Maven RS1.2 2.5-15x44mm SHR-Mil Q&A

[mxgsfmdpx]

Liquid or solid stick type of blue loctite? I have liquid and quit using it. Nearly impossible to clean out of threads after it's cured

Liquid.

Acetone in the holes and then thread in the screws back into the holes. Repeat until they are clean.

 

[ID_Matt]

I saw a reference on that thread from UM for to 30# on the caps but their website listed 25#

UM post on the thread says 30#
UM website/video says 25#
Form says 34# with a heavy duty scope

 

[SDHNTR]

I didnt read the whole thread so forgive me if this was already covered. What design changes were made, generally speaking, that made this scope more durable over previous versions? I'm not asking for trade secrets, but general comments. Thicker tube? Metal vs plastic parts? Different adhesives? Stronger erector springs? Etc.

Are there any other models in the Maven line up that are built to these same newer and tougher specs?

And will these eventually be available with other reticle options? Cant say I'm a huge fan.

 

[wind gypsy]

I didnt read the whole thread so forgive me if this was already covered. What design changes were made, generally speaking, that made this scope more durable over previous versions? I'm not asking for trade secrets, but general comments. Thicker tube? Metal vs plastic parts? Different adhesives? Stronger erector springs? Etc.

Are there any other models in the Maven line up that are built to these same newer and tougher specs?

And will these eventually be available with other reticle options. In moa, for example?

Not sure I've ever seen a manufacturer address such a thing and i could see a number of reasons why they dont.

 

[SDHNTR]

Not sure I've ever seen a manufacturer address such a thing and i could see a number of reasons why they dont.

True to an extent, but manufacturers also often include in their marketing materials things like tube thickness, brass erector parts, coil springs, etc. That's all I'm asking.

 

[bojangles808]

True to an extent, but manufacturers also often include in their marketing materials things like tube thickness, brass erector parts, coil springs, etc. That's all I'm asking.

Yea that's a good point if they did beef it up intentionally I would have thoughtbdrop testing would be front and center in their marketing. Instead there's not much.

 

[TheCougar]

We didn’t participate in the design of the RS.1.2. But after the RS.5 failed the drop test. Maven asked a bunch of questions focused on the scopes that passed. I email each company after form does the test, pass or fail. Maven and Zeiss are the only companies to call and ask me questions. Maven by far has had the most communication with me. They also asked what the perfect RS scope is and this is what I sent them.

Long Range Hunter
3-18x44 or 4-16x42
30mm
Zero Stop
Mil
FFP
Simplified THLR Reticle
Exposed Elevation Turret
Capped windage Turret
20-22ish oz
Pass the Rokslide Drop test

Do you think it’s possible to build that scope, at that weight? I don’t think that scope exists…. pretty much everything that has met this criteria weighs between 25-30oz, or even up to 35oz.

 

[sndmn11]

I didnt read the whole thread so forgive me if this was already covered. What design changes were made, generally speaking, that made this scope more durable over previous versions? I'm not asking for trade secrets, but general comments. Thicker tube? Metal vs plastic parts? Different adhesives? Stronger erector springs? Etc.

Are there any other models in the Maven line up that are built to these same newer and tougher specs?

And will these eventually be available with other reticle options? Cant say I'm a huge fan.

Maven RS1.2 Home Page Review Inbound

There's been some good thread about Maven's RS1.2 that was released a few weeks ago, links below. I'll have a review over to @robby denning before the New Year. I have some time scheduled this week to talk with those at Maven with answers and want to know what you'd like asked. Post up your...

rokslide.com

I interviewed Cade yesterday or the day before, those questions were asked and answered.
I'll wrap up the review and submit before the New Year, not sure how fast it will be published by the bosses.

 

[4th_point]

I have spent years dealing with this. It’s a visual comfort thing- not a physiological difference thing. I have spoken with several optometrists, even shot with a couple heavily. Anyone that can get corrective glasses to legally drive can see what you see. When they go in and get tested as X/X vision, and you are the same X/X vision- you are both resolving the same things at the same level. There are differences in color perception of course, but that hasn’t shown to have any correlation to the “I need more magnification” people.

On the other side of this, thousands- nigh, tens of thousands of those same people are shooting 8-12” targets at 400+ yards with 1-4x and 1-6x scopes on there AR’s all over the country. Yet somehow, when it’s a bolt action they all of a sudden need 20+ mag. It’s BS. I have taken dozens upon dozens of the “I can’t see it with 6x people” and made them shoot 6x with no excuses, including very unpleasant consequences for missing, and wonder of wonders they somehow magically find a way to shoot good groups on paper, and hit 12” targets all the way past 1,200m with that 6x scope that they couldn’t before.


People need to learn to separate “I like, I think, I feel”, from “I can’t”. The two are vastly different and yet almsot across the board when people say “I can’t” or “I need”, what they really mean is “I like”, or “I want”. That wouldn’t be an issue except generally people’s likes and wants aren’t based on rigorous study, practice, and comparative use- it’s based on at best- feelings. And feelings lie.

Thanks for the detailed reply, formi.

The examples that I am referring to are not all "new shooters". So this is not a "think" or "feel" issue going into the situation.

Perfect example is a good friend that has been shooting with a 6x MQ since August of 2015, based on my encouragement. He originally started with 10x MQ due to concerns with small image from the 6x, but I "encouraged" him to put the 10x on a rimfire and use the 6x.

He is near sighted and wears contact lenses, but has done very well with the 6x until now. His RX is current, and it is as good as it can get. I am not qualified to vet his eyecare professionals but he needs to drive for work.

What do I tell him? Just suck it up?

Or do we simply acknowledge that the 6x worked, but it is time to bump up the magnification to keep him going and maintain confidence?

Also, what do these 8-12" targets at 400 yards look like? Are they black? Or white? What is the background?

The reason why I ask is because we typically let our targets corrode. Mainly to save time and sweat, as we'd need to crawl down into some crap hole to paint them! So mill scale gets removed from new targets to encourage more uniform corrosion. Some targets are fairly small, hidden, or at moderate angle. As you can imagine, the rusted surface can blend into the dirt background really well (i.e. beige on beige). Impacts still leave a mark.

So color perception, or contrast, seems relevant for our target shooting, but also for hunting.

Jason

 

[Redwing]

Do you think it’s possible to build that scope, at that weight? I don’t think that scope exists…. pretty much everything that has met this criteria weighs between 25-30oz, or even up to 35oz.

I'm not sure that it is possible. Or that it's possible to do at a cost that will sell.

I spent fifteen years doing product design and R&D in the fishing industry. Of all the design parameters physical weight was the most difficult thing to cut while still maintaining functionality and structural integrity. Sure, I could design you a fly rod that out-casts everything on the market and weighs 75% of other rods, but it's going to break every time you try to land a fish. Material limitations are real and not always surmountable.

I know nothing about designing and manufacturing rifle scopes, but I'm sure there are material limitations that come in to play. Could you design a scope that fits many of Ryan Avery's/Rokslides parameters? Yes. All of them? Maybe not possible. Or not possible at under $3k.

Edit to say: It sure seems that Maven did an admirable job with this scope. They came very close to meeting most or all of the specs per Avery and Form. You're never going to make everybody happy, but this sure ticks a lot of boxes.

 

[4th_point]

This is not entirely correct. It may be true for normal visual acuity differences that are correctable, but not for people with visual field defects.

I would really like to continue that topic, so will only "clutter" the thread briefly and maybe take this discussion offline?

The sensitivity of the receiver (retina) is variable between individuals as well, correct? And across the retina. So even if the defects in the eyeball are corrected as best as possible with artificial lenses, the sensitivity cannot be adjusted. Or am I way off on that?

I also have concerns with applying exam results from a Snellen chart to magnified vision in the field. Especially since the Snellen exam relies on just the observer, maybe with corrective exam lenses.

As hunters/shooters we are concerned with magnified optics with artificial pupil, and compounding defects in the optical train. That's a big can of worms that I would like to discuss. Offline or in another thread.

 

[ljalberta]

Which one of you WKRs keeps buying out the Mil versions when it’s restocked before I can complete my check out…

 

[SDHNTR]

What’s the problem with people simply preferring more mag, to a point? As long as they understand the fov constraints anyway. It’s personal preference, and that doesn’t necessarily make someone wrong. I have scopes from 1x to 32x. I know I shoot tighter groups with some additional mag. Even though many “pros” and a lot of articles I’ve read say this isn’t true. We can argue academically all day long. The proof is in the target. Some people just prefer more mag and it makes them shoot with more precision. No “scientific” argument is going to change that. I’ll shoot a tighter group at the range with a scope on 12x than I will with a scope on 6x, every time. I think most people will. That may not always translate into hits vs misses in the field, but definitely tighter groups. Otherwise, why do benchrest guys shoot such high mag scopes?

Of course for hunting there is a point of overall diminishing returns wrt fov, but that’s another topic.

 

[4th_point]

I think you and I have hunted similar country. We hunt hells canyon area every year and multiple seasons. So big, steep and varying country. That can have a lot of different situations that lend to more mag at time.

It's the "Long Range Hunting" forum, not the "medium range and under" forum, so I totally understand wanting 20x or more.

I have never hunted the Snake proper, but the adjacent breaks and drainages. And the coastrange. The coastrange is brutal!

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

Take weight, for instance. How many times do we read an arbitrary number assigned as a sort of line in the sand. What factors do people use when they decide that 16 Oz is OK to schlep around, but 19-22 ounces are definite deal brokers.

The desire for a ~20oz scope here isn't arbitrary. SWFA 3-9HD FFP has already demonstrated its feasible. SO knowing that we're wondering if anyone else can roll out something with a little more refinement w/o packing on the ounces. I've asked else if making a scope FFP inherently makes it heavier or not compared to SFP, know one in the know has replied on that, cause it it doesn't then you can also look at the NXS 2.5-10 at 20oz as another example of a robust scope in that weight threshold.

If someone in the know comes and says 24oz is the practical cutoff for a FFP scope with zero stop and parallax adjustment while still being robust then we'd stop thinking its possible at 20oz. We aren't the pros, we're just looking at a couple actual scopes at 20oz and asking whether its possible or not to have all the features merged.

 

[Formidilosus]

He is near sighted and wears contact lenses, but has done very well with the 6x until now. His RX is current, and it is as good as it can get. I am not qualified to vet his eyecare professionals but he needs to drive for work.

What do I tell him? Just suck it up?

I hope this comes across as discussing as plainly as possible, I am not trying to be a jerk or argue.


It depends. Has he refocused the eyepiece? And what are the targets that he can’t see now?

Also, I am not saying there isn’t an outlier somewhere. People always want to “but what about ____” when trying to make a case, but using outliers as a case for generality is a very poor way to make decisions. Are there cases where a bit higher mag helps? Sure.
But this whole thing wasn’t about whether the difference between 6x and 10x could help- it was about a couple people saying that 15x isn’t good enough and that they need 24x to hunt with- that’s patently BS.
I don’t mean that to be rude, it’s simply nonsense. There are no situations where 20+ X is needed, or even warranted for big game hunting. If you are shooting so far at a deer that 10-15x won’t resolve it, a spotter beside you is an absolute requirement.
I started LR hunting by people in the world of 30-80lb bench rifles with 36” barrels, shooting tables- sometimes return to battery chain driven rests, spotter shots, grey market Soviot LRF’s and optical coincidence RF’s, cartridges burning 110+ grains of powder, and teams of guys spotting for kills beyond a mile. Yes at 1,800 yards some used more than 20x, and lots used less- it didn’t matter.

Going to a lighter rifle that actually recoils means that you must use less magnification to do the same shots as you do if shooting from a bench with a 30lbs rifle.


If someone is saying that they want 20+ magnification to ID the correct animal while behind the gun or whatever, ok. But that isn’t a general purpose huntings scope- not even a general purpose long range hunting scope. It’s a specialty item and it comes with penalties. A 24x, 30mm tube, 40mm objective scope is about the last thing I want to use to ID a spike from a 2 point, especially in lower light (which all these conversations bring up). They are terrible for that use. For that use you should be choosing the highest optical and viewing experience you can- that means 50+mm objectives and no real concern for weight or size.
The Minox ZP5 5-25x56mm is tailor made for that use and absolutely stomps every other scope I, or anyone that has used the one I have has ever seen.


The short answer to all of this that a short, 30mm tube, small objective, 20x plus scope sucks for shooting. They just suck- the eyebox’s suck, lowlight sucks, DOF almost always sucks, etc, etc. If for some reason they the optical experience doesn’t suck, you still have to deal with a large objective, and they are very expensive. For 20x plus to be as functional in all situations as this 2.5-15x44mm RS1.2 is, requires a much longer scope, a 56+ mm objective, and noticeably better glass. All those equal size, weight, and cost.

Or do we simply acknowledge that the 6x worked, but it is time to bump up the magnification to keep him going and maintain confidence?

The bolded part-

“Confidence” is the very definition of “I like, I think, I feel”. Incompetent people are “confident” all the time. Understand I am not being pedantic- words means things, and teaching people to do tasks at high levels or at a truly competent level is not something the greater hunting/gun world does well.

“Knowing” is what you want. I want you to know what the situation is, know what the systems capabilities are, and know what your on demand performance is. If it’s a 40% probability situation, being “confident” just means that you will take a shot you shouldn’t be taking with no backup plan. Conversely, knowing that it’s a 40% probability gives one options and decisions, and confidence plays no part.

Also, what do these 8-12" targets at 400 yards look like? Are they black? Or white? What is the background?

All kinds. Usually steel targets that are white or shot and grey.

The reason why I ask is because we typically let our targets corrode. Mainly to save time and sweat, as we'd need to crawl down into some crap hole to paint them! So mill scale gets removed from new targets to encourage more uniform corrosion. Some targets are fairly small, hidden, or at moderate angle. As you can imagine, the rusted surface can blend into the dirt background really well (i.e. beige on beige). Impacts still leave a mark.

So color perception, or contrast, seems relevant for our target shooting, but also for hunting.

Jason

Grey steel unpainted targets are about the hardest to see object one can use that isn’t purposely camouflaged for a specific area. Basing a hunting optic off of them is going to lead to some choices that can and will have other consequences, some expensive, in actual hunting use.


Other than Coues Deer hunting, I have had two situations in 25’ish years of serious hunting and very large numbers of animals, where terrain and lighting made a deer at sub 600 yards hard to define and aim with a 6x. One was at 550 yards with a 6x Mark 4. I could aim acceptably, but target definition was low due to the grass color matching the hide nearly perfectly and direct setting light on the animal. The other situation was similar.

In neither case did it cause me to move to a scope with more magnification to help that specific issue, because that’s just two out of thousands of animals aimed at. The solution for a .1% situation would hurt in the other 99.9% of situations. Not to mention there’s a point where if light “isn’t great”, should someone even be taking a shot at distance? There is a point where the shot just isn’t a high probability and there is no equipment choice that is going to change that.

The- “it’s 4 minutes before dark and the deer is on the very edge of the wood line in the shadows at 538 yards. I can’t see him with 6x or 10x but I can with 20x!” situation; really ought to be- “538 yard last light, edge off wood line shots aren’t a good idea and will lead to disasters frequently regardless of magnification” situations.




Again, not saying that there is no use case for 20+ x mag. I am saying that compact, $1,200, 40mm objective scopes at 20x plus mag suck as aiming devices.

 

[Formidilosus]

It's the "Long Range Hunting" forum, not the "medium range and under" forum, so I totally understand wanting 20x or more.

Please define “long range hunting”.

 

[SDHNTR]

I hope this comes across as discussing as plainly as possible, I am not trying to be a jerk or argue.


It depends. Has he refocused the eyepiece? And what are the targets that he can’t see now?

Also, I am not saying there isn’t an outlier somewhere. People always want to “but what about ____” when trying to make a case, but using outliers as a case for generality is a very poor way to make decisions. Are there cases where a bit higher mag helps? Sure.
But this whole thing wasn’t about whether the difference between 6x and 10x could help- it was about a couple people saying that 15x isn’t good enough and that they need 24x to hunt with- that’s patently BS.
I don’t mean that to be rude, it’s simply nonsense. There are no situations where 20+ X is needed, or even warranted for big game hunting. If you are shooting so far at a deer that 10-15x won’t resolve it, a spotter beside you is an absolute requirement.
I started LR hunting by people in the world of 30-80lb bench rifles with 36” barrels, shooting tables- sometimes return to battery chain driven rests, spotter shots, grey market Soviot LRF’s and optical coincidence RF’s, cartridges burning 110+ grains of powder, and teams of guys spotting for kills beyond a mile. Yes at 1,800 yards some used more than 20x, and lots used less- it didn’t matter.

Going to a lighter rifle that actually recoils means that you must use less magnification to do the same shots as you do if shooting from a bench with a 30lbs rifle.


If someone is saying that they want 20+ magnification to ID the correct animal while behind the gun or whatever, ok. But that isn’t a general purpose huntings scope- not even a general purpose long range hunting scope. It’s a specialty item and it comes with penalties. A 24x, 30mm tube, 40mm objective scope is about the last thing I want to use to ID a spike from a 2 point, especially in lower light (which all these conversations bring up). They are terrible for that use. For that use you should be choosing the highest optical and viewing experience you can- that means 50+mm objectives and no real concern for weight or size.
The Minox ZP5 5-25x56mm is tailor made for that use and absolutely stomps every other scope I, or anyone that has used the one I have has ever seen.


The short answer to all of this that a short, 30mm tube, small objective, 20x plus scope sucks for shooting. They just suck- the eyebox’s suck, lowlight sucks, DOF almost always sucks, etc, etc. If for some reason they the optical experience doesn’t suck, you still have to deal with a large objective, and they are very expensive. For 20x plus to be as functional in all situations as this 2.5-15x44mm RS1.2 is, requires a much longer scope, a 56+ mm objective, and noticeably better glass.

I do agree with all that. It’s that point of diminishing returns. For me, that occurs somewhere between 15-20x. Any more than that isn’t needed, ever. I wish my NX8 was a 4-16x, or my March a 3-15x as that upper end just causes problems. But to unilaterally say that 6x is always adequate, or better than say, 12x, or that people shoot just as well with that lower mag, just isn’t the case imo, at least not for me.

Most of my longish shots are 4-600 yds and I tend to usually be somewhere around 12x, maybe give or take a couple, for those types of shots. Shot an aoudad last week at 427 on 10x and watched impact.

 

[cowdisciple]

Bundles are in stock at this particular moment with the black/grey and mil reticle on the website. They took my money, so I hope there really is one.

 

[JollyRoger]

For the guys that have this Maven 1.2, is it enough of an upgrade to swap out an SWFA 5-20? Based on these reviews and on paper it appears yes due to the reticle and some of the features (zero stop, capped wind, a parralax knob that I assume came be turned easily). @Formidilosus