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

[Formidilosus]

Currently using automotive header wrap (works great) with a hose clamp on either end. Guessing the silicon wrap might move a little less ( be a little sticky?) and or be lighter.

It’s pretty light and easy to use- only sticks to itself. Works great for bolt guns and semi’s if not doing mag dumps.

 

[TheCougar]

It’s pretty light and easy to use- only sticks to itself. Works great for bolt guns and semi’s if not doing mag dumps.

So I’m doing something similar. Looking for lightweight, functional, and cheap. Permatex silicone wrap (theoretically good to >500F), covered in Coban vet wrap, optional Tesa Tape to cinch it down if needed to keep from slipping. My question for you is whether anything is needed/beneficial under the silicone tape. I have a welding blanket or some Nomex from old uniforms I can use as a layer under the silicone. My concern is getting the silicone too hot and/or having it bond to the can over time in case I ever need warranty service.

 

[Formidilosus]

So I’m doing something similar. Looking for lightweight, functional, and cheap. Permatex silicone wrap (theoretically good to >500F), covered in Coban vet wrap, optional Tesa Tape to cinch it down if needed to keep from slipping. My question for you is whether anything is needed/beneficial under the silicone tape. I have a welding blanket or some Nomex from old uniforms I can use as a layer under the silicone. My concern is getting the silicone too hot and/or having it bond to the can over time in case I ever need warranty service.

No melting/sticking has happened. I have melted it to where it split, but it didn’t get gummy. It also took 60 rounds from a gas gun fired quickly to do it.

 

[Formidilosus]

Update

 

[Formidilosus]

Updated.

 

[SDHNTR]

So after all this time now and success with the 1.2, do we know yet what general design elements went into this scope that has made it perform differently than the original failed RS.5 scope? Maven still has been remarkably quiet on the matter, and IMO, that doesn't instill confidence (in me anyway).

I still want to know. Otherwise this one succeeding and the previous one failing could have just been random odds, right?

 

[Formidilosus]

So after all this time now and success with the 1.2, do we know yet what general design elements went into this scope that has made it perform differently than the original failed RS.5 scope?

The RS.5 is a totally different scope design- they aren’t the same. Maven states that the RS1 and RS1.2 “are the same scope”. They were supposed to send an RS1 to Ryan to be evaled, but haven’t so far.

Maven still has been remarkably quiet on the matter, and IMO, that doesn't instill confidence (in me anyway).

Initially several were told that the RS1.2 was spec’d to be more durable/reliable. However the “official” answer is that it was not. Nothing was done to the RS1 to make the RS1.2 save the reticle and external turret. So- if they didn’t change anything, the RS1 just happens to be good at holding zero.

In any case, I would not expect them to put effort into making any more scopes work like the RS1.2.

I still want to know. Otherwise this one succeeding and the previous one failing could have just been random odds, right?

No. The RS.5 is a completely different scope. I have seen and used several different Maven scopes- the RS1.2 is the only model I am personally using.

 

[ResearchinStuff]

, I would not expect them to put effort into making any more scopes work like the RS1.2.

why? they've sold enough to outpace their supply

 

[SDHNTR]

why? they've sold enough to outpace their supply

Agreed. Hasn't this 1.2 experience been good for their sales?

 

[SDHNTR]

I know the RS5 and the 1.2 are not the same scope, but they have also claimed that all of their scopes are built to the same durability standards too.

 

[Formidilosus]

why? they've sold enough to outpace their supply

Agreed. Hasn't this 1.2 experience been good for their sales?

Yes. They freely admit that they’ve sold more RS1.2’s than anything. They also admit it was due to Rokslide. Yet, they did a podcast recently where they talked a bit about the drop eval and Rokslide. Besides getting details incorrect, it was also clear that they didn’t really care.

 

[Formidilosus]

I know the RS5 and the 1.2 are not the same scope, but they have also claimed that all of their scopes are built to the same durability standards too.

Actually I think (I might be incorrect) that they stated all their scopes are built to the same “quality”. “Quality” doesn’t mean durability specifically.


But, to that point Leupold, Vortex, Zeiss, etc., all state the same thing. They’re all FOS.

 

[finner]

Yes. They freely admit that they’ve sold more RS1.2’s than anything. They also admit it was due to Rokslide. Yet, they did a podcast recently where they talked a bit about the drop eval and Rokslide. Besides getting details incorrect, it was also clear that they didn’t really care.

What was the podcast?

 

[wind gypsy]

What was the podcast?

Looks like it’s on east meets west.

Edit: just listened to it, that’s the one. The dudes on the podcast from maven definitely don’t understand the drop test. Picked on guys breaking their scope from trying to duplicate.

 

[atmat]

Looks like it’s on east meets west.

Edit: just listened to it, that’s the one. The dudes on the podcast from maven definitely don’t understand the drop test. Picked on guys breaking their scope from trying to duplicate.

Seems like a bad business practice to pick on the demographic that you’ve admitted is paying the bills. I have a couple RS1.2’s, and although I’m not going to ditch them, that alone makes me think I won’t purchase another.

 

[finner]

Seems like a bad business practice to pick on the demographic that you’ve admitted is paying the bills. I have a couple RS1.2’s, and although I’m not going to ditch them, that alone makes me think I won’t purchase another.

If they openly admitted that A.) the drop test was a reasonable evaluation for a hunting optic and that B.) they put more robust internals in one model of their line in pursuit of zero retention and reliable tracking and that shocker, C.) it worked, that would imply that all the other scopes that they have out there in the hands of consumers aren't up to snuff. They've painted themselves into a corner.

 

[Jason Snyder]

They've painted themselves into a corner.

Only if the target audience cares enough to understand the situation and follow through with their dollars, which they likely won’t.

 

[willfrye027]

Well the rs 1.2 seem to work, and the reticle is good. I’ve got three and will probably get a few more at some point. I don’t really care how Maven feels about the drop test I just want good scopes..

 

[HighUintas]

I don't think there's much conclusion that can actually be drawn from that 2 minute discussion on drop testing in that interview.

It was clear that the owner speaking about it didn't have a full understanding of the drop eval, but I don't think they implied at all that they do not care. They also did state "no offense intended" when they made a couple jokes about customers calling in saying that they broke their scope. Well.... Duh... I would too if I were them.

They did however make it clear that they make what they want to make. They didn't say if that includes highly durable scopes

 

[SDHNTR]

If they openly admitted that A.) the drop test was a reasonable evaluation for a hunting optic and that B.) they put more robust internals in one model of their line in pursuit of zero retention and reliable tracking and that shocker, C.) it worked, that would imply that all the other scopes that they have out there in the hands of consumers aren't up to snuff. They've painted themselves into a corner.

True, but in my opinion, it’s also one that they could paint themselves out of with further honesty. Where they can remain as they are now, firmly stuck in that corner.