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

[SDHNTR]

There's no results. No RS1 has not been notoriously tested here or elsewhere. @Formidilosus replied to you above that he believes one is en route to test.

The information he seems to have matches my first hand conversation in regards to the RS1 = RS1.2.

@SDHNTR I quoted your statement because I think it's premature and a good example of slippery slope assumptions that have been repeated enough here that some think they are fact. One of those is that there were some magical changes inside the RS1.2. Without anyone having tested an RS1, or looked at the parts list/build sheet of each, or cut each open and compare, it's just baseless speculation without substantiation.

I think the prudent course would be patience in waiting for dot two to show up (RS1 testing) before jumping to the conclusion of dots not connecting. If "we" want objective testing, objective results, and ultimately to get an objective view of these tests by brands/mfgs, then "we" need to also concluded objectively and apply what was learned of a SKU only to that SKU and put away the jump to conclusion mats.

I thought one HAD been tested? Or some previous Maven model. And the results were not pretty. Seems I remember one tested quite early on. What I had posted above was predicated on a previous Maven not doing well. If I made a mistake, I will humbly retract my statements and gladly eat my words.

 

[SDHNTR]

I thought I remembered a previous test:

Maven RS.5 4-24x50mm SFP mil/mil Field Evaluation

Maven RS.5 4-24x5mm, field eval. This scope was handed to me from Ryan Avery for an evaluation. The baseline 30 round group with this lot of ammunition was 1.37” at 100 yards. The scope and weight- Turrets: Elevation turret is exposed, revolution indicated, 10 mils per rev, zero...

rokslide.com

If all scopes are made to the same durability standards, please explain…

 

[sndmn11]

I thought one HAD been tested? Or some previous Maven model. And the results were not pretty. Seems I remember one tested quite early on.

If not, I will humbly retract my statements and gladly eat my words.

@Formidilosus did an RS5 and I did an RS3. Both had zero shift. Both are different SKUs than the RS1 or RS1.2, and should be treated as three individual evaluations.

 

[SDHNTR]

@Formidilosus did an RS5 and I did an RS3. Both had zero shift. Both are different SKUs than the RS1 or RS1.2, and should be treated as three individual evaluations.

Well, yes, different sku’s so different evals. Ok, normally I would agree with you, but there’s the rub…. Why do we need to consider them three different evaluations if we have been told otherwise and “all of our scopes are built to the same durability standards”? As quoted by the company.

That’s my entire point with all this back and forth. It’s that precise statement that is the bone of contention here.

 

[Kimber7man]

Well, yes, different sku’s so different evals. Ok, normally I would agree with you, but there’s the rub…. Why do we need to consider them three different evaluations if we have been told otherwise and “all of our scopes are built to the same durability standards”? As quoted by the company.

That’s my entire point with all this back and forth. It’s that precise statement that is the bone of contention here.

Then.
Just.
Don't.
Buy.
One.

 

[Formidilosus]

I thought I remembered a previous test:

Maven RS.5 4-24x50mm SFP mil/mil Field Evaluation

Maven RS.5 4-24x5mm, field eval. This scope was handed to me from Ryan Avery for an evaluation. The baseline 30 round group with this lot of ammunition was 1.37” at 100 yards. The scope and weight- Turrets: Elevation turret is exposed, revolution indicated, 10 mils per rev, zero...

rokslide.com

If all scopes are made to the same durability standards, please explain…

What I and Ryan were told recently was the RS1 and RS1.2 are identical inside. No RS1 has been evaled by me.

@Formidilosus did an RS5 and I did an RS3. Both had zero shift. Both are different SKUs than the RS1 or RS1.2, and should be treated as three individual evaluations.

To be clear I have shot/used several personally purchased, production Mavens than what has been done in the evals. I state this as it should not be taken as if I have only seen two models.

 

[sndmn11]

Well, normally I would agree with you, but there’s the rub…. Why do we need to consider them three different evaluations if “all of our scopes are built to the same durability standards”? As quoted by the company.

That’s my entire point with all this back and forth.

Well, the conversations I have had with the owners and tenured employees is that none of the models share internals. RS1, RS2, RS3, RS4, RS5, CRS1, CRS2, all are different internally.

If you read my review I am very clear that the statement is the RS1 is internally the same as the RS1.2. @Formidilosus has relayed the same information, and I'd imagine his came from those in the know. Neither of us, both well informed folks, have said that all Maven scopes are identical internally.

My take on what you keep quoting as the company line from Maven is a hang up on the word durability and what you are defining it as.

 

[sndmn11]

To be clear I have shot/used several personally purchased, production Mavens than what has been done in the evals. I state this as it should not be taken as if I have only seen two models.

I'm aware and I believe that if you had found results with those models that were contrary to the initial evaluations, you'd have shown those findings.

 

[Formidilosus]

I'm aware and I believe that if you had found results with those models that were contrary to the initial evaluations, you'd have shown those findings.

Correct.

The RS1.2 has so far proven to be a solid scope. I hope the RS1 is as well.

 

[clperry]

What I and Ryan were told recently was the RS1 and RS1.2 are identical inside. No RS1 has been evaled by me.






To be clear I have shot/used several personally purchased, production Mavens than what has been done in the evals. I state this as it should not be taken as if I have only seen two models.

Were they dropped? Did they pass? I have two 1.2’s and will be buying more, but I do think that maven is handling this issue poorly. I was also told that all of their scopes were constructed with the same level of durability considered. That’s clearly not the case, or they haven’t been successful and should be more careful in their response. The black and white of it is that what they are telling people and reality considering the durability/reliability of their entire line is far enough apart to cause concern.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[id_jon]

Well, yes, different sku’s so different evals. Ok, normally I would agree with you, but there’s the rub…. Why do we need to consider them three different evaluations if we have been told otherwise and “all of our scopes are built to the same durability standards”? As quoted by the company.

That’s my entire point with all this back and forth. It’s that precise statement that is the bone of contention here.

Maybe they would all pass a 12" drop, but only the rs1 and 1.2 would pass 36" drops. So they're all up to "their standard", but some of their models exceed their standard.

 

[SDHNTR]

Well, the conversations I have had with the owners and tenured employees is that none of the models share internals. RS1, RS2, RS3, RS4, RS5, CRS1, CRS2, all are different internally.

If you read my review I am very clear that the statement is the RS1 is internally the same as the RS1.2. @Formidilosus has relayed the same information, and I'd imagine his came from those in the know. Neither of us, both well informed folks, have said that all Maven scopes are identical internally.

My take on what you keep quoting as the company line from Maven is a hang up on the word durability and what you are defining it as.

I was simply puzzled by the fact that Maven states the same standards are maintained across their lines of different scope models, yet the results of the tests on different scopes were dramatically different. This is their direct quote to me, verbatim: “All of our riflescopes are built with the same durability standards.” That’s cut and pasted straight from their email. To me, that’s pretty clear without much room for interpretation. I just wanted a logical explanation why, if that statement is true, the results are so different. The silence speaks volumes, imo.

I will concede now that this is pointless. We are arguing over semantics and unless Maven were to come on here and clear the air, we’re all just wasting our breath. I’ll bow out and continue purchasing other brands for now.

 

[Juan_ID]

They don’t even offer the RS.1 with a mil reticle, so why all the fuss??

 

[SteveAndTheCrigBoys]

Maybe they would all pass a 12" drop, but only the rs1 and 1.2 would pass 36" drops. So they're all up to "their standard", but some of their models exceed their standard.

That's probably the answer

 

[Marshfly]

These 2 dont seem to go together.

Trijicon Accupoint. Trijicon Credo 3-9. SWFA 3-9. All lightweight and reliable.

 

[Reburn]

Trijicon Accupoint. Trijicon Credo 3-9. SWFA 3-9. All lightweight and reliable.

20 oz is what you consider lightweight?
If that is the case there is a couple options at that range.

My nx8 1-8 LPVO on my gieselle weighs 17.5 oz and that is the lightest I have that I know works.

 

[sndmn11]

We are arguing over semantics

I don't think anyone here is arguing, I think we are having good discussion worth having.

 

[prm]

Why the interest in the RS1? I don’t see any reason to consider over the 1.2. An RS2 would at least be a very different option.

 

[atmat]

Why the interest in the RS1? I don’t see any reason to consider over the 1.2. An RS2 would at least be a very different option.

I suspect it’s to test whether there truly is a difference between old and new model’s durability.

 

[Buzby]

Maven doesn’t build scopes. I’d bet that most of the employees there have no idea what the inside of their scopes look like. They can’t tell you any more about how they’re made because they don’t know. Light Optics Works would have all the information about these and a good chunk of the other scopes that have been tested, 10mi, credo, SHV, NX8, Razor…
I doubt they’d share much though.

The Tract 2.5-15 appears to have the same specs on paper as the RS1.2, FOV, exit pupil, eye relief, all exact same. $200 cheaper, also LOW made.