Maven RS1.2 2.5-15x44 new model

[N2TRKYS]

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

Agreed. Personally, I wish the Maven had the SWFA 3-9 reticle.

 

[sndmn11]

Isn't the middle still the middle and the focus on the target, not the reticle?

 

[N2TRKYS]

Isn't the middle still the middle and the focus on the target, not the reticle?

Nope. That’s the main purpose of the reticle, aiming.

 

[willfrye027]

Interesting to see the different opinions on the reticle. The swfa 3-9 is fine for me but borderline too thin in low light. The maven is almost perfect to my eyes. Definitely a fan of the floating dot.

 

[Shortschaf]

It totally disappears for me in low light, which is when most of my bucks move.

illumination doesnt help?

 

[N2TRKYS]

illumination doesnt help?

If they would fix the reticle, it wouldn’t be an issue. Should’ve have to rely on illumination. I find that the lack of a crosshair sux for daylight woods shooting, as well.

 

[DangerRanger]

L

If they would fix the reticle, it wouldn’t be an issue. Should’ve have to rely on illumination. I find that the lack of a crosshair sux for daylight woods shooting, as well.

Are you stand/blind hunting southeast whitetails?

 

[littlefish]

If they would fix the reticle, it wouldn’t be an issue. Should’ve have to rely on illumination. I find that the lack of a crosshair sux for daylight woods shooting, as well.

Do you find other FFP reticles on low power to be acceptable? Sounds like normal FFP use.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

While this scope and reticle certainly works fine for short range whitetail hunts, I wouldn’t say it’s the optimum choice for that application. You likely won’t be using hold over/under as you aren’t shooting far enough. The reticle is better suited for mid/long range western hunt applications. Again, not that it doesn’t work fine for low light and woods whitetail.

I can see how you’d like another reticle choice for that application.

 

[hrhunter]

I have the RS1.2 and like it quite a bit. Glass is good, reticle is great for a precision hunting reticle, illum is meh bleeds quite a bit but would still be a benefit for hunting on low setting, parallax knob is pretty damn stiff. I mounted it in a static tracking fixture and tested elevation tracking to be nuts on perfect but only through 9 mils IIRC. My hunting rifles have all worn SWFA 3-9s or LRTS/LRHS variants for a while and I think this is a great option in that realm.

 

[ckleeves]

If they would fix the reticle, it wouldn’t be an issue. Should’ve have to rely on illumination. I find that the lack of a crosshair sux for daylight woods shooting, as well.

Which reticle do you have? One of the MOA ones or the SHR-mil?

 

[sndmn11]

To me, the outer definition of the reticle is defining center when I am at low magnification. I don't need anything apparent actually pasting the POI to know what my POA is. My eye connects the bold left/right/top/bottom to tell me where the middle is. Just the same way that my bow only has pins at 20/30/40/50/60 but it's easy and intuitive to shoot 32yds or 45yds in the gap.

That goes for any FFP reticle on low power, the stuff in the middle is irrelevant and the outer stuff is the guide for your eye.

 

[atmat]

To me, the outer definition of the reticle is defining center when I am at low magnification. I don't need anything apparent actually pasting the POI to know what my POA is. My eye connects the bold left/right/top/bottom to tell me where the middle is. Just the same way that my bow only has pins at 20/30/40/50/60 but it's easy and intuitive to shoot 32yds or 45yds in the gap.

That goes for any FFP reticle on low power, the stuff in the middle is irrelevant and the outer stuff is the guide for your eye.

For sure. To your point the outter bars could be thicker. But they’re not preventing shots as they are now.