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

[ljalberta]

Still find it difficult to believe that a few ounces one way or another is such a decision point for some. I don't care to schlep extra weight up the mountain, either, but what's an extra few ounces?

Few ounces on the scope. Few ounces on the tent. Few on the rifle. Few on the pad and bag. Few on the glassing setup. Few across the other gear. It all adds up. It’s fine having a few extra ounces, but it’s just better if you can get that same performance for a few ounces lighter.

This is a gear focussed forum after all. So we’re just gonna keep chasing slight improvements.

 

[amassi]

Few ounces on the scope. Few ounces on the tent. Few on the rifle. Few on the pad and bag. Few on the glassing setup. Few across the other gear. It all adds up. It’s fine having a few extra ounces, but it’s just better if you can get that same performance for a few ounces lighter.

This is a gear focussed forum after all. So we’re just gonna keep chasing slight improvements.

First thing on your list is the only responsible for killing
Everything else is comfort
Save weight on comfort items and have a better killing tool


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dobermann]

Few ounces on the scope. Few ounces on the tent. Few on the rifle. Few on the pad and bag. Few on the glassing setup. Few across the other gear. It all adds up. It’s fine having a few extra ounces, but it’s just better if you can get that same performance for a few ounces lighter.

This is a gear focussed forum after all. So we’re just gonna keep chasing slight improvements.

I get it and I'm with you - in general.

Buuut ... for me it's quite a different situation to be able to, say, compare 3-4 (or more) off-the-shelf offerings which mostly deliver on the same outcome functionally, and go with the weight savings when possible, versus having certain items where we just don't have 3-4 options to begin with.

I've used the former approach to compare dozens of items in every category - shaving enough ounces here and there that it's added up to kilograms - so yes, it can make a massive difference.

But I think Aron put it well when he said that there's some items where the functionality is such that the weight isn't really the relevant variable - the MSR Reactor as the option for a reliable stove, for example.

And we're just not at the point where we have a lot of scopes that perform similarly enough to where we can make weight be the main determining factor. Yet.

 

[caberslash]

I’m quite interested as to what was changed and if there is a “formula” to look for in a scope for durability. Coil spring erector system as opposed to leaf? A certain epoxy system for the lenses?

+1

So far, it's just been 'trust me bro'

 

[caberslash]

They also asked what the perfect RS scope is and this is what I sent them.

Long Range Hunter
3-18x44 or 4-16x42
30mm
Zero Stop
Mil
FFP
Simplified THLR Reticle
Exposed Elevation Turret
Capped windage Turret
20-22ish oz
Pass the Rokslide Drop test

...

 

[Balderdash]

Few ounces on the scope. Few ounces on the tent. Few on the rifle. Few on the pad and bag. Few on the glassing setup. Few across the other gear. It all adds up. It’s fine having a few extra ounces, but it’s just better if you can get that same performance for a few ounces lighter.

This is a gear focussed forum after all. So we’re just gonna keep chasing slight improvements.

I should have prefaced my statement by including my history with trying to shave weight at all costs. I tried to get by with the lightest scopes and rifles I could assemble. Wasn't happy with the results. Had reliability problems with scopes and the field position accuracy just wasn't where I needed it to be with UL rifles. Thus, I now have the opinion that some ounces are worth carrying.

But I do understand and try to mitigate the cumulative "little extra here, little extra there wont hurt" phenomenon With most gear.

 

[4th_point]

The results are excellent.

I have to ask... was the sample evaluated a pre-production unit?

Or was it part of the first run?

I seem to recall people mentioning that samples were at Rokslide before the scope was for sale? I could be remembering incorrectly though.

 

[Formidilosus]

The results are excellent.

I have to ask... was the sample evaluated a pre-production unit?

Or was it part of the first run?

I seem to recall people mentioning that samples were at Rokslide before the scope was for sale? I could be remembering incorrectly though.

It is a production scope.

 

[4th_point]

Thank you, sir.

 

[Kimber7man]

...

that 3-12 LRHS is 25 ounces...

 

[mtnwrunner]

Ounces equal pounds. Period.
It just boils down to what your priorities are and what you are willing to carry.

Randy

 

[Marshfly]

Few ounces on the scope. Few ounces on the tent. Few on the rifle. Few on the pad and bag. Few on the glassing setup. Few across the other gear. It all adds up. It’s fine having a few extra ounces, but it’s just better if you can get that same performance for a few ounces lighter.

This is a gear focussed forum after all. So we’re just gonna keep chasing slight improvements.

I am 100% in agreement with you. The Tenmile is the top weight I'm willing to "use up" on a scope. That's my limit since that scope does what a scope should do. I'd rather it be 18-20 ounces and I think a 40mm 3-12 would do that. My eye's don't have issues with that reticle so there is zero reason to add weight.

There also comes a weight when a scope feels like crap on a 6# or less rifle.

 

[Ryan Avery]

I get it and I'm with you - in general.

Buuut ... for me it's quite a different situation to be able to, say, compare 3-4 (or more) off-the-shelf offerings which mostly deliver on the same outcome functionally, and go with the weight savings when possible, versus having certain items where we just don't have 3-4 options to begin with.

I've used the former approach to compare dozens of items in every category - shaving enough ounces here and there that it's added up to kilograms - so yes, it can make a massive difference.

But I think Aron put in well when he said that there's some items where the functionality is such that the weight isn't really the relevant variable - the MSR Reactor as the option for a reliable stove, for example.

And we're just not at the point where we have a lot of scopes that perform similarly enough to where we can make weight be the main determining factor. Yet.

I disagree, we are there.

If NF came out with a NX-Lite 3-18x44 at 23oz it would crush both the NX8 models. In this industry weight matters.

 

[T_Widdy]

I disagree, we are there.

If NF came out with a NX-Lite 3-18x44 at 23oz it would crush both the NX8 models. In this industry weight matters.

Is there something in the works!?

 

[Sled]

that 3-12 LRHS is 25 ounces...

And has a shitty reticle.

 

[Ryan Avery]

Is there something in the works!?

I have no idea, just making a point


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Sled]

If NF came out with a NX-Lite 3-18x44 at 23oz it would crush both the NX8 models.

I wish they'd make their reticles more hunter friendly. A simple duplex with windage would suffice. It also seems like they put more effort into moa vs mrad.

 

[HighUintas]

Now Maven needs to do an rs2.1. I love that scope, but would like it to hold zero better. I think that scope, up to 16oz with an option for an exposed elevation turret, would be absolutely killer and would probably bump the swfa 3-9 out of my lineup if durability was equal.

 

[Marshfly]

Now Maven needs to do an rs2.1. I love that scope, but would like it to hold zero better. I think that scope, up to 16oz with an option for an exposed elevation turret, would be absolutely killer and would probably bump the swfa 3-9 out of my lineup if durability was equal.

2-10x38 FFP at sub 16 ounces Would be a darn near perfect backpacking western scope.

 

[HighUintas]

2-10x38 FFP at sub 16 ounces Would be a darn near perfect backpacking western scope.

, Yes forgot to mention it should also be FFP with reticle similar to the new one, non illuminated .