Maven RS1.2 2.5-15x44 new model

[atmat]

Better overall glass? I don’t think so. How did you come to this conclusion?

I do think the glass is better on the Maven. Not hugely so, but better.

The mil C reticle is more than serviceable.

It’s serviceable for hunting, but not much more. The RS1.2 is a legitimately good reticle.

I love NF and have owned/shot l several NXS and NX8. I trust their ruggedness more than the Maven for now. But I think the Maven is a better hunting rifle.

 

[HuntHarder]

I had the chance to finally shoot a gun with a Maven on it last week. I honestly thought glass wise, the Nx-8 was better. Which is weird, because I think the NX8 glass is meh. As far as reticle goes, I am kind of a Basic B and really just want wind marks and a fine aiming center mark. The eye box was better on the Maven when comparing it to my 2.5-20 NX8. There aren't too many scopes that have a worse eye box than my Nightforce tho. lol I liked the turrets better on the Nightforce. The Maven looks cheap to me, especially their checkering. Again, all this is really just opinion.

 

[Formidilosus]

Some objectiveness-

The RS1.2 is not more absolute rugged/durable than a NF NX8 on average. It’s a good scope, but let’s not overstate what it is. Every single NF NX8 is being checked for correct function before being shipped.

The eyebox issue on both NX8’s are overblown by a lot- especially the 4-32x model. On normal magnification levels- 10-16’ish X, the 4-32x is as good as any other scope. Of course on max mag they are tighter- just as with any other high zoom ratio scope.

The SHR-Mil reticle for all around hunting/field use on RS1.2 is far superior to any NF reticle- though the bold outer posts should still be thicker.

As far as glass, both are good and people are mostly seeing what they want to see when they say the NX8 is “lacking”. The Maven is a bit higher in color pop, the NX8’s are higher in resolution.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

In low light conditions on 8-10X the mavens eye box and glass when compared directly side by side are both “better”. This is the observation of at least 20 users with zero bias to either scope, with being good to decent shooters, but do not geek out on this stuff. They are given a gun and target 30 minutes after sunset and asked to write down notes.

Again, both are perfectly usable scopes and these minor discrepancies aren’t keeping anybody from killing anything.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

If you have a chance to shoot the 4-32 I’d be interested to hear your opinion.

We will have 15-20 roksliders in the field in about a month for a shooting day in Arizona. I’ll try to get one on a gun for that and report back.

 

[N2TRKYS]

I wish the Maven had a better reticle. I’m using them now and making them work, but it ain’t great. If they would fix the reticle, it would be about perfect for me.

The reticle is great for target shooting, but for a hunting scope it’s lacking for me.

 

[atmat]

I wish the Maven had a better reticle. I’m using them now and making them work, but it ain’t great. If they would fix the reticle, it would be about perfect for me.

The reticle is great for target shooting, but for a hunting scope it’s lacking for me.

Huh?

 

[N2TRKYS]

Huh?

Simple. Their crosshairs don’t cross. I like a crosshair that crosses. It’s fine for target shooting, but I can’t stand it for hunting.

 

[atmat]

Simple. Their crosshairs don’t cross. I like a crosshair that crosses. It’s fine for target shooting, but I can’t stand it for hunting.

You’ve got to be the first person I’ve heard say this haha. It’s the best mil hunting reticle out.

 

[Juan_ID]

The reticle is great for target shooting, but for a hunting scope it’s lacking for me.

Having had my maven for a long while, I tend to think the opposite. For hunting it works real well and for that reason alone think I will have it on the rifle my daughter will be shooting this coming fall. But for target shooting I don’t like it near as much as other scopes I’ve shot with.

 

[N2TRKYS]

You’ve got to be the first person I’ve heard say this haha. It’s the best mil hunting reticle out.

It’s far from the best, but ok. Most folks I’ve shown it to have the same thoughts as I do. Rarely do folks say that they prefer it, that I’ve shown it too.

 

[N2TRKYS]

Having had my maven for a long while, I tend to think the opposite. For hunting it works real well and for that reason alone think I will have it on the rifle my daughter will be shooting this coming fall. But for target shooting I don’t like it near as much as other scopes I’ve shot with.

That’s interesting. It’s great for target shooting, but lacks for my hunting situations.

 

[rbutcher1234]

This is a joke right? Ignoring personal preference, a fine singular aiming point is far superior on a ffp scope than a traditional crosshair.

 

[Moose83]

I don't know, I can't say I'm a huge fan of a floating center dot either.

 

[ChrisAU]

That’s interesting. It’s great for target shooting, but lacks for my hunting situations.

3 separate occasions in the last 3 months I had whitetail hunting situations where I went from calm and relaxed to getting a shot off very precisely in an extremely short amount of time. I’m talking about pulling the trigger less than a second after I’m behind the scope, with reticle acquisition and movement happening within that time frame. The dot is so incredibly superior for that it’s hard to understand your position.

Edit: But, personal preference is just that.

 

[Juan_ID]

That’s interesting. It’s great for target shooting, but lacks for my hunting situations.

What do you feel it is lacking for hunting?

 

[seand]

You’ve got to be the first person I’ve heard say this haha. It’s the best mil hunting reticle out.

SWFA mil quad is better imo. So that’s two.

 

[N2TRKYS]

3 separate occasions in the last 3 months I had whitetail hunting situations where I went from calm and relaxed to getting a shot off very precisely in an extremely short amount of time. I’m talking about pulling the trigger less than a second after I’m behind the scope, with reticle acquisition and movement happening within that time frame. The dot is so incredibly superior for that it’s hard to understand your position.

Edit: But, personal preference is just that.

It totally disappears for me in low light, which is when most of my bucks move. A crosshair that actually crosses works way better for me. The dot is good for shooting targets for me. In bright light it is easy to match up with the dots on my targets.

 

[N2TRKYS]

This is a joke right? Ignoring personal preference, a fine singular aiming point is far superior on a ffp scope than a traditional crosshair.

Not at all a joke nor is it superior to a traditional crosshair.

 

[N2TRKYS]

What do you feel it is lacking for hunting?

It totally disappears in low light for me.