28-32”. Chickened out on the 36” because the turrets were cutting into the mat; it seemed pretty rough lots of bouncing and vibration noises. The elevation turret slipped a half mil during the drops. Set it back to zero.

View attachment 642357


First shot. Couldn’t see it so I ran up to the target to see and took a picture.
View attachment 642350


Shot 4 more. Heart rate was up from all the movement. Starting to get a bit of mirage off my barrel. Rest is not as solid as it could be but..

View attachment 642354

Seems to have held zero. Shots are all within the expected cone for this gun/load.


Will leave this scope on and keep track over time.

Very happy with the reticle, glass, and ergonomics of the scope. Glass is very easy to get behind. It might be my favorite reticle I’ve used. The floating dot is nice, reticle is clean. Totally useable on low and high power. I need to spend more time behind it but so far there is nothing at all to complain about.

Thanks. A virtual toast to you!

 

[willfrye027]

Whoa, killer!

You haven't proven "durability". Not trying to be a jerk, but you have a lot of eyes watching, potentially. Some with credit cards ready, others technically minded.

I don't think that your two field drops have proven much, yet.

I hope you don't get offended by this post, but this is the sort of stuff that has turned people off to the drop eval. Not formi per se, or his eval, but claims that are not founded. Yet.

The people willing to drop their scopes, and post the results, is highly commendable. Not trying to take that away from anyone.

Just need to exercise some caution with these posts!

Yeah, I think long term durability is a different issue and obviously takes much longer to establish.

Failed drop tests from us amateurs doesn’t necessarily mean much. I had a swfa 3-9 that I thought was not surviving bumps and 18” drops but it was actually my barrel not torqued on tight enough. Fail means the system failed.

A passed drop test does mean something. The system including the scope survived.

I will periodically check zero on this one but at this point it’s something I would trust to hunt with.

 

[sierracharlie338]

Better be an MOA guy! I wouldn't be surprised if they sell out of mil before then.

Me no likey MOA these days! Don’t jinx me bro! Lol!!

 

[Sandstrom]

Whoa, killer!

You haven't proven "durability". Not trying to be a jerk, but you have a lot of eyes watching, potentially. Some with credit cards ready, others technically minded.

I don't think that your two field drops have proven much, yet.

I hope you don't get offended by this post, but this is the sort of stuff that has turned people off to the drop eval. Not formi per se, or his eval, but claims that are not founded. Yet.

The people willing to drop their scopes, and post the results, is highly commendable. Not trying to take that away from anyone.

Just need to exercise some caution with these posts!

What would you need to see for them to be proven durable? If you are going to criticize the guys with the balls to drop there new (expensive) scopes to help better everyone else on this forum interested in scopes that actually work, at least offer some constructive feedback as to how they can do it better, or explain how it has “turned people off”
Ryan

 

[prm]

Of course it’s not a statistically significant number. But when other brands go 0-1 this is at least a positive indicator that a scope may hold zero with regular use.

 

[ljalberta]

What would you need to see for them to be proven durable? If you are going to criticize the guys with the balls to drop there new (expensive) scopes to help better everyone else on this forum interested in scopes that actually work, at least offer some constructive feedback as to how they can do it better, or explain how it has “turned people off”
Ryan

Long term use reports. Gravel road/ATV bouncing around use and verification (I’ve had scopes lose zero this way).

Love seeing the drops. But as others have mentioned, it’s only the first part of the picture.

 

[Dioni A]

Long term use reports. Gravel road/ATV bouncing around use and verification (I’ve had scopes lose zero this way).

Love seeing the drops. But as others have mentioned, it’s only the first part of the picture.

If 12 drops from over 3 ft don't cause a shift I have a hard time imagining riding around in a truck is going to screw this thing up. I'd also imagine there's a strong correlation between passing the drop test and long-term use.

 

[Sandstrom]

Long term use reports. Gravel road/ATV bouncing around use and verification (I’ve had scopes lose zero this way).

Love seeing the drops. But as others have mentioned, it’s only the first part of the picture.

100% agree with you.
My understanding of the premise behind the drop test is that if they pass the drop test, they generally hold up to 3000 rounds of actual field use with no problems. If they fail the drop test, they will generally have problems within 3000 rounds of actual field use.
Ryan

 

[Juan_ID]

Ok I’ve moved it to my 6arc. Don’t have much for pads but figure if I use the thin shooting mat I have in conjunction with my glassing pad maybe it will work well enough on the hard ground? Never have drop tested anything before but I know what the rifle is capable of group wise at 100 for 10 rounds so we’ll see how it goes tomorrow morning.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

Ok I’ve moved it to my 6arc. Don’t have much for pads but figure if I use the thin shooting mat I have in conjunction with my glassing pad maybe it will work well enough on the hard ground? Never have drop tested anything before but I know what the rifle is capable of group wise at 100 for 10 rounds so we’ll see how it goes tomorrow morning.
View attachment 642429
View attachment 642431

You gotta up your croc color game! Thanks for being willing to test. Also, probably the angle, but can you even slide a sheet of paper between your scope and barrel? Haha.

 

[sndmn11]

Ok I’ve moved it to my 6arc. Don’t have much for pads but figure if I use the thin shooting mat I have in conjunction with my glassing pad maybe it will work well enough on the hard ground? Never have drop tested anything before but I know what the rifle is capable of group wise at 100 for 10 rounds so we’ll see how it goes tomorrow morning.
View attachment 642429
View attachment 642431

I think you need what you listed X3

 

[Formidilosus]

Ok I’ve moved it to my 6arc. Don’t have much for pads but figure if I use the thin shooting mat I have in conjunction with my glassing pad maybe it will work well enough on the hard ground? Never have drop tested anything before but I know what the rifle is capable of group wise at 100 for 10 rounds so we’ll see how it goes tomorrow morning.
View attachment 642429
View attachment 642431

High likelihood of breaking something on hard ground with that.

 

[ztc92]

Ok I’ve moved it to my 6arc. Don’t have much for pads but figure if I use the thin shooting mat I have in conjunction with my glassing pad maybe it will work well enough on the hard ground? Never have drop tested anything before but I know what the rifle is capable of group wise at 100 for 10 rounds so we’ll see how it goes tomorrow morning.
View attachment 642429
View attachment 642431

Don’t be me, listen to Form. You need padding that compresses less easily and more of it, especially on hard ground…

High likelihood of breaking something on hard ground with that.

 

[ztc92]

Whoa, killer!

You haven't proven "durability". Not trying to be a jerk, but you have a lot of eyes watching, potentially. Some with credit cards ready, others technically minded.

I don't think that your two field drops have proven much, yet.

I hope you don't get offended by this post, but this is the sort of stuff that has turned people off to the drop eval. Not formi per se, or his eval, but claims that are not founded. Yet.

The people willing to drop their scopes, and post the results, is highly commendable. Not trying to take that away from anyone.

Just need to exercise some caution with these posts!

Yeah, I think long term durability is a different issue and obviously takes much longer to establish.

Failed drop tests from us amateurs doesn’t necessarily mean much. I had a swfa 3-9 that I thought was not surviving bumps and 18” drops but it was actually my barrel not torqued on tight enough. Fail means the system failed.

A passed drop test does mean something. The system including the scope survived.

I will periodically check zero on this one but at this point it’s something I would trust to hunt with.

I think there is some middle ground to acknowledge here. Yes, these scopes are new and long-term use is needed, however the drop test as Form talks about it is something that in statistical terms is very sensitive (negative test is a true negative, I.e. scope passes the drop test) but not very specific (positive test is a true positive - i.e. scope fails the drop test). What that means in practical terms is that there is a ton of value in a scope passing the drop test but if a scope appears to fail, there could be a variety of other factors at play in the scope/rifle system so it’s hard to know for sure if it was the scope.

Now that said, if you do the test with a setup like form where the only variables are the scope rings and the scope itself, the test becomes far more specific, meaning a positive result (scope failing) is very likely a true positive.

All that to say, the fact that we have now had 3+ scopes pass an amateur drop eval is actually very powerful and speaks a lot to the likely durability of this scope. Somewhere Form has discussed the statistics behind this with real world numbers but I can’t find that post. To summarize his logic, if this line of scopes from Maven has a durability issue, what are the chances that 3+ of us all got random samples that just happened to pass the drop eval? Sure a larger sample size, ideally 30+ would be best but we’re off to a good start in building it.

Looking forward to seeing that sample size grow over time, as I too really like this scope and will certainly be pulling for Maven after they essentially built the scope that Rokslide was asking for.

 

[4th_point]

There's a bit more than two, and I'm also not offended with your skepticism.

What would you need to see for them to be proven durable?

I think there is some middle ground to acknowledge here. Yes, these scopes are new and long-term use is needed, however the drop test as Form talks about it is something that in statistical terms is very sensitive (negative test is a true negative, I.e. scope passes the drop test) but not very specific (positive test is a true positive - i.e. scope fails the drop test). What that means in practical terms is that there is a ton of value in a scope passing the drop test but if a scope appears to fail, there could be a variety of other factors at play in the scope/rifle system so it’s hard to know for sure if it was the scope.

You could consider it a simple check of the design. A validation of the design. You might also consider it a pseudo-accelerated test. But, you have not proven the durability.

Durability has a specific technical definition but maybe you guys are thinking "tough" or "strong like bull!"?

I'm not knocking what you guys are doing with your new Maven scopes. Highly commendable to question your equipment, investigate, and present the results. I would just suggest a little more rigor, and caution against jumping to conclusions.

I don't think a good "baseline" group has been presented yet. I see improvement opportunities. I would suggest that be the focus, before dropping anything.

In other words, I think you guys are "seeing what you want to see".

Semantics perhaps, but I offer my skepticism as a person with 20+ year background in research and product development as a test engineer. You test systems long enough and you see weird things. And yes, I have had to deal with limited samples, compressed schedules, etc.

I started dropping scope-rifle combos ~10 years ago. At that time Carl and Formi provided advice along with others who had been doing it for much longer. Since then, I changed career paths and gained technical expertise relevant to this topic. You don't need that technical background though. Just curiosity and impartiality. We could make this super complicated, but it doesn't need to be!

I don't have a problem with Formi's method. I don't think he's ever called it a test, and has been careful presenting the information. However, the reader needs to be careful, especially regurgitating the information elsewhere. If I had a dollar for everytime I read, "Go to the Rokslide scope evals!"...

Ryan probably loves the traffic but the messengers have misinterpreted the information and made people skeptical. We don't need that here, or anywhere. People who know my background have asked if some here are just Maven shills. I don't think so. If I were with Maven I wouldn't want anything to with the results thus far. And other companies are probably chuckling.

I don't think that you need to do the full meal deal, as Formi mentioned above. Start small man! Just do it really well. Establish a really good baseline. Do a small drop and confirm.

I don't do the whole meal deal. But I drop on harder surfaces or higher, for various reasons. And have been using a lot of SWFA, so I do a quick check and move one. But this is Formi's gig, and I guess Ryan's.

If you are happy with the results of the Maven, rock on!

 

[4th_point]

PS - I have no affiliation with any scope manufacturer. Or reseller of scopes, or dealers.

 

[wind gypsy]

Mavin: “We’ve been paying attention. We’re going to make you a robust scope.”

Roksliders:

 

[Juan_ID]

You gotta up your croc color game! Thanks for being willing to test. Also, probably the angle, but can you even slide a sheet of paper between your scope and barrel? Haha.

It’s just the angle, it’s got plenty of clearance. And the crocs were on sale for like 50% off a few years ago, couldn’t pass up the deal regardless of color haha!

High likelihood of breaking something on hard ground with that.

I think you need what you listed X3

Don’t be me, listen to Form. You need padding that compresses less easily and more of it, especially on hard ground…

So more foam padding or do you think like a thick moving blanket folded a few times under my 2 mats would maybe work? The ground where I shoot will be hard due to the cold temp but there was maybe 3-4” of crunchy snow on the ground too.

 

[willfrye027]

You could consider it a simple check of the design. A validation of the design. You might also consider it a pseudo-accelerated test. But, you have not proven the durability.

Durability has a specific technical definition but maybe you guys are thinking "tough" or "strong like bull!"?

I'm not knocking what you guys are doing with your new Maven scopes. Highly commendable to question your equipment, investigate, and present the results. I would just suggest a little more rigor, and caution against jumping to conclusions.

I don't think a good "baseline" group has been presented yet. I see improvement opportunities. I would suggest that be the focus, before dropping anything.

In other words, I think you guys are "seeing what you want to see".

Semantics perhaps, but I offer my skepticism as a person with 20+ year background in research and product development as a test engineer. You test systems long enough and you see weird things. And yes, I have had to deal with limited samples, compressed schedules, etc.

I started dropping scope-rifle combos ~10 years ago. At that time Carl and Formi provided advice along with others who had been doing it for much longer. Since then, I changed career paths and gained technical expertise relevant to this topic. You don't need that technical background though. Just curiosity and impartiality. We could make this super complicated, but it doesn't need to be!

I don't have a problem with Formi's method. I don't think he's ever called it a test, and has been careful presenting the information. However, the reader needs to be careful, especially regurgitating the information elsewhere. If I had a dollar for everytime I read, "Go to the Rokslide scope evals!"...

Ryan probably loves the traffic but the messengers have misinterpreted the information and made people skeptical. We don't need that here, or anywhere. People who know my background have asked if some here are just Maven shills. I don't think so. If I were with Maven I wouldn't want anything to with the results thus far. And other companies are probably chuckling.

I don't think that you need to do the full meal deal, as Formi mentioned above. Start small man! Just do it really well. Establish a really good baseline. Do a small drop and confirm.

I don't do the whole meal deal. But I drop on harder surfaces or higher, for various reasons. And have been using a lot of SWFA, so I do a quick check and move one. But this is Formi's gig, and I guess Ryan's.

If you are happy with the results of the Maven, rock on!

Definitely appreciate the experience you are bringing here. I’ll upload my baseline groups for the setup, I do think that is very important to the evaluating. I SHOULD have a 30 round baseline group but admittedly I am happy with doing a few 10 rounders. As much as I appreciate forms test method I don’t personally feel the need to replicate it to the same fidelity. I didn’t really expect maven to produce something NXS level (but would be stoked if they did). My benchmark is the bushnell LRHSs which I have been happily using and killing things with.

If a guy sees these amateur tests and feels the need to pull out his credit card, I’m OK with that. I feel fairly confident this scope will do decently well in Forms test..plus maven has a good warranty. It’s the off season for me and I’ve got plenty of time to put this scope to the test before taking it on a hunt.