Maven RS1.2 2.5-15x44 new model

[35WhelenAI]

I'm going to chime in here on the Maven RS 2 scope. 2.3"-3.2" eye relief from converting Maven mm specifications to inches. That's ridiculous. I was curious about that scope enough that I checked it out, but that rules it out. The new one being discussed in this thread has more acceptable relief.

 

[HighUintas]

We're kind of narrowing in on the same 'want' over here in this poll:

VOTE: Maven's Next Scope

Ok, right off the bat, I am not affiliated with Maven in any way other than being a happy RS1.2 customer that's hungry for more of the same performance in different configurations and price points. Seeking to bring attention to the demand that I suspect exists currently within the 'Slide...

rokslide.com

It's characterized a few different ways just because details and preferences vary, but I think the hypothetical "RS2.2DA" option requested by Dioni A in the poll just about checks the box for ya?
That or the SFP RS2.2 (item 3 in the poll).
nteresting that so far, except for fixed 6, almost all of the votes are circling around the 2-10 to 3-12 mag range, lighter than RS1.2, less bells and whistles, bombproof reliability (obviously).

I voted for the rs2.2da only because it's the lightest option. I like the idea of the rss3.9 better except for the weight. Having the same obj diameter of the rs2.2da, the weight increase doesn't make sense unless it's also a 30mm tube, which I don't think is necessary. It should also have the same/similar reticle to the rs1.2 it doesn't really need illumination and the shr reticle is just kind of a joke since you can shoot to 1000 with 9-10x.

My dream is the rs2 made bombproof, FFP, exposed elevation, w the rs1.2 reticle. It could be changed to 3-9 if needed

I'm going to chime in here on the Maven RS 2 scope. 2.3"-3.2" eye relief from converting Maven mm specifications to inches. That's ridiculous. I was curious about that scope enough that I checked it out, but that rules it out. The new one being discussed in this thread has more acceptable relief.

It's not an issue, at least not for me mounted on a Tikka. People get so hung up on eye relief when it's not that big of deal unless your mount position options are severely limited or your body is built strangely

 

[35WhelenAI]

HighUintas, what cartridge are you shooting?

For me, a lightweight heavier recoiling rifle (lightweight is part of the implication that recoil comes with it) simply needs more than just over 3" of max eye relief. Taking a quick shooting position in the field is something I have done many times. I'm not sure about others, so I won't speak for them. I appreciate eye relief that becomes more non-critical in those situations.

 

[HighUintas]

HighUintas, what cartridge are you shooting?

For me, a lightweight heavier recoiling rifle (lightweight is part of the implication that recoil comes with it) simply needs more than just over 3" of max eye relief. Taking a quick shooting position in the field is something I have done many times. I'm not sure about others, so I won't speak for them. I appreciate eye relief that becomes more non-critical in those situations.

Now a 30-284. 185gr at 2825. When I used that scope it was a factory superlite 30-06, with 180gr at 2850. I'm only 155lbs , so it pushed me around a bit.

The scope never bit me and I never had a problem getting good picture quickly in a variety of positions. It's probably due to how I positioned the scope in combination with holding the butt pretty tightly into my shoulder. I guess I can see that if you have very minimal hold on the rifle, it's kicking hard, and you have it at 10x it might get you in the eye socket

 

[35WhelenAI]

I've never been scope bit, however I've always shot Leupolds....

Eye relieve and field of view are connected. Lower eye relief, more field of view. I believe it's pretty standard with respect to the mechanics of it. It takes a bit of design to get more eye relief at the same field of view. I can't directly compare a Leupold to the Maven RS2. However extrapolating to similar field of views, the Leupold has it beat by an inch or a bit more on either end of the magnification.

 

[swavescatter]

Gonna go shoot this new scope with a new 6.5PRC. Can't wait.

 

[Juan_ID]

I have since transferred this scope to my 223 since I sold my arc, it had been riding under my backseat for about 3 weeks. Lots of bumpy city roads and some forest service roads but not much unfortunately. Went out to shoot again today finally, shot about 10 rounds at 475ish then transferred to my 6.5 just to see how it was grouping. I forgot to shoot a 10 rounder before I took it off the 223 initially but after shooting at 475 with the 223 then about 30 rounds with the 6.5 I shot this 10 rounder with the 223. I don’t believe it’s moved, I have ~250 rounds shot with the scope at this point.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

I have since transferred this scope to my 223 since I sold my arc, it had been riding under my backseat for about 3 weeks. Lots of bumpy city roads and some forest service roads but not much unfortunately. Went out to shoot again today finally, shot about 10 rounds at 475ish then transferred to my 6.5 just to see how it was grouping. I forgot to shoot a 10 rounder before I took it off the 223 initially but after shooting at 475 with the 223 then about 30 rounds with the 6.5 I shot this 10 rounder with the 223. I don’t believe it’s moved, I have ~250 rounds shot with the scope at this point.
View attachment 663819
View attachment 663818

Nice!

 

[Balderdash]

With respect, that seems fairly sensitive with respect to what he posted and how it was taken. He didn't marginalize opinions, he stated his opinion which is the desire for what is becoming less available.

I do agree there are 40 years worth of scopes like that and there is a Maven that the matches that description. But does it have the same attention to "detail" as the one being discussed in this thread? Don't know.

I don't care for, based on 30 years in the field, lighted reticles, dials, side, focuses, etc. on a scope either. Good glass, reliable performance, and something that doesn't weigh a pound and a half or more is perfect.

In my opinion, it is not marginalizing to state that is what he wants in a scope.

I was simply curious as to why a person reads through and posts dismissively on a thread about a model or type of scope that they admittedly have little interest in or use for. Main logical conclusion I could draw was that it was a way to tell those interested in this scope that many features they think they need or want are actually superfluous. Maybe that's not the case at all, which is good, too. Certainly everyone is entitled to form and express their own opinion.

 

[35WhelenAI]

^^Good post^^. IMO, nothing was said adisparaging towards the model being discussed, it simply said what he likes and doesn't like in a scope. I wouldn't read much into it.

It's a great scope by initial counts, hope it is a good one for Maven.

 

[Balderdash]

Agreed! I want Maven to make their rs2 bombproof. I like that scope but traded it for an swfa 3-9

I don't know if there's any equivalence whatsoever between the Weaver 2-10 Classic V and the Maven 2-10; AFAIK, both models were sourced from LOW, and the 2-10 Weaver suffered from some of the same optical malodies some report about Maven 2-10. Not to say the Weaver 2-10 were bad scopes, but the very similar 3-9 Weaver Classic V was a much more user friendly scope due to less critical eye box, and less "tubing" effect on lower X.

I had a Weaver 2-10 for a time. Liked it well enough. Eye relief was on the scant side IIRC, but had it on a LW 35 Whelen and never felt it got too close. Was a good scope mechanically. I much preferred the Classic 6x's and grand slam 4.75X I had, and would likely still be using a couple of them and the Sightron 6X's if they were available with a reticle similar to the MQ; they were all light, rugged, and held zero very well.

 

[ME180]

Reading through many of the drop test posts makes me want to consider replacing my Leupold VX5HD on my backcountry rifle. I know glass is secondary to function and retaining zero. If replacing my scope it would be nice to know how the glass on the Maven RS1.2 2.5-15 compares to the Leupold VX5HD 3-15 in clarity and low light. Has anyone compared the the two? Maybe I missed it in the multiple pages posted.

I also have a Athlon Ares UTR UHD 4.5-30 on a Tikka CTR that has surprisingly nice glass. Has the Maven RS1.2 2.5-15 been compared to side by side to the Athlon Ares series? Has anyone dropped the Athlon Ares?

 

[Balderdash]

Gonna go shoot this new scope with a new 6.5PRC. Can't wait.View attachment 663671

Nice looking rig.

I put a Maven RS1.2 on a well proven LW 300 WM. It'll get knocked around for a awhile, then it will likely make its way onto a 6.5 PRC Tikka. I generally try all my new scopes on the 300WM; it's exceedingly accurate so I can easily narrow down any problems, and I like to see how scopes do with the recoil. IME, 300 WM recoil can shake out some mechanically poor scope designs.

 

[Balderdash]

Reading through many of the drop test posts makes me want to consider replacing my Leupold VX5HD on my backcountry rifle. I know glass is secondary to function and retaining zero. If replacing my scope it would be nice to know how the glass on the Maven RS1.2 2.5-15 compares to the Leupold VX5HD 3-15 in clarity and low light. Has anyone compared the the two? Maybe I missed it in the multiple pages posted.

I also have a Athlon Ares UTR UHD 4.5-30 on a Tikka CTR that has surprisingly nice glass. Has the Maven RS1.2 2.5-15 been compared to side by side to the Athlon Ares series? Has anyone dropped the Athlon Ares?

I sold off the VX5 and 6 I had years ago and they weren't HD, so I cant comment on a SXS. IIRC, they had very good glass. View on the Maven RS1.2 is also very good, and I dont think you'll be disappointed in that regard. One thing that is a huge step up between them is the reticle on the Maven - it's very well designed.

Shoot me a PM with your location. If close enough, you can do a SXS with my Maven and send a bunch of lead downrange before you decide.

 

[swavescatter]

Nice looking rig.

I put a Maven RS1.2 on a well proven LW 300 WM. It'll get knocked around for a awhile, then it will likely make its way onto a 6.5 PRC Tikka. I generally try all my new scopes on the 300WM; it's exceedingly accurate so I can easily narrow down any problems, and I like to see how scopes do with the recoil. IME, 300 WM recoil can shake out some mechanically poor scope designs.

I was honing in on my 100yd zero when I *think* I saw an abrubt ~1.5MOA (not used to MILs yet) shift to the right between rounds. I had cleaned it a couple rounds before so maybe it was fouling? Not ready to be concerned yet as things remained tight after that, and there were a lot of other potential factors.

 

[Balderdash]

I was honing in on my 100yd zero when I *think* I saw an abrubt ~1.5MOA (not used to MILs yet) shift to the right between rounds. I had cleaned it a couple rounds before so maybe it was fouling? Not ready to be concerned yet as things remained tight after that, and there were a lot of other potential factors.

Thanks for the report. Please post back up if you see it continue or not.

I've experienced similar with brand new scopes on brand new rifles. It's why I try to run new rigs with proven scopes and new scopes on proven rigs before getting too serious about a final set up. Less variables to look at if things aren't coming together.

 

[sndmn11]

Reading through many of the drop test posts makes me want to consider replacing my Leupold VX5HD on my backcountry rifle. I know glass is secondary to function and retaining zero. If replacing my scope it would be nice to know how the glass on the Maven RS1.2 2.5-15 compares to the Leupold VX5HD 3-15 in clarity and low light. Has anyone compared the the two? Maybe I missed it in the multiple pages posted.

I also have a Athlon Ares UTR UHD 4.5-30 on a Tikka CTR that has surprisingly nice glass. Has the Maven RS1.2 2.5-15 been compared to side by side to the Athlon Ares series? Has anyone dropped the Athlon Ares?

I can't foresee any situation where the Maven, or any other rifle scope I've looked through, doesn't have the optical ability to do it's job. My opinion is that you would be equally as satisfied in practice with the RS1.2 as any other rifle scope used as a rifle scope.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

Reading through many of the drop test posts makes me want to consider replacing my Leupold VX5HD on my backcountry rifle. I know glass is secondary to function and retaining zero. If replacing my scope it would be nice to know how the glass on the Maven RS1.2 2.5-15 compares to the Leupold VX5HD 3-15 in clarity and low light. Has anyone compared the the two? Maybe I missed it in the multiple pages posted.

I also have a Athlon Ares UTR UHD 4.5-30 on a Tikka CTR that has surprisingly nice glass. Has the Maven RS1.2 2.5-15 been compared to side by side to the Athlon Ares series? Has anyone dropped the Athlon Ares?

The “glass” is quite good on this scope. You will not lose any kills on game any of time of day with this scope.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

I specifically practiced on coues deer before and after last legal light. I was able to easily get sight pictures and place the reticle on vitals 45 minutes before and after legal light. As close as 45 yards on a water tank and as far as 400ish on a mountain side.

Again, the “glass” on this scope will not cause you “not kill” any animal that another scope would otherwise “let you kill” due to “glass”.

 

[HandgunHTR]

Does anyone have any idea when the the MIL version will become available again?