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

[Sled]

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.

I have the tract toric you mentioned and a credo in SFP. Both are great scopes, imo. I do recall the tract not doing so well in any of the drop tests but it's already outlasted all my vortex scopes that have moved on to a better life.

 

[Buzby]

I have the tract toric you mentioned and a credo in SFP. Both are great scopes, imo. I do recall the tract not doing so well in any of the drop tests but it's already outlasted all my vortex scopes that have moved on to a better life.

A different Tract was tested, the 3-15 SFP. Still made by LOW, but a totally different scope.

How visible is the reticle on your Tract at 2.5x?

 

[satchamo]

This may have been covered but there’s 400 comments…

Is there plans to test more than 1 maven 1.2 (exact same model)? I’m asking because it would be nice to know 3/3 of the same scope passed all the same tests vs 1/1. This would help paint a picture of overall reliability.

I understand money is a barrier so totally understand why you wouldn’t do that. But could you maybe elaborate on why or if you don’t think this would be necessary?

Thanks for all you’re doing!

 

[atmat]

This may have been covered but there’s 400 comments…

Is there plans to test more than 1 maven 1.2 (exact same model)? I’m asking because it would be nice to know 3/3 of the same scope passed all the same tests vs 1/1. This would help paint a picture of overall reliability.

I understand money is a barrier so totally understand why you wouldn’t do that. But could you maybe elaborate on why or if you don’t think this would be necessary?

Thanks for all you’re doing!

@Formidilosus alone tested two. Several others have tested theirs as well. This thing seems legit so far.

 

[Formidilosus]

This may have been covered but there’s 400 comments…

Is there plans to test more than 1 maven 1.2 (exact same model)? I’m asking because it would be nice to know 3/3 of the same scope passed all the same tests vs 1/1. This would help paint a picture of overall reliability.

I understand money is a barrier so totally understand why you wouldn’t do that. But could you maybe elaborate on why or if you don’t think this would be necessary?

Thanks for all you’re doing!

I have personally done two, and am aware of two more done correctly not on this forum that passed the initial eval as well. So, 4/4 so far for me.

 

[Formidilosus]

Updated.

 

[TxLite]

I have personally done two, and am aware of two more done correctly not on this forum that passed the initial eval as well. So, 4/4 so far for me.

After the recent eval update, where does the rs1.2 stand with the credo, tenmile, and swfa 3-9?

Is the 3-9 still the preferred general use scope?

 

[Formidilosus]

After the recent eval update, where does the rs1.2 stand with the credo, tenmile, and swfa 3-9?

Is the 3-9 still the preferred general use scope?

The Credo’s are SFP so we’re never in the running for me. The 3-9x SWFA is still the best 0-600’ish yard scope on the market- if you can find one. The 3-18x Tenmile and RS1.2 fill the same general niche, and for hunting the RS1.2 is better- if they continue to hold up.

If


Of what can be bought right now, the Maven RS1.2 is the best general option (again, if it continues to last).

 

[AirborneEScouter]

Has anyone had trouble with this scope in dovetail style rings (ie sportsmatch/UM) on a tikka? Maybe I have a long neck but I finally got around to mounting this scope and I’ve run out of room between the turret housing and the front ring to get my eye relief set appropriately. I don’t think I need to increase my LOP over factory but I’m about 0.5-1” from having what I need and just out of room with the dovetails. Was hoping to save a little weight and use these UMs but it’s not looking likely

 

[Formidilosus]

Has anyone had trouble with this scope in dovetail style rings (ie sportsmatch/UM) on a tikka? Maybe I have a long neck but I finally got around to mounting this scope and I’ve run out of room between the turret housing and the front ring to get my eye relief set appropriately. I don’t think I need to increase my LOP over factory but I’m about 0.5-1” from having what I need and just out of room with the dovetails. Was hoping to save a little weight and use these UMs but it’s not looking likely

Are you putting your head in the position like you would an AR- nose to charging handle?

 

[Balderdash]

Has anyone had trouble with this scope in dovetail style rings (ie sportsmatch/UM) on a tikka? Maybe I have a long neck but I finally got around to mounting this scope and I’ve run out of room between the turret housing and the front ring to get my eye relief set appropriately. I don’t think I need to increase my LOP over factory but I’m about 0.5-1” from having what I need and just out of room with the dovetails. Was hoping to save a little weight and use these UMs but it’s not looking likely

I prefer to go to the integral Tikka rail, and I very much like the UM rings for doing so; however, the Maven in reference is a longish scope, and ring spacing with the integral Tikka rail doesn't allow for getting the rings as far to the periphery of the tube as possible. In your case, it looks like the integral rail might not allow for proper ER, either.

In any case, while redundant on a Tikka in some instances, adding a pic rail is a robust mounting system, and it allows for optimum ring spacing for strength and in scope positioning for ER.

 

[atmat]

Has anyone had trouble with this scope in dovetail style rings (ie sportsmatch/UM) on a tikka? Maybe I have a long neck but I finally got around to mounting this scope and I’ve run out of room between the turret housing and the front ring to get my eye relief set appropriately. I don’t think I need to increase my LOP over factory but I’m about 0.5-1” from having what I need and just out of room with the dovetails. Was hoping to save a little weight and use these UMs but it’s not looking likely

I have had no troubles. In fact, I think it’s a much more forgiving scope to mount than a lot of other models.

 

[Marbles]

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.

I find it amusing when people think cheaper items that look the same and are made in the same factory are the same as the more expensive item. Yes, it is possible. However, that extra cost goes to better materials and tighter QC in most cases.

It is equally as valid to speculate that LOW puts the components that fail QC for the Maven into the Tract. Obviously I'm not saying they do that, but looking the same and being made in the same factory means very little. Even if the glass and body are the exact same, the components that mater for reliability can be very different.

Steel that is harder to machine costs more to produce. Making a part in two pieces, then joining them can be much cheaper than making it as one piece both due to material costs (needing to source larger stock) and machining costs (more complexity). Holding components to tighter tolerances costs more and means more components are rejected (which adds to cost), getting springs made in Japan will cost more than importing the springs from China, Etc., Etc.

We will never know, so a bet is meaningless, but I would put good money on the two not being the same and Tract trying to hit a cheaper price point which good specs accounting for the difference.

 

[AirborneEScouter]

Are you putting your head in the position like you would an AR- nose to charging handle?

If I am, it’s not apparent to me when I’m holding the rifle up. I am using the same natural positioning I do with all my other rifles, getting into the rifle with my eyes closed and just finding myself too short on eye relief. I’m short in prone, seated, standing, doesn’t matter. To be fair I have an extra inch of spacers in all my rifles, this is a new tikka and I have it in the factory stock without any mods.

With the scope as far forward as I can get it in the dovetails, I just feel very unnatural no matter how I scoot back to get in the gun and set the appropriate eye relief. I’ve heard it said multiple times that a “longer” shooter utilizing a standard/13.5” LOP is not going to have a major effect on fit, and I’d agree, but I simply can’t make the dovetails work for me. Maybe it’s a me thing and I’ll get it worked out with a pic rail but was mainly curious if anyone else had noticed the same thing

 

[atmat]

To be fair I have an extra inch of spacers in all my rifles

If all your other rifles are 14.5 LOP, then I’d add an extra inch before I’d switch to a pic rail.

 

[Buzby]

I find it amusing when people think cheaper items that look the same and are made in the same factory are the same as the more expensive item. Yes, it is possible. However, that extra cost goes to better materials and tighter QC in most cases.

It is equally as valid to speculate that LOW puts the components that fail QC for the Maven into the Tract. Obviously I'm not saying they do that, but looking the same and being made in the same factory means very little. Even if the glass and body are the exact same, the components that mater for reliability can be very different.

Steel that is harder to machine costs more to produce. Making a part in two pieces, then joining them can be much cheaper than making it as one piece both due to material costs (needing to source larger stock) and machining costs (more complexity). Holding components to tighter tolerances costs more and means more components are rejected (which adds to cost), getting springs made in Japan will cost more than importing the springs from China, Etc., Etc.

We will never know, so a bet is meaningless, but I would put good money on the two not being the same and Tract trying to hit a cheaper price point which good specs accounting for the difference.

I find it amusing that, you assuming they are internally different is more valid than me assuming they are internally the same.

Sure, the Maven could be found to be statistically more reliable. But these are equivalent to a GMC and Chevrolet truck. They are far more alike than different. You think GM has separate bins for Chevy pistons and GMC pistons?

I doubt Tract would be ok with QC reject components in their scopes. Or that LOW makes several tiers of parts that fit in the same exact scope bodies. This doesn’t fit the Lean Manufacturing style that Japanese companies live by

Aside from the weight (bigger locking turret on the heavier TT) the stats are the same. Any differences are within what digit they round to. You could very well be correct, and they do have different internal parts that coincidentally come out to the same specs

I may have to put my money where my mouth is and order one of the TTs and drop test it.

 

[Marbles]

I find it amusing that, you assuming they are internally different is more valid than me assuming they are internally the same.

Sure, the Maven could be found to be statistically more reliable. But these are equivalent to a GMC and Chevrolet truck. They are far more alike than different. You think GM has separate bins for Chevy pistons and GMC pistons?

More like Toyota and Lexus. Lexus parts, made with better materials, will fit my Tacoma.

I doubt Tract would be ok with QC reject components in their scopes. Or that LOW makes several tiers of parts that fit in the same exact scope bodies. This doesn’t fit the Lean Manufacturing style that Japanese companies live by

See above, by the way, Toyota, pioneered lean manufacturing and they own Lexus, I think you stereotype and do not know of what you speak.

Aside from the weight (bigger locking turret on the heavier TT) the stats are the same. Any differences are within what digit they round to. You could very well be correct, and they do have different internal parts that coincidentally come out to the same specs

I may have to put my money where my mouth is and order one of the TTs and drop test it.
View attachment 668063

If you are correct, Maven is either ripping off customers (same no middle man business model as Tract), or Maven is being ripped off.

Tract ran like a wiped puppy at the idea of making scopes that would pass the drop test, well first they said the could, then they crawfished out. I think they know very well how to do it, and from a business perspective buying cheaper internals and hitting a lower price point is the better move for them. After all, I drive Toyotas even though Lexus makes more reliable vehicles.

 

[Dobermann]

Someone better test the Tract and put this to sleep fast.

Either way, we know that Tract are still the same, or we have something else to celebrate this year.

(although after a quick look, the Tract reticle is nowhere near as good as the Maven - but it's better than many others...)

 

[Buzby]

Someone better test the Tract and put this to sleep fast.

Either way, we know that Tract are still the same, or we have something else to celebrate this year.

(although after a quick look, the Tract reticle is nowhere near as good as the Maven - but it's better than many others...)

Agreed, maven has the better reticle.

 

[Axlrod]

I find it amusing that, you assuming they are internally different is more valid than me assuming they are internally the same.

Sure, the Maven could be found to be statistically more reliable. But these are equivalent to a GMC and Chevrolet truck. They are far more alike than different. You think GM has separate bins for Chevy pistons and GMC pistons?

I doubt Tract would be ok with QC reject components in their scopes. Or that LOW makes several tiers of parts that fit in the same exact scope bodies. This doesn’t fit the Lean Manufacturing style that Japanese companies live by

Aside from the weight (bigger locking turret on the heavier TT) the stats are the same. Any differences are within what digit they round to. You could very well be correct, and they do have different internal parts that coincidentally come out to the same specs

I may have to put my money where my mouth is and order one of the TTs and drop test it.
View attachment 668063

Chevy Vegas and Cadillac Coupe de Villes were both made by GM.