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

[Jmort1754]

Yes. The tenmile still has weight, zoom range, and track record on its side. But the Maven reticle is more usable and "all signs point up" with durability much like the Trijicons a year ago. It appears worth the small weight penalty, especially if your eyes have trouble with the Trij reticle.

-J

I've never used a FFP scope ever so I am just trying to get the balls to try one.

 

[SDHNTR]

Is this thing actually easily visible at low power, without illumination?

 

[willfrye027]

Is this thing actually easily visible at low power, without illumination?

Yep. Depending on the background I could shoot a deer at last light at 2.5x magnification. Gets even easier up at 4-5x. Pretty much same visibility at the LRHS if you’ve looked through those, and the SWFA.

 

[Alex Genereux]

Is this thing actually easily visible at low power, without illumination?

This is my first ffp scope I have one other scope to compare it to right now which is the nxs 2.5-10x42 which is sfp. The reticle at 2.5 power on the maven is no smaller than the middle part of the reticle on the nxs. The nxs far sides are thicker but the main part of the nxs reticle that you aim with is the same size as the maven.

 

[Dobermann]

Is this thing actually easily visible at low power, without illumination?

Dude, are you even reading the threads these days?

 

[Balderdash]

It is a much nicer scope than the 3-15. Glass features and reticle in my opinion. Yes I have both to compare side by side.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just a little bit ago I was looking at a couple of 3-15's that have given me great service for a long time and thinking that maybe I'd upgrade them at some point. They still offer a low weight for their X range and what is one of the best FFP hunting reticles extant. Glass could be better, but its good enough that it won't cost opportunities. Just the same, I wouldn't say no to low profile elevation and capped windage on them.

 

[BjornF16]

Just a little bit ago I was looking at a couple of 3-15's that have given me great service for a long time and thinking that maybe I'd upgrade them at some point. They still offer a low weight for their X range and what is one of the best FFP hunting reticles extant. Glass could be better, but its good enough that it won't cost opportunities. Just the same, I wouldn't say no to low profile elevation and capped windage on them.

Is the RS1.2 windage turret low profile?

I understand that it is shorter than the SWFA 3-15 but it looks plenty big (like SWFA 5-20 big) from the pics I’ve seen

 

[Balderdash]

I've never used a FFP scope ever so I am just trying to get the balls to try one.

I find using my SFP scopes bothersome. Likewise with MOA. Every year there's less and less of both of them in my battery. I can abide the SFP that tops out at 9 or 10X, such as the NF 3-10's, but much prefer to set it to the lowest X that'll get the job done and rock on.

 

[Balderdash]

Is the RS1.2 windage turret low profile?

I understand that it is shorter than the SWFA 3-15 but it looks plenty big (like SWFA 5-20 big) from the pics I’ve seen

Windage capped on the Maven.

 

[SDHNTR]

Dude, are you even reading the threads these days?

Nope! Not when they are 4 miles long. Too much noise.

 

[clperry]

Just a little bit ago I was looking at a couple of 3-15's that have given me great service for a long time and thinking that maybe I'd upgrade them at some point. They still offer a low weight for their X range and what is one of the best FFP hunting reticles extant. Glass could be better, but its good enough that it won't cost opportunities. Just the same, I wouldn't say no to low profile elevation and capped windage on them.

I ran my SWFA 3-15 for two seasons and felt the same. The maven is that much nicer and convenient. I hope it proves to be as solid. Right now, I’m loving it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BjornF16]

Windage capped on the Maven.

I see that it is capped…it doesn’t look low profile from what pics I’ve seen

 

[clperry]

I see that it is capped…it doesn’t look low profile from what pics I’ve seen

It’s not what I would call low profile.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Alex Genereux]

I see that it is capped…it doesn’t look low profile from what pics I’ve seen

It’s 1” from tube.

 

[Macintosh]

I saw a question on another site about this scope, someone mentioned having heard this scope had a tunneling issue. Any of you folks who have used it, can you comment? I did not see any mention of tunneling in the eval, any feedback on this? @Formidilosus ?

 

[BjornF16]

It’s 1” from tube.

What is the OD of the cap?

 

[Alex Genereux]

What is the OD of the cap?

 

[SDHNTR]

This is my first ffp scope I have one other scope to compare it to right now which is the nxs 2.5-10x42 which is sfp. The reticle at 2.5 power on the maven is no smaller than the middle part of the reticle on the nxs. The nxs far sides are thicker but the main part of the nxs reticle that you aim with is the same size as the maven.

Good answer. Thanks. I own that NF so that’s a relevant comparison.

 

[sndmn11]

I saw a question on another site about this scope, someone mentioned having heard this scope had a tunneling issue. Any of you folks who have used it, can you comment? I did not see any mention of tunneling in the eval, any feedback on this? @Formidilosus ?

Can you paste the link? I am interested in what other forums have to say.

I don't think there's any tunneling. 12-15x is pickier than 3x, but not as picky as my SHVs.

 

[Macintosh]

@sndmn11 Are we using tunneling the same way? I had understood tunneling was when the field of view stops changing before you reach the end of magnification adjustment. Ive seen it most often on the low power where fov stops getting wider at (for example) 4x, but the scope magnification still goes down to 3x. You said “picky”, so Im wondering if you are referring to something different?

This was a boating forum and it was a random question—no one there is talking about the scope, it was something he had heard elsewhere (unspecified).