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

[OSU Fisher]

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

I actually have 2 of the 3.2 sitting on my shelf of gear. I haven’t seen any real world reliability examples so I’m hesitant. Was going to sell them and go with more nx8’s

 

[OSU Fisher]

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.

Well at least I’m not the only idiot not real hunter on here… haha I agree with you. I just personally don’t see the negative to having a scope that covers a little broader area or whatever I’m trying to say. I get the want and need for smaller closer range scope. But if we are talking mid to longer ranges. Something that’s 25-30oz. 30+mm tube and 44mm or bigger obj. Why not have a scope in that 4-24 ish range with a useable reticle on the low and high end. I don’t see how that is a bad thing or work for almost anyone? And cover whatever situation you run into in the field. 4-5 power seems plenty low for any quick close range shots at least it’s always been for me. Including dark thick timber and then 24-25 on the high end lets you have descent mag for any situation where that is handy. Maybe I’m just an idiot And have unrealistic wants. There’s some really close ones out there. I think if they would mesh the 1.2 and 3.2 you would have a winner. Split the difference on mag. Good weight and size, have illumination, good useable reticle and above all reliable and tough.

 

[OSU Fisher]

Think Ryan Avery has one on his 6um


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think he did. Maybe has the trijicon on it now from some field posts I’ve seen on here. I’ve asked about it a few times on here recently and don’t get any reply’s.

 

[sbaker0029]

For those who want one, they're back in stock for now. Just got the email

 

[Formidilosus]

I just personally don’t see the negative to having a scope that covers a little broader area or whatever I’m trying to say.

It isn’t a broader area for hunting though. People can say all they want that 20+ X is great on animals, and yet in multiple states, multiple animals with wide variety of people every year, all I see is problems from high magnification. They almost always have some level of struggle finding the animal in the scope initially and keeping the animal in the scope. If they need to pull their eye off for any reason, they have more issues, and as the stress or sense of urgency increases, all of that sky rockets. Heaven forbid the animal moves even a little, then the whole thing starts again. From 400 yards and out, people using more than 10-12x rarely get back on the animal to get a follow up shot. If they do, it’s always palpable that it took way too long.

Conversely, with the same exact people, once they stop using high mag, finding the animal is easy and quick, keeping the animal in the scope, keeping on it when it moves, reestablishing the the animal in the scope of cheekweld is broken, and follow up shots are quick and easy- literally every single aspect of killing an animal is easier with lower magnification.

I’ve been with somewhere between 6-8 RS members hunting in the last few years, some were ardent believers in higher magnification, and yet almost all have struggled mightily on animals in front of me and others from those exact same issues above. I believe Ryan is the only one that is somewhat consistently using more than around 10x.

I get the want and need for smaller closer range scope. But if we are talking mid to longer ranges. Something that’s 25-30oz. 30+mm tube and 44mm or bigger obj. Why not have a scope in that 4-24 ish range with a useable reticle on the low and high end.

Because at 24x to maintain the same clarity and usability, glass must be measurably and noticeably better. That equals cost, and usually size and weight. 24x with a 40mm to 44mm objective will have a tighter eyebox, in general less DOF, more finicky parallax, and overall worse user experience. And also, generally be more expensive, heavier, and larger.

I don’t see how that is a bad thing or work for almost anyone? And cover whatever situation you run into in the field. 4-5 power seems plenty low for any quick close range shots at least it’s always been for me. Including dark thick timber and then 24-25 on the high end lets you have descent mag for any situation where that is handy. Maybe I’m just an idiot.

I don’t believe you are an idiot, and no one has called you that- you are saying that. I am not going to convince you of anything, nor would care to. I am addressing in as objective a manner as possible what you ask or state. Every single person that I have met and watched shoot or hunt that has your argument/view of magnification has failed doing so. That doesn’t mean you, or someone else would. But it is striking that I have yet to meet someone that can pin their power to 20x and kill animals without issues- quite a few from this forum.

As for the magnification and why people are suffering from you, is that it does not seem that you have a very broad base of experience with a large subset of the population in varying environments and scopes to be able to separate “I like/think/feel” from “works in the broadest set of circumstances”.
This isn’t being rude either- it very hard to separate “I wish” and “data shows” in our brains, and very few manage to do it. I wish I had a scope with 50x magnification that had as much FOV and clarity as 4x, with size and weight of a Leupold fixed 4x, that also was extremely reliable and cost $1,000. But that isn’t how it works.

I accompanied someone a couple years ago that had a disaster on an elk at 984 yards and 25x SFP scope among other things. When he went to my rifle, I set the scope to 8x and told him not to touch it (it’s a 5-25x scope). He killed the elk easily without much issue. I had another that basically experienced all of the issues I wrote above, on an elk at just past 600 yards because they refused to turn down the magnification- they also “had never had an issue before”.
Another last year that could not find or stay on an elk at a bit over 600 yards as they kept turning the power up to 12-18x. I finally turned the power to 8x and told them not to touch it- they were then able to find the slowly moving elk, stay on it, and finish it. All of these people were “experienced” hunters and shooters. Yet they all had the same issues.

High mag isn’t needed to kill on demand at distance. I killed an elk last year at 803 yards at 7x, the year before at 644y, 560y, and multiple between 400 and 500 yards with the max magnification used being 12x on the 560 yard one- all others were between 7-9x.
I killed an elk at 1,106 yards starting at 12x, but turned it down until the FOV was correct to keep it in the scope- when done I looked and it was on 9x.

I can go on and on and on with animals, people, and results. High mag (over about 1.5x per hundred yards) is a visual comfort thing, and in the field universally hurts performance, not helps. Conversely, using 1 to 1.5x per hundred yards is a dramatic, observable difference in people of all skill levels.

There’s some really close ones out there. I think if they would mesh the 1.2 and 3.2 you would have a winner. Split the difference on mag. Good weight and size, have illumination, good useable reticle and above all reliable and tough.

I listed 8-9 scopes that meet those specs. Why are you not using one of the multiple S&B’s that do so? Or the Trijicon that does?

 

[freddyG]

I do agree with Form that most people just aren’t prepared to work with high mag. It takes practice. Everyone I hunt with use low magnification.

It would be interesting to hunt alongside some of you to see how everyone does things. Everything is relative, and maybe there is a better way. Kind of a “don’t know what you don’t know” sort of thing.

 

[freddyG]

Well at least I’m not the only idiot not real hunter on here… haha I agree with you. I just personally don’t see the negative to having a scope that covers a little broader area or whatever I’m trying to say. I get the want and need for smaller closer range scope. But if we are talking mid to longer ranges. Something that’s 25-30oz. 30+mm tube and 44mm or bigger obj. Why not have a scope in that 4-24 ish range with a useable reticle on the low and high end. I don’t see how that is a bad thing or work for almost anyone? And cover whatever situation you run into in the field. 4-5 power seems plenty low for any quick close range shots at least it’s always been for me. Including dark thick timber and then 24-25 on the high end lets you have descent mag for any situation where that is handy. Maybe I’m just an idiot And have unrealistic wants. There’s some really close ones out there. I think if they would mesh the 1.2 and 3.2 you would have a winner. Split the difference on mag. Good weight and size, have illumination, good useable reticle and above all reliable and tough.

I have no problem going with a lower mag scope. When there are higher mag options that weigh close to the low mag scope, Its a no brainer to choose the higher mag scope(as long as everything else is close to the same).

That’s where I think we’re at here. At least I am.

 

[5811]

High mag (over about 1.5x per hundred yards) is a visual comfort thing

When I heard you say this on the podcast is when it clicked in my brain. I learned to get really comfortable with high mag over the years, but in the service I regularly went 9 or 10/10 at 500m with peep sites. And it was really uncomfortable forcing that level of focus, but I'll be darned if it didn't work. A comfort thing is a great way to describe it.

 

[OSU Fisher]

It isn’t a broader area for hunting though. People can say all they want that 20+ X is great on animals, and yet in multiple states, multiple animals with wide variety of people every year, all I see is problems from high magnification. They almost always have some level of struggle finding the animal in the scope initially and keeping the animal in the scope. If they need to pull their eye off for any reason, they have more issues, and as the stress or sense of urgency increases, all of that sky rockets. Heaven forbid the animal moves even a little, then the whole thing starts again. From 400 yards and out, people using more than 10-12x rarely get back on the animal to get a follow up shot. If they do, it’s always palpable that it took way too long.

Conversely, with the same exact people, once they stop using high mag, finding the animal is easy and quick, keeping the animal in the scope, keeping on it when it moves, reestablishing the the animal in the scope of cheekweld is broken, and follow up shots are quick and easy- literally every single aspect of killing an animal is easier with lower magnification.

I’ve been with somewhere between 6-8 RS members hunting in the last few years, some were ardent believers in higher magnification, and yet almost all have struggled mightily on animals in front of me and others from those exact same issues above. I believe Ryan is the only one that is somewhat consistently using more than around 10x.






Because at 24x to maintain the same clarity and usability, glass must be measurably and noticeably better. That equals cost, and usually size and weight. 24x with a 40mm to 44mm objective will have a tighter eyebox, in general less DOF, more finicky parallax, and overall worse user experience. And also, generally be more expensive, heavier, and larger.







I don’t believe you are an idiot, and no one has called you that- you are saying that. I am not going to convince you of anything, nor would care to. I am addressing in as objective a manner as possible what you ask or state. Every single person that I have met and watched shoot or hunt that has your argument/view of magnification has failed doing so. That doesn’t mean you, or someone else would. But it is striking that I have yet to meet someone that can pin their power to 20x and kill animals without issues- quite a few from this forum.

As for the magnification and why people are suffering from you, is that it does not seem that you have a very broad base of experience with a large subset of the population in varying environments and scopes to be able to separate “I like/think/feel” from “works in the broadest set of circumstances”.
This isn’t being rude either- it very hard to separate “I wish” and “data shows” in our brains, and very few manage to do it. I wish I had a scope with 50x magnification that had as much FOV and clarity as 4x, with size and weight of a Leupold fixed 4x, that also was extremely reliable and cost $1,000. But that isn’t how it works.

I accompanied someone a couple years ago that had a disaster on an elk at 984 yards and 25x SFP scope among other things. When he went to my rifle, I set the scope to 8x and told him not to touch it (it’s a 5-25x scope). He killed the elk easily without much issue. I had another that basically experienced all of the issues I wrote above, on an elk at just past 600 yards because they refused to turn down the magnification- they also “had never had an issue before”.
Another last year that could not find or stay on an elk at a bit over 600 yards as they kept turning the power up to 12-18x. I finally turned the power to 8x and told them not to touch it- they were then able to find the slowly moving elk, stay on it, and finish it. All of these people were “experienced” hunters and shooters. Yet they all had the same issues.

High mag isn’t needed to kill on demand at distance. I killed an elk last year at 803 yards at 7x, the year before at 644y, 560y, and multiple between 400 and 500 yards with the max magnification used being 12x on the 560 yard one- all others were between 7-9x.
I killed an elk at 1,106 yards starting at 12x, but turned it down until the FOV was correct to keep it in the scope- when done I looked and it was on 9x.

I can go on and on and on with animals, people, and results. High mag (over about 1.5x per hundred yards) is a visual comfort thing, and in the field universally hurts performance, not helps. Conversely, using 1 to 1.5x per hundred yards is a dramatic, observable difference in people of all skill levels.






I listed 8-9 scopes that meet those specs. Why are you not using one of the multiple S&B’s that do so? Or the Trijicon that does?

I appreciate your insight and the time you’ve taken to write all that and do tests and so on. I totally understand and can see your points of view/experiences etc. it makes sense. I’m not advocating always shooting at game on high power. I agree with the majority of what you’re saying. I guess my “wants” falls under being a little more of a broad coverage optic. Maybe that’s a bad way to look at it. I do understand this comes with other issues/hurdles to jump over. Like price, potential size, weight and so on. Maybe what I’m asking for just isn’t realistic at this point. Although I our current world of technology it’s mind blowing that it is so difficult. But I’m not a scope designer/engineer. The s&b are spendy and the trijicon are heavy and a lot of options aren’t FFP moa. I know you’re a mil guy. To each their own. I have nothing against both I just prefer moa. I personally feel the mark5 had 5-25 checks basically everyone’s box’s except reliability. Why can’t someone make a scope like that. Sub 30oz. Can dial the mag back to shoot game good useable reticle (for me) and so on.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

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.

The THLR is an excellent coyote reticle. So far, this maven is also really good at all zoom ranges.

 

[OSU Fisher]

I have no problem going with a lower mag scope. When there are higher mag options that weigh close to the low mag scope, Its a no brainer to choose the higher mag scope(as long as everything else is close to the same).

That’s where I think we’re at here. At least I am.

Agree. Oh well. Can’t please everyone I guess. Maybe someday

 

[Formidilosus]

I appreciate your insight and the time you’ve taken to write all that and do tests and so on. I totally understand and can see your points of view/experiences etc. it makes sense. I’m not advocating always shooting at game on high power. I agree with the majority of what you’re saying. I guess my “wants” falls under being a little more of a broad coverage optic. Maybe that’s a bad way to look at it. I do understand this comes with other issues/hurdles to jump over. Like price, potential size, weight and so on. Maybe what I’m asking for just isn’t realistic at this point. Although I our current world of technology it’s mind blowing that it is so difficult. But I’m not a scope designer/engineer. The s&b are spendy and the trijicon are heavy and a lot of options aren’t FFP moa. I know you’re a mil guy. To each their own. I have nothing against both I just prefer moa. I personally feel the mark5 had 5-25 checks basically everyone’s box’s except reliability. Why can’t someone make a scope like that. Sub 30oz. Can dial the mag back to shoot game good useable reticle (for me) and so on.

I understand where you are coming from. MOA certainly reduces the options.

 

[amassi]

I do agree with Form that most people just aren’t prepared to work with high mag. It takes practice. Everyone I hunt with use low magnification.

It would be interesting to hunt alongside some of you to see how everyone does things. Everything is relative, and maybe there is a better way. Kind of a “don’t know what you don’t know” sort of thing.

While not super relevant to todays large scale scope
I started hunting with a fixed 6x and saved up and bought a vari x ii 3-9 and promptly killed 8-10 critters with it on 6x.
Granted it was sfp so reticle thickness didn’t change or matter.
Now w/ ffp scopes I’ll typically get them on the mag where I can use the reticle for a close low light shot without turning on illumination
6.5-7x on the tenmile
4x on the maven
4x on s&b 3-12 klassik
7x on the nx8
Almost all of my hunting takes place less than 1x per 100 yards but that’s incidental, I’m not looking at the mag before shooting just turning up/down for fov and letting it fly.
Coincidentally I also find it’s easier to zero these high power ffp scopes on 9-10 power to occlude the least amount of target


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[freddyG]

I think context matters here too. I only work 1-2 days a week, and since the only things to do here that I enjoy are hunt, fish, shoot, that’s pretty much my life. I shoot at least 4 days a week. All 6.5 cal and bigger.

If I only shot/hunted during big game season, I probably wouldn’t be so picky.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

I do agree with Form that most people just aren’t prepared to work with high mag. It takes practice. Everyone I hunt with use low magnification.

It would be interesting to hunt alongside some of you to see how everyone does things. Everything is relative, and maybe there is a better way. Kind of a “don’t know what you don’t know” sort of thing.

Come out to AZ anytime and come shoot! It’s gonna be 70 degrees today and low wind.

Since I moved here full time I’ve gone out with lots of guys I’ve never shot or hunted with before. It’s interesting to see the different tactics applied to shooting and killing. Or attempting to shoot and kill.

My experience and sentiments echo what Form much more eloquently put than I was able to.

I’ve never once hunted big game or varmints in broken mountainous terrain with somebody who didn’t look like a monkey trying to **** a football with their scope on 20+ zoom. It’s one thing on open hillsides, slightly open terrain, or grassy flats. With animals moving in and out of tricky terrain all “zooming in” does is lead to crap shows and misses.

This is my personal experience. I am always open to learning new ways to skin a cat these days. I’m always willing to have people out to shoot if they are in the area as well so this isn’t some “fake invitation”. Shoot me a pm anytime.

 

[Frank Dux]

I skipped to the end. Are we crowning this thing yet?

 

[Macintosh]

Id venture to guess there are more than 100 times the hunters shooting game and targets most often where 2.5x is more useful than there are where 16x+ is more appropriate. Remember, there’s more hunting licenses sold in one year in Pennsylvania, than the entire population of Wyoming.
I love that there are people wishing for higher mag…while Im over here trying to figure out which scope has a wider field of view because my 3-9 is too much magnification. For a gun that is supposed to be able to do anything well, 2.5-3x up to 15-16x seems like it covers all the bases pretty darn well for about anywhere Ive ever hunted. Most of my rifle deer kills are under 50 yards, at that range the difference between keeping a fleeting, brown-on-brown critter thats running for its life in your field of view is noticeable even between 2x and 3x. I certainly appreciate the versatility of this mag range for a hunter that spends time both in the woods and also shoots out to what most people consider quite long range to shoot at game.

 

[Frank Dux]

Seems like maybe S&B Klassic 3-12 and the Trijicon 3-18x44 have probably been the most highly recommended scopes in this mag range on Rokslide. I don’t know if a ranking list exists, just trying to remember what I’ve come across.

Is there a list?

How does this compare to those?

 

[atmat]

Seems like maybe S&B Klassic 3-12 and the Trijicon 3-18x44 have probably been the most highly recommended scopes in this mag range on Rokslide. I don’t know if a ranking list exists, just trying to remember what I’ve come across.

Is there a list?

How does this compare to those?

I have the 3-12x SB Klassic, so I’ll give you my thoughts having not yet viewed this new Maven.

The Klassic is great overall. Its robust, holds zero, dials well beautiful glass, easy to get behind. Some people have issues with glare, though mine doesn’t.

In comparison to maven, I like the mag range and reduced weight with the SB. I do wish it had .5 mil windage markings on the reticle, as well as wish it had more dial-able elevation, though. They’re priced pretty comparably. I’d say it’s somewhat of a toss-up, though I suspect people would lean to the Maven.

 

[amassi]

Seems like maybe S&B Klassic 3-12 and the Trijicon 3-18x44 have probably been the most highly recommended scopes in this mag range on Rokslide. I don’t know if a ranking list exists, just trying to remember what I’ve come across.

Is there a list?

How does this compare to those?

My klassik is the older 3.8 mil elevation so it’s somewhat limited and lives on a woods/ forest focused rifle
It’s a great scope,
The maven has a better turret and reticle
Subjectively the klassik glass looks a touch better
Objectively I could resolve a 3D deer target at the edge of an oak patch at 300 yards about 5 minutes longer with the klassik
Both the klassik and maven have a better reticle than the tenmile
The tenmile and maven to my eye have identical glassing qualities on the same power


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk