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

[Formidilosus]

What’s the problem with people simply preferring more mag?

Nothing. There isn’t anything from me or anyone addressing this topic in here about how high mag is bad across the board. We’re, or at least I am, addressing why a relatively small, compact, 44mm objective, $1,100 scope is a bad idea for 20+ magnification. While issues are mostly overblown, it’s the same reason why the 2.5-20x NX8 is noticeably less user friendly than the 4-32x NX8.

This is getting off what the discussion was about, but here we are.

As long as they understand the fov constraints anyway.

The issue that very, very few do. People have been inundated with more “mag, more mag” for so long that they have no idea why it may or may not be a good idea.

It’s personal preference, and that doesn’t necessarily make someone wrong.

Maybe wrong, maybe not. If you see dozens to hundreds of shooters a year on field ranges, and a dozen plus hunting every year and they kill 20-40 animals, and the number one problem that you see every single year for 20 plus years is people using too much magnification and not being able to find or stay in an animal, and you can demonstrate that with nearly every person in 5 minutes- at what point would you say it’s no longer just personal preference?
Would there be a point where it would start resembling something like “data”, or best practices? Because that is what I am usually addressing- optimization for killing the highest percentage of animals, in the most situations, from touching the muzzle to ranges way beyond where people should be shooting at animals.

I know I shoot tighter groups with some additional mag.

How much tighter?

If it were a target that can and will move after you shoot, and every time you lost it or couldn’t get a second shot on it you got tazed, would you use 20x plus, or would you turn the magnification down? Because that’s what the task is- shorting targets that move and may need follow up shots, especially at longer ranges.

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?

You know this, however bench shooting has almost zero correlation to field shooting and killing game animals. This is the main driver of issues- we have a “practice” method that is 100% removed from the sport or event we are practicing for. Bench shooting for reductions in grounds of thousandths of an inch has no correlation whatsoever to shooting living targets in field conductions.
Shooting from a bench beyond the most basic task drives a false narrative. Going from a 1 MOA target on demand with 32x to a 1.5 MOA target on demand with sub 10x doesn’t reduce your hit rate on animals, but going from a soda straw FOV to a wide screen TV FOV certainly results in higher success.

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

Thats actually what everyone on the other side is saying about “why wasn’t this scope 24?”- it’s a hunting scope. The reductions in FOV, critical eyebox, usability, and cost do not make it worth it.

 

[willfrye027]

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

I’ve used both. They’re pretty close. Maven I can mount lower/easier with the smaller objective using T084s. I prefer the lower end mag on the maven. Features/reticle and size feel different.

 

[Formidilosus]

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.

I know how you feel and mostly agree, not that it matters.

 

[Formidilosus]

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

Ehh. Maybe, probably not depending on use.

 

[Juan_ID]

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

I prefer the feels of the maven, as in ease of turning the parallax diopter and zoom ring. All of which are not major issues but things I noticed. Both have worked as they should from my limited experience and I’d say the glass is very comparable. I prefer the reticle of the swfa for general use but I may be in the minority on that.

 

[bojangles808]

Ehh. Maybe, probably not depending on use.

Are the swfa 3x9 , 3x15 and 5x20 made in same factory? I saw somewhere the HDs are built in a different facility any insight?

 

[Formidilosus]

Are the swfa 3x9 , 3x15 and 5x20 made in same factory? I saw somewhere the HDs are built in a different facility any insight?

HD’s are different than non. Both are Japanese.

 

[JollyRoger]

Ehh. Maybe, probably not depending on use.

Is that because it’s relatively new and the sample size is small? Or are there other reasons that would keep the SWFA as a better choice?

 

[SDHNTR]

Nothing. There isn’t anything from me or anyone addressing this topic in here about how high mag is bad across the board. We’re, or at least I am, addressing why a relatively small, compact, 44mm objective, $1,100 scope is a bad idea for 20+ magnification. While issues are mostly overblown, it’s the same reason why the 2.5-20x NX8 is noticeably less user friendly than the 4-32x NX8.

This is getting off what the discussion was about, but here we are.





The issue that very, very few do. People have been inundated with more “mag, more mag” for so long that they have no idea why it may or may not be a good idea.




Maybe wrong, maybe not. If you see dozens to hundreds of shooters a year on field ranges, and a dozen plus hunting every year and they kill 20-40 animals, and the number one problem that you see every single year for 20 plus years is people using too much magnification and not being able to find or stay in an animal, and you can demonstrate that with nearly every person in 5 minutes- at what point would you say it’s no longer just personal preference?
Would there be a point where it would start resembling something like “data”, or best practices? Because that is what I am usually addressing- optimization for killing the highest percentage of animals, in the most situations, from touching the muzzle to ranges way beyond where people should be shooting at animals.





How much tighter?

If it were a target that can and will move after you shoot, and every time you lost it or couldn’t get a second shot on it you got tazed, would you use 20x plus, or would you turn the magnification down? Because that’s what the task is- shorting targets that move and may need follow up shots, especially at longer ranges.










You know this, however bench shooting has almost zero correlation to field shooting and killing game animals. This is the main driver of issues- we have a “practice” method that is 100% removed from the sport or event we are practicing for. Bench shooting for reductions in grounds of thousandths of an inch has no correlation whatsoever to shooting living targets in field conductions.
Shooting from a bench beyond the most basic task drives a false narrative. Going from a 1 MOA target on demand with 32x to a 1.5 MOA target on demand with sub 10x doesn’t reduce your hit rate on animals, but going from a soda straw FOV to a wide screen TV FOV certainly results in higher success.






Thats actually what everyone on the other side is saying about “why wasn’t this scope 24?”- it’s a hunting scope. The reductions in FOV, critical eyebox, usability, and cost do not make it worth it.

Agree on all counts. My only point in bringing it up is that the matter is nuanced, rather than more mag is always bad. It matters tremendously that we are discussing field scenarios, rather than bench/range scenarios.

 

[Formidilosus]

Is that because it’s relatively new and the sample size is small? Or are there other reasons that would keep the SWFA as a better choice?

Both. While the probability is relatively high that the RS1.2 will rove reliable long term, it can’t not be stated definitively right now. Also, if size, weight, or cost are major concerns, than the others might make sense.

Right now where it stands for me:

0-600’ish yards (sometimes farther) it’s a SWFA 6x MQ.

0-700 or 800’ish it’s a SWFA 3-9x if weight matters, or a Maven RS1.2 now.


For hunting use where above 10x is required, the Maven RS1.2.

For use where glass and low light capability, along with LR performance is required, Minox ZP5 5-25x56mm THLR.

 

[Formidilosus]

Agree on all counts. My only point in bringing it up is that the matter is nuanced, rather than more mag is always bad.

Yes sir.

 

[4th_point]

Please define “long range hunting”.

Yeah, that post may not have gone across well. Either way, "long range hunting" is not for me to define.

My response, that you quoted, was to a member that came to the Long Range Hunting forum, who made a comment about wanting more magnification (20x - 25x) and gave his reasons why. The reasons included shooting all of his hunting rifles at 1200 to 1800.

So I can understand his desire for more than 20x, and why he was surprised by the advice given that he doesn't need it... in the Long Range Hunting forum.

 

[4th_point]

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 don't take it as arguing at all. Thanks for the detailed reply. I mean that, man. I think that we've posted on this stuff before Rokslide, if you recall. I've benefited from it.

I'll reply to some of your comments, and hopefully it flows. We are probably more in agreement, than disagreement. I just want to understand some of your assumptions.

The guy with the 6x is an experienced and capable shooter since 2015, and diopter adjustment has already been done, but he's not the only person. I have another good friend going through the same thing with 9x. He has been fine with 9x since March of 2014. He is an extremely good shooter, and been very consistent year after year. From field positions, not a bench. We have been shooting in all sorts of nasty conditions, for nearly 10 years with that rifle/scope/load.

My point was not to argue about 20x and above, but that what may work now, may not later due to changes in vision. Put another way, I don't think age related vision changes are outliers.

These two dudes are good examples where we are in agreement in many ways. Both have proven to be capable of shooting very well out to ~600 and beyond with 6x and 9x. I've watched both progress rapidly from the beginning and maintain proficiency. And I have encouraged them to be cautious of higher magnifications, right from the beginning. We're on the same page, no?

Now, these two are to the point where they simply cannot see as well. Through their scopes. And it is not easy for them to articulate. It is not "thinking" or "feeling". They don't want to change scopes. They don't want to spend the money!

You can't assume that these guys fall into the same categories that you keep mentioning. And I have to believe that there are others like them. But their vision, and changes in vision, could be more severe.

And at no point in this thread did I state that I wanted 20x for myself, or that it was needed. Did I?

Now to be clear, we are not looking at anything more than 16x for them. If they go higher in magnification, I think that they should just go ~12x. But we need to shoot with their current setups again to rule out anything that might have been overlooked.

Perhaps whatever defects that are present in their eyeballs could be mitigated with different scopes. That is just speculation though. I know a few others that have also stated vision problems, when viewing through a scope. Their prescriptions might be more complicated, but I don't know the details and am not an optical scientist or eyecare professional.

More on the magnification, 20/20, etc. later...

 

[4th_point]

formi,

Correct me, if I am wrong here. This is what I am getting from your suggestions:

• Situation - performance problems in the field
• Solution - less magnification
• Result - improved performance in the field

​

So, root cause is = ???​

What is the true root cause of the problem with your trainees? The scope?​

The root cause seems to be a training issue, no? You can certainly idiot proof the system, with restricted magnification, as a possible action. Poka-yoke, if you will.

This is not a very complicated situation. Sure, some people that have difficulties with their equipment will need to be forced/limited to achieve the desired results. This happens in manufacturing and other functions.

That is not the situation with these guys that I am mentioning. And, it doesn't seem to be an issue with the dude that stated that he wanted more than 15x. He actually wanted more than 44mm too.

 

[4th_point]

Anyone that can get corrective glasses to legally drive can see what you see.

What you posted there is not completely correct. I have better than 20/20. Just because anyone has corrective lenses, and can legally drive, it does not mean that they can see what I see. And others can see more than me.

20/20 is at the bottom end of the "normal" range. Best possible vision can resolve the same detail, all things being equal, with 1/2 the magnification. Or, use the same magnification and see detail twice as far. That is significant.

So, someone with best possible vision might be fine with 8x. However, someone with 20/20 will need 2x more or 16x, right? To see the same detail.

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.

Vision levels based on the Snellen chart obviously don't tell the entire story. It is a brightly lit, high contrast target, at close distance. People obviously see colors and contrast differently, even without color blindness.

At what point does it matter, for shooting? I cannot answer that definitively, but we cannot assume that everyone can see the same. And that is just unaided vision, corrected or not. When you view through a scope, there is an artificial pupil in the system and defects in the instrument.

I am not an expert in the interactions of the defective eyeball with the defects in the optic, however, I posted earlier that I have made measurements where people can see better than me with unaided vision. But behind a scope, they start having problems. And they are all cheapskates, and most are not looking for "excuses" to buy more magnification. They simply choose to limit their shooting distance instead, except for a few.

Anecdotal for sure, but I am definitely not finding that everyone views the same.

I hope that these posts don't come across as argumentative. I assess systems, processes, achievement, competence, etc across various industries. Some very complicated with different amounts of risk and severity. A lot is peanuts in the grand scheme, but some involves legal, health, and mission critical aspects. There's no "I think" or "I feel" in that function.

This scope, shooting, and hunting stuff is just for fun man!

 

[eric1115]

If it were a target that can and will move after you shoot, and every time you lost it or couldn’t get a second shot on it you got tazed, would you use 20x plus, or would you turn the magnification down?

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.

I am now expecting some epic stories and/or video to emerge after Shoot2Hunt University concludes.

I also suspect there are some stories and/or video that already exist that perhaps Form is not at liberty to share but I so wish that he could.

 

[SDHNTR]

formi,

Correct me, if I am wrong here. This is what I am getting from your suggestions:

• Situation - performance problems in the field
• Solution - less magnification
• Result - improved performance in the field

​

So, root cause is = ???​

What is the true root cause of the problem with your trainees? The scope?​

The root cause seems to be a training issue, no? You can certainly idiot proof the system, with restricted magnification, as a possible action. Poka-yoke, if you will.

This is not a very complicated situation. Sure, some people that have difficulties with their equipment will need to be forced/limited to achieve the desired results. This happens in manufacturing and other functions.

That is not the situation with these guys that I am mentioning. And, it doesn't seem to be an issue with the dude that stated that he wanted more than 15x. He actually wanted more than 44mm too.

The root cause is not so much a training issue as it is a practical issue. Higher mag shrinks FOV. No amount of training is going to change that. At a certain point, lack of FOV dramatically reduces a scopes functionality. That’s why something that max’s out at say 12-16ishX, makes for a more useful scope.

Yes, you can always just restrict yourself from using the upper range of X in the field, but having that extra X in the first place requires physical scope construction considerations to work properly. Longer tubes, bigger objectives, more weight, finicky parralax, and sometimes even more cost. Are those tradeoffs you’re willing to accept for something that is at best unnecessary, and at worst, could actually be a hindrance in the field? This is especially true with big zoom range erectors, 6-10x.

 

[cowdisciple]

Mil bundles show back in stock.

 

[Alex Genereux]

Mil bundles show back in stock.

i picked one up

 

[Dobermann]

@4th_point: any chance you can take this to a new thread? This is two threads about the Maven you've cluttered up now with off-topic stuff.

Don't make me start singing the song from Frozen at you, man ... I can't sing and it's a horrible song to begin with.