Maven RS1.2 2.5-15x44 new model

[HighUintas]

If anyone wants to get rid of their AAD caps from the bundle because they're huge and noisy and would like to replace them with butler creeks, the objective size 33 and ocular size 19 work well.

I know some folks say BCs have well known failures blah blah blah. Well, I've used them for a long time and haven't had any failures. They seal out the weather very well and seem to be durable enough for me. I use but don't neglect my gear. For $20, I think the BCs are awesome.

 

[Macintosh]

Everyone says that but I don't think it plays out that way in reality.

Its easy to calculate cant error, and it is significant at long range. When you stack it on top of your wobble and your bad wind call, its a major error that is controllable. That a higher scope will accentuate the error is not in question; whether it is functionally more in practice perhaps someone can come along and provide us some numbers? I recall reading something on the topic that quantified it and made me think it was significant, but my google-fu is lacking this morning.

 

[JohnJohnson]

That a higher scope will accentuate the error is not in question; whether it is functionally more in practice perhaps someone can come along and provide us some numbers? I recall reading something on the topic that quantified it and made me think it was significant, but my google-fu is lacking this morning.

They go over it in the linked video using a scope base that's like 3 feet high. Even with that cartoonishly high height over bore it was almost exactly the same as being mounted 1" high. They talk about why towards the end. It's something people say a lot due to how logical it seems on the face of it and I think theoretically there's probably some 0.1% difference or something. But for practical purposes it's basically a myth.

 

[Macintosh]

Like I said, its relatively easy to quantify, I’d like to see that. Will watch the video and see if its covered in that detail.

 

[pattimusprime22]

I would expect that the error that cant causes is mostly a function of the degrees of cant. Whether the scope is 1" high or 3ft high doesn't change much when both are canted 10 degrees. The lateral difference should largely be close to 36" x tan(10deg) as that is how much more the scope moves relative to the barrel as opposed to the 1" high scope.

 

[Macintosh]

Here is the article I was referring to earlier--basically what he says--in numbers--is that if you are zeroing for each range it doesnt matter, but if you are zeroed at a shorter range than you are shooting at, then a higher scope DOES exacerbate cant error. I CANT say (get it?? kneeslapper...) how many inches on target it is, but this seems to make sense to me...the whole article is saying that scope height is irrelevant to cant EXCEPT if you are shooting at a range grater than your zero...which is exactly what we are doing hunter past point blank range. If someone is capable enough at the maths and can debunk this one way or another, I'd love it, though.

High scope and canting - the end of an ancient myth

Anglia, Középfölde, Midlands, Field Target lövészet, légpuska, légfegyver, utazás, kertek, rózsák, kastélyok, várak, városnézés

www.szottesfold.co.uk

 

[atmat]

My understanding was that a high-mounted scope doesn’t increase the error caused by cant, but that it increases the likelihood of cant due to the pivot arm being longer.

In other words: it’s easier to hold steady a low-mounted scope that’s 1* off-axis vs a high-mounted scope. The latter is likely to tilt more (or require greater input to keep from tipping over).

I’ll watch the video later today though!

 

[pattimusprime22]

I'm sure I got some trig wrong in my above comment. It's been a long time since high school...

 

[JohnJohnson]

Here is the article I was referring to earlier--basically what he says--in numbers--is that if you are zeroing for each range it doesnt matter, but if you are zeroed at a shorter range than you are shooting at, then a higher scope DOES exacerbate cant error. I CANT say (get it?? kneeslapper...) how many inches on target it is, but this seems to make sense to me...the whole article is saying that scope height is irrelevant to cant EXCEPT if you are shooting at a range grater than your zero...which is exactly what we are doing hunter past point blank range. If someone is capable enough at the maths and can debunk this one way or another, I'd love it, though.

High scope and canting - the end of an ancient myth

Anglia, Középfölde, Midlands, Field Target lövészet, légpuska, légfegyver, utazás, kertek, rózsák, kastélyok, várak, városnézés

www.szottesfold.co.uk

I'm a bit confused to be honest. I've pasted the conclusions from the article you're referencing below. The author himself wrote these conclusions. They seem to indicate it makes no real difference since point #1 applies to us since we dial for elevation right?

PART IV. – CONCLUSIONS

1. In general, especially in FT shooting, where we do the required correction of LOS within our scope (i.e. adjusting turrets or holding over with certain mildots), the canting error is totally independent from the scope height, higher scopes are NOT more sensitive to canting angle than low ones.

2. If we do the correction outside the scope (i.e. we have zeroed the rifle at a given distance and then shoot at another target with a holdover which is measured at the target), the canting error can be different – more or less – with the higher scopes. It will be more if the new range is greater than the zero range and less if it's shorter.

Considering that we are allowed to use bubble levels on our rifles so canting is not a real aspect for us, I say that we can rise the scope as high as we want to, it will mean no disadvantages with canting. The more important point is that even those who have lower scopes have to pay the same attention to levelling the rifle because their canting error is the same as the others' with high scopes.

 

[Shortschaf]

My understanding was that a high-mounted scope doesn’t increase the error caused by cant, but that it increases the likelihood of cant due to the pivot arm being longer.

This is not correct. The longer something is, the easier it is to level. One degree is one degree. With 57 inch tall scope rings, one degree moves your scope 1 inch to the side.

With 1 inch high scope rings, one degree moves your scope 0.017" to the side.

This scope height conversation is good and fine, but should have it's own thread at this point (not directed at anyone in particular)

 

[Macintosh]

Separate cant thread started for any of you nerds that are interested. (Like me)

fact or fiction: higher scope height increases cant error (and how much)

I am sure this has been discussed, but seems to have some myth surrounding it, so figured I'd start a new thread to ask specifically. I can find a number of articles on the topic of cant, but few that quantify the error including scope height as a variable. rifle cant causes error at long...

rokslide.com

 

[cowdisciple]

RS1.2 MOAs are back in stock.

 

[cowdisciple]

There is now also a Mil version (not bundle) back in stock.

 

[503Dan]

It’s probably already been asked and I’ve missed it. How does the moa reticle compare to the mil on low power for lowlight hunting? I’m not set on needing mils or moa but I love the old post style reticle so I might go for a moa model if it’s as visible as the mil

 

[Dioni A]

It’s probably already been asked and I’ve missed it. How does the moa reticle compare to the mil on low power for lowlight hunting? I’m not set on needing mils or moa but I love the old post style reticle so I might go for a moa model if it’s as visible as the mil

If anything it should be better. The heavier bar to the outside of the reticle is closer to center on the MOA. Otherwise they're very similar

 

[503Dan]

T

If anything it should be better. The heavier bar to the outside of the reticle is closer to center on the MOA. Otherwise they're very similar

Thanks, I know I should buy a mil scope but boy does a post look nice up close in the timber

 

[Formidilosus]

T

Thanks, I know I should buy a mil scope but boy does a post look nice up close in the timber

What post are you referring to?

 

[503Dan]

What post are you referring to?

The moa-2 reticle looks to me like it could be used similar to the old German post reticles. Sort of similar to a thlr on low power. I grew up using an old weaver with the post and I still like that reticle but I’m not sure if Mavens would work like that on low power or not.

 

[Formidilosus]

The moa-2 reticle looks to me like it could be used similar to the old German post reticles. Sort of similar to a thlr on low power. I grew up using an old weaver with the post and I still like that reticle but I’m not sure if Mavens would work like that on low power or not.

There is no post-

 

[503Dan]

I know there’s not a true post, I guess do you think it would feel more like using a fine duplex or closer to using something like this old weaver reticle?