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

[Balderdash]

Speaking of clutter and design considerations. What is the reasoning behind 5 MIL windage before increasing size, or even having a 10 MIL marker? This reticle isn’t too bad honestly. If I were designing my reticle it would stop at ~3 MIL. That’s a lot of wind correction!

Count me as one of those who prefers, perhaps even needs, the markings. Just one or two so I know the pattern. I’m not very smart.

I don't disagree with you on how much windage correction space is taken up on the crooswire of a lot of reticles. The Maven reticle in reference is one of the more common sense reticles available, IMO.

Look how many take up 8-10 mils, which comes at the opportunity cost of not being able to quickly bracket game in the thicker crosswire at low X. Certainly there's some legitimate high wind correction scenarios, i.e. rimfires, ML's, 1500 yd+, etc, but for the more common big game cartridges used for longer range hunting, 5 mil wind is good plenty, IME. And even if you need 5+ mils windage to make an 800yd shot in the middle of a micro burst, you can always dial 5 and hold the rest.

 

[Mike D Texas]

The 2.5-20 doesn’t work on my long actions, and the 4-32 has issues. Everyone knows this. I own some. They never should have went 4-32. It’s just doesn’t work like it should

What do you feel doesn’t work on the NX8 4-32?

I hated the eye box when I first got mine but after spending time behind it it makes me more consistent with head alignment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Formidilosus]

As stated, for me it depends on the reticle. I generally don't mind them, but I find that I don't really need them either, and if given the choice I'd probably leave them off, especially on a hunting scope.

Might just be my brain-eye coordination, and I understand that such a subject will likely be highly equivocal, but it seems intuitive to me to look and immediately know where I'm at. Looking at the number almost seems like it takes longer.

Think about it from the perspective of probably 99.99% of people that can not just look at a reticle and know what each tick mark is- I can count on one hand the amount of people that I can hand random scopes to, and they will quickly figure out what each tick mark is- and lots of these people are very skilled shooters.

Numbered reticles aren’t really for the small percentage of users who shoot a lot and understand the system completely- they’re for people that don’t.

 

[Formidilosus]

Speaking of clutter and design considerations. What is the reasoning behind 5 MIL windage before increasing size, or even having a 10 MIL marker? This reticle isn’t too bad honestly. If I were designing my reticle it would stop at ~3 MIL. That’s a lot of wind correction!

I can see both sides to the 3 mil and 5 mil. The amount of people that should be shooting at an animal with more than 3 mils of wind is laughably small, and it makes it easier to bracket on low lower. However, in practice it is very good to shoot in high winds and dialing wind sucks. I hold way more than 3 mils in practice near weekly, and have held more than 3 mils on animals several times.

The SFP SHR-Mil in the RS.5 scope was 3 mils of holds, and as a pure hunting scope that probably is even better. However, the 5 mils on the FFP SHR-Mil is completely usable for hunting in all conditions out west that I have seen, and does offer more for high winds.
Anymore than 5 mils would be silly, but 5 mils is good.

Count me as one of those who prefers, perhaps even needs, the markings. Just one or two so I know the pattern.

You are the norm.

 

[Formidilosus]

What do you feel doesn’t work on the NX8 4-32?

I hated the eye box when I first got mine but after spending time behind it it makes me more consistent with head alignment.

The critical eyebox thing gets brought up nonstop about the NX8’s, yet is mostly ridiculous. The 4-32x is tighter on head position at 32x than other scope that aren’t 32x magnification. However, at sane magnifications say between 10-20x it is absolutely fine and is really no different than any other scope. Every high power, high zoom ratio scope that I have seen has a tight eyebox at max magnification.

 

[freddyG]

I like the numbered reticle, but I don’t think that this reticle does much more than the NF Mil-r. The only differences are really the dot, individual numbers(instead of even only), and center dot only illumination.

The biggest positive of the THLR for me, are the very bold outer posts(makes it super usable on lower powers), while making the clutter disappear.

Couple that with the heavy weight, with a still unproven scope(Compared to NF), and it’s hard to justify. Had they went ahead and used the THLR, I would order without hesitation.

 

[Balderdash]

Think about it from the perspective of probably 99.99% of people that can not just look at a reticle and know what each tick mark is- I can count on one hand the amount of people that I can hand random scopes to, and they will quickly figure out what each tick mark is- and lots of these people are very skilled shooters.

Numbered reticles aren’t really for the small percentage of users who shoot a lot and understand the system completely- they’re for people that don’t.

Maybe so for the majority of shooters. Not to be nit picky or marginalize your comment in any way, but I took the question as what we preferred as individuals, not what we thought the majority of shooters would prefer.

After posting, I thought about the fact that I have worked in carpentry for near 30 years. That's a lot of measuring, and it doesn't take more than a glance to see if I need 3/8, 3/16, or whatever the exact measurements might be. My tapes and measuring devices are generally not labeled to the fraction level. As such, maybe that has me wired to look at graduated lines and quickly discern the correlated number? Either way, it just seems intuitive to me to have the clean lines.

 

[willfrye027]

I like the numbered reticle, but I don’t think that this reticle does much more than the NF Mil-r. The only differences are really the dot, individual numbers(instead of even only), and center dot only illumination.

The biggest positive of the THLR for me, are the very bold outer posts(makes it super usable on lower powers), while making the clutter disappear.

Couple that with the heavy weight, with a still unproven scope(Compared to NF), and it’s hard to justify. Had they went ahead and used the THLR, I would order without hesitation.

It’s thicker and you can actually see the reticle at low power without illumination..huge difference when you actually look through them

 

[ID_Matt]

The critical eyebox thing gets brought up nonstop about the NX8’s, yet is mostly ridiculous. The 4-32x is tighter on head position at 32x than other scope that aren’t 32x magnification. However, at sane magnifications say between 10-20x it is absolutely fine and is really no different than any other scope. Every high power, high zoom ratio scope that I have seen has a tight eyebox at max magnification.

Agree. Hardly ever use my NX8 over 20X and have never thought twice about the eye box being finicky. It works just fine. If you compared the 4-32X at 24X to any other 24X max scope, no one would ever mention the eyebox.

 

[Formidilosus]

I like the numbered reticle, but I don’t think that this reticle does much more than the NF Mil-r. The only differences are really the dot, individual numbers(instead of even only), and center dot only illumination.

How are you coming to that conclusion?
The SHR-Mil reticle has little in common with the Mil-R except both are mil based. The Mil-R is a relatively poor reticle for low power, low light, broken terrain use. Using @Macintosh pictures of his Mil-R reticle.

4.5x



SHV-mil at 4.5x







MIL-R at 14x





SHV-Mil at 14x




The SHV-Mil is clearly more visible at both 4.5 and 14x (and all between); has a center dot- not a crosshair, and is evenly and simply spaced at .5 mil per mark. The Mil-R has gaps, hashes, T’s, +’s, and ticks on the main reticle.

Couple that with the heavy weight, with a still unproven scope(Compared to NF), and it’s hard to justify. Had they went ahead and used the THLR, I would order without hesitation.

I am not trying to convince you or anyone of anything, just trying to clarify. Basically all scopes are unproven in reliability and durability compared to legacy NF’s. And while truly long term performance has not been shown, without speaking where I shouldn’t, there has been more use on the RS1.2 than is posted here.

 

[prm]

Quick math: my 147 ELD-M, 2730 FPS, 5k elevation, 40 mph full value wind, 4.9 MIL occurs at 900yds. That’s 156” of windage, ha ha. Miss that wind call by a 5 mph and I’d be 1.5-2’ off target. Definitely above my skill level. But if 5 MIL is the preferred reticle coverage, so be it.

I just like to see reticles designed with intent. At some point a designer had to put cursor to screen and come up with design, so I wonder what was behind certain elements. With that in mind, this reticle has some curiosities. Perhaps described in owners manual.
1) the dropped line at 2.5 MIL windage?
2) the long line at 7.5(?) MIL?
3) why the lines at 5 MIL, already have the point where line expands in width
4) why 10 MIL lines?

I do like the reticle enough so not intending to bash it. Just honestly curious.

 

[OSU Fisher]

What do you feel doesn’t work on the NX8 4-32?

I hated the eye box when I first got mine but after spending time behind it it makes me more consistent with head alignment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I just find it pretty underwhelming for the price point. I don’t need the 32x. Something like a 5-25 would made it a lot better I think. The eye box isn’t the best but if you don’t chase the top end it’s useable. I wish it was more forgiving for multiple people usage in field conditions. I feel the parallax isn’t very forgiving either. The turrets are kinda blah but oh well. Not that big of a deal for a hunting optic. I also find the FFP reticle to not be great super small low end and big high end. Honestly I have 6 mark5’s. They blow the nx8 out of the water in every aspect except reliability/trustabilty. Which is why I keep leaning nx8 for new builds. I wish the 2 could have a baby haha the turrets, parallax, reticle and eye box is much better on the leupy. I just don’t trust them. Even though they’ve been good to me

 

[freddyG]

How are you coming to that conclusion?
The SHR-Mil reticle has little in common with the Mil-R except both are mil based. The Mil-R is a relatively poor reticle for low power, low light, broken terrain use. Using @Macintosh pictures of his Mil-R reticle.

4.5x
View attachment 643969


SHV-mil at 4.5x
View attachment 643970






MIL-R at 14x
View attachment 643971




SHV-Mil at 14x
View attachment 643972



The SHV-Mil is clearly more visible at both 4.5 and 14x (and all between); has a center dot- not a crosshair, and is evenly and simply spaced at .5 mil per mark. The Mil-R has gaps, hashes, T’s, +’s, and ticks on the main reticle.







I am not trying to convince you or anyone of anything, just trying to clarify. Basically all scopes are unproven in reliability and durability compared to legacy NF’s. And while truly long term performance has not been shown, without speaking where I shouldn’t, there has been more use on the RS1.2 than is posted here.

To my eyes there is little difference in practical use. While the low power is a bit better on the maven reticle, it’s still hard to see compared to the THLR. They are both 1/2 mil spaced reticles.

To me, the reticle only applies while trying to shoot in a hurry(to a point of course). When there is plenty of time to dial, the windshield matters little to me.

It must depend on hunting style, and practice, because things that hinder some here, aren’t even a concern for me. I do often shoot at coyotes where I have less than 5 seconds to make a shot, which is why the THLR reticle intrigues me.

 

[Mountainrancher]

I just find it pretty underwhelming for the price point. I don’t need the 32x. Something like a 5-25 would made it a lot better I think. The eye box isn’t the best but if you don’t chase the top end it’s useable. I wish it was more forgiving for multiple people usage in field conditions. I feel the parallax isn’t very forgiving either. The turrets are kinda blah but oh well. Not that big of a deal for a hunting optic. Honestly I have 6 mark5’s. They blow the nx8 out of the water in every aspect except reliability/trustabilty. Which is why I keep leaning nx8 for new builds. I wish the 2 could have a baby haha

Maven makes a 3.2 that is 5-30 no clue if it is similar in reliability to the 1.2

 

[willfrye027]

To my eyes there is little difference in practical use. While the low power is a bit better on the maven reticle, it’s still hard to see compared to the THLR. They are both 1/2 mil spaced reticles.

To me, the reticle only applies while trying to shoot in a hurry(to a point of course). When there is plenty of time to dial, the windshield matters little to me.

It must depend on hunting style, and practice, because things that hinder some here, aren’t even a concern for me. I do often shoot at coyotes where I have less than 5 seconds to make a shot, which is why the THLR reticle intrigues me.

Do you have one of the mavens? Only asking because the picture above doesn’t really capture the boldness well. I could *maybe* shoot an animal in the open with good light at 4.5x with the mil-R. The maven I can shoot without illumination probably close to dark. Personally I’ve killed a lot of game with quick shooting in low light and could never hunt with the mil-R. But I understand the people have different eyes, hunting styles, etc

 

[freddyG]

I just find it pretty underwhelming for the price point. I don’t need the 32x. Something like a 5-25 would made it a lot better I think. The eye box isn’t the best but if you don’t chase the top end it’s useable. I wish it was more forgiving for multiple people usage in field conditions. I feel the parallax isn’t very forgiving either. The turrets are kinda blah but oh well. Not that big of a deal for a hunting optic. Honestly I have 6 mark5’s. They blow the nx8 out of the water in every aspect except reliability/trustabilty. Which is why I keep leaning nx8 for new builds. I wish the 2 could have a baby haha

It sounds like we hunt in the same kind of terrain, because I like higher mag scopes too. I rarely use magnification over 16 to make shots, but it’s nice to have.

For the people that have to reduce magnification for closer shots, it must either be eyesight differences, or lack of practice. I have zero problem hitting a running coyote at 50 yards while on 16x, in under 5 seconds.

 

[amassi]

Maven makes a 3.2 that is 5-30 no clue if it is similar in reliability to the 1.2

Think Ryan Avery has one on his 6um


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[freddyG]

Do you have one of the mavens? Only asking because the picture above doesn’t really capture the boldness well. I could *maybe* shoot an animal in the open with good light at 4.5x with the mil-R. The maven I can shoot without illumination probably close to dark. Personally I’ve killed a lot of game with quick shooting in low light and could never hunt with the mil-R. But I understand the people have different eyes, hunting styles, etc

No, just going off the pics here, as the ATACR reticle pics are identical to what I see in real life.

 

[willfrye027]

No, just going off the pics here, as the ATACR reticle pics are identical to what I see in real life.

Gotcha. I don’t feel the need to convince you either way but looking through both of them, it’s a pretty stark difference to my eyes.

 

[freddyG]

Gotcha. I don’t feel the need to convince you either way but looking through both of them, it’s a pretty stark difference to my eyes.

No worries, I’m always looking for something better(aren’t we all). Lol
Personally, I don’t think it’s enough difference, especially considering the heavier weight of the scope.