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

[Formidilosus]

This isn’t a thread for memes.

 

[Frank Dux]

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

Did you happen to also compare the Tenmile at last light?

 

[amassi]

Did you happen to also compare the Tenmile at last light?

Yep it’s about the same as the maven
The maven wins if you turn the illumination on though since it won’t wash out


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mountainrancher]

Yep it’s about the same as the maven
The maven wins if you turn the illumination on though since it won’t wash out


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Given the probability of same manufacturer and the similar price point I would assume the tenmile and maven are almost identical on “glass quality” with the exception of some proprietary coatings

 

[4th_point]

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.

You're not crazy for wanting that. It sounds like you want a "crossover scope" or whatever it is called now. There have been polls at other sites, and IIRC something like ~4-20x seems to be the most requested.

Some thoughts...

I shoot with guys that have zero desire to have a 3-15x. They want more because they are buying higher end, and the rifles get a ton of use from plinking, to competing, to hunting. A lot of money goes into those rifles and it needs to do a lot of things. They are very experienced and capable, but may not even own a good spotting scope! They spot with their rifle scopes when practicing, and at comps there are other people with good spotters. An inexpensive spotter is used for hunting. Not my style, but I can't argue with the approach for them. Or their success. They don't struggle to get on target.

One thing that gets overlooked when discussing rifle scopes, and usually other optics, is visual acuity. If someone says that they like more magnification, they may not be able to articulate why. Extra zoom can no doubt become a crutch, and contribute to problems getting on target but how can someone possibly know what another person sees? Under varying conditions and terrain? What qualification does it requires to tell them that they are wrong? Apparently membership at Rokslide, no?

I am guilty of getting super frustrated with people who simply cannot see or are slow to get on target. I feel like idiot now, as I am witnessing more than a few shooters' vision change. ALL of them want more magnification compared to when I first started shooting with them. Some are still pretty young too, with their vision corrected as best as possible, so I can't tell them what "should work" for them. Others have just had "weird" vision all their lives. I don't even know what it is like, but I have to take their word for it.

The odd thing is that I have started to test their vision, and they can sometimes resolve more than me and I have better than 20/20! WTF?! However, when they get behind a scope something changes. I can only speculate that the aberrations in the scope, along with the aberrations in the eyeball compound. Something doesn't jive with their biological system.

They do better with more magnification. Might psychological? I don't know, but they shoot better.

 

[Frank Dux]

You're not crazy for wanting that. It sounds like you want a "crossover scope" or whatever it is called now. There have been polls at other sites, and IIRC something like ~4-20x seems to be the most requested.

Some thoughts...

I shoot with guys that have zero desire to have a 3-15x. They want more because they are buying higher end, and the rifles get a ton of use from plinking, to competing, to hunting. A lot of money goes into those rifles and it needs to do a lot of things. They are very experienced and capable, but may not even own a good spotting scope! They spot with their rifle scopes when practicing, and at comps there are other people with good spotters. An inexpensive spotter is used for hunting. Not my style, but I can't argue with the approach for them. Or their success. They don't struggle to get on target.

One thing that gets overlooked when discussing rifle scopes, and usually other optics, is visual acuity. If someone says that they like more magnification, they may not be able to articulate why. Extra zoom can no doubt become a crutch, and contribute to problems getting on target but how can someone possibly know what another person sees? Under varying conditions and terrain? What qualification does it requires to tell them that they are wrong? Apparently membership at Rokslide, no?

I am guilty of getting super frustrated with people who simply cannot see or are slow to get on target. I feel like idiot now, as I am witnessing more than a few shooters' vision change. ALL of them want more magnification compared to when I first started shooting with them. Some are still pretty young too, with their vision corrected as best as possible, so I can't tell them what "should work" for them. Others have just had "weird" vision all their lives. I don't even know what it is like, but I have to take their word for it.

The odd thing is that I have started to test their vision, and they can sometimes resolve more than me and I have better than 20/20! WTF?! However, when they get behind a scope something changes. I can only speculate that the aberrations in the scope, along with the aberrations in the eyeball compound. Something doesn't jive with their biological system.

They do better with more magnification. Might psychological? I don't know, but they shoot better.

Oh you done messed up now. At least you didn’t add a gif to your post.

 

[4th_point]

Oh you done messed up now. At least you didn’t add a gif to your post.

Some dudes just can't see well behind a scope, even if they pass an eye exam. Maybe it's an Oregon thing!

I just ignored them and told them to shoot. Even showed them over the years how 4x was plenty for 500. Or a red dot at 300. I should have just listened to them, and I would definitely approach it a lot different today.

Last year I definitely ate my words. I hunted Eastern OR, mountain wilderness area. I have been fine with fixed 6x FX or 6x MQ for close range and medium range and took a 10x MQ thinking it would be plenty for the area.

I ended up shooting a smaller buck at 500 but I couldn't see the antlers well with the 10x MQ or my 8x Swaros. It would not have been an issue if the landscape was different, or if there was only one buck. There was more than one, plus does, moving. I didn't have any trouble killing the buck once I thought it was the correct one. But that was the problem. There were at least two moving from the base of the mountain uphill, and I wanted one with a certain antler shape. Damn scope!

Didn't help that the antlers were small! Still, I would have used more magnification than 10x if I had it. I have better than 20/20 too. A good 15x would have been plenty in that situation. Maybe even a higher resolution 10x. Not much veg there either. It was a big brown patch on the side of a mountain. More of a problem with color contrast perhaps.

Not saying that Fisher has that problem though. There might be some other explanation that I am totally ignorant to, as to why he likes more magnification. I can't see with his eyeball. Or brain.

 

[Formidilosus]

You're not crazy for wanting that. It sounds like you want a "crossover scope" or whatever it is called now. There have been polls at other sites, and IIRC something like ~4-20x seems to be the most requested.

Some thoughts...

I shoot with guys that have zero desire to have a 3-15x. They want more because they are buying higher end, and the rifles get a ton of use from plinking, to competing, to hunting. A lot of money goes into those rifles and it needs to do a lot of things. They are very experienced and capable, but may not even own a good spotting scope! They spot with their rifle scopes when practicing, and at comps there are other people with good spotters. An inexpensive spotter is used for hunting. Not my style, but I can't argue with the approach for them. Or their success. They don't struggle to get on target.

One thing that gets overlooked when discussing rifle scopes, and usually other optics, is visual acuity. If someone says that they like more magnification, they may not be able to articulate why. Extra zoom can no doubt become a crutch, and contribute to problems getting on target but how can someone possibly know what another person sees? Under varying conditions and terrain? What qualification does it requires to tell them that they are wrong? Apparently membership at Rokslide, no?

I am guilty of getting super frustrated with people who simply cannot see or are slow to get on target. I feel like idiot now, as I am witnessing more than a few shooters' vision change. ALL of them want more magnification compared to when I first started shooting with them. Some are still pretty young too, with their vision corrected as best as possible, so I can't tell them what "should work" for them. Others have just had "weird" vision all their lives. I don't even know what it is like, but I have to take their word for it.

The odd thing is that I have started to test their vision, and they can sometimes resolve more than me and I have better than 20/20! WTF?! However, when they get behind a scope something changes. I can only speculate that the aberrations in the scope, along with the aberrations in the eyeball compound. Something doesn't jive with their biological system.

They do better with more magnification. Might psychological? I don't know, but they shoot better.

I have spent years dealing with this. It’s a visual comfort thing- not a physiological difference thing. I have spoken with several optometrists, even shot with a couple heavily. Anyone that can get corrective glasses to legally drive can see what you see. When they go in and get tested as X/X vision, and you are the same X/X vision- you are both resolving the same things at the same level. There are differences in color perception of course, but that hasn’t shown to have any correlation to the “I need more magnification” people.

On the other side of this, thousands- nigh, tens of thousands of those same people are shooting 8-12” targets at 400+ yards with 1-4x and 1-6x scopes on there AR’s all over the country. Yet somehow, when it’s a bolt action they all of a sudden need 20+ mag. It’s BS. I have taken dozens upon dozens of the “I can’t see it with 6x people” and made them shoot 6x with no excuses, including very unpleasant consequences for missing, and wonder of wonders they somehow magically find a way to shoot good groups on paper, and hit 12” targets all the way past 1,200m with that 6x scope that they couldn’t before.


People need to learn to separate “I like, I think, I feel”, from “I can’t”. The two are vastly different and yet almsot across the board when people say “I can’t” or “I need”, what they really mean is “I like”, or “I want”. That wouldn’t be an issue except generally people’s likes and wants aren’t based on rigorous study, practice, and comparative use- it’s based on at best- feelings. And feelings lie.

 

[freddyG]

Eyesight is definitely a factor that most just brush off. Sometimes I can see quite a bit of difference in glass between different examples of the same exact scope. Has anyone else noticed the same?

 

[Beetroot]

So Maven have finally given Rokslide what everyone wanted: a reliable scope with a usable reticle, decent glass, good features, and not too expensive.
Basically an updated Bushnell LRHS 3-12.

The only problem is its too heavy and needs less magnification, but also need more magnification, and needs to be cheaper.
It'd also help if it were a Nightforce and had the THLR reticle.

If you ever wondered why scope companies don't just listen to "market", we'll here's your answer.

I wonder how many people who have apparently been waiting for something like won't buy it as its not that final 5% of the way to being perfect (for them and their niche use case).

 

[Ryan Avery]

So Maven have finally given Rokslide what everyone wanted: a reliable scope with a usable reticle, decent glass, good features, and not too expensive.
Basically an updated Bushnell LRHS 3-12.

The only problem is its too heavy and needs less magnification, but also need more magnification, and needs to be cheaper.
It'd also help if it were a Nightforce and had the THLR reticle.

If you ever wondered why scope companies don't just listen to "market", we'll here's your answer.

I wonder how many people who have apparently been waiting for something like won't buy it as its not that final 5% of the way to being perfect (for them and their niche use case).

I also want a five-pound rifle that knocks down trees and doesn’t kick!

The 1.2 in Mils are back in stock, BTW!

RS1.2 - 2.5-15x44 FFP

Buy Maven Outdoor Equipment Company RS1.2 Riflescopes. Our RS Series Riflescopes stack up with the most celebrated and expensive scopes in the world…bar none.

mavenbuilt.com

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[freddyG]

So Maven have finally given Rokslide what everyone wanted: a reliable scope with a usable reticle, decent glass, good features, and not too expensive.

No manufacturer is ever going to produce something that everyone wants. Maven came fairly close to Ryan’s list, but they missed a few things FWIW.

 

[Jimbee]

Buy yourself 10% off Maven gift cards and save..also Active Junky is 4%. Pretty tempting

 

[JCMCUBIC]

The 1.2 in Mils are back in stock, BTW!

Ordered. Thanks.

 

[OSU Fisher]

Some dudes just can't see well behind a scope, even if they pass an eye exam. Maybe it's an Oregon thing!

I just ignored them and told them to shoot. Even showed them over the years how 4x was plenty for 500. Or a red dot at 300. I should have just listened to them, and I would definitely approach it a lot different today.

Last year I definitely ate my words. I hunted Eastern OR, mountain wilderness area. I have been fine with fixed 6x FX or 6x MQ for close range and medium range and took a 10x MQ thinking it would be plenty for the area.

I ended up shooting a smaller buck at 500 but I couldn't see the antlers well with the 10x MQ or my 8x Swaros. It would not have been an issue if the landscape was different, or if there was only one buck. There was more than one, plus does, moving. I didn't have any trouble killing the buck once I thought it was the correct one. But that was the problem. There were at least two moving from the base of the mountain uphill, and I wanted one with a certain antler shape. Damn scope!

Didn't help that the antlers were small! Still, I would have used more magnification than 10x if I had it. I have better than 20/20 too. A good 15x would have been plenty in that situation. Maybe even a higher resolution 10x. Not much veg there either. It was a big brown patch on the side of a mountain. More of a problem with color contrast perhaps.

Not saying that Fisher has that problem though. There might be some other explanation that I am totally ignorant to, as to why he likes more magnification. I can't see with his eyeball. Or brain.

I think you and I have hunted similar country. We hunt hells canyon area every year and multiple seasons. So big, steep and varying country. That can have a lot of different situations that lend to more mag at time. We hunt elsewhere when the opportunity/tags arise. I think where I’m coming from and liking the more “crossover” mag scope is… we shoot all my rifles year around. At many distances and most being 1k+. We do shoot steel which obviously 15x is plenty for but me personally I am big into precision. I love to shoot tiny groups on paper in the off season and tinker with my rifles and loads getting them to shoot the best they can. Higher mag makes that much easier. Also, my dad who shoots a lot with me is 66 and his eyesight isn’t the best anymore and when shooting for accuracy he really struggles seeing small targets. In the field I like higher mag for identification purposes. In the area we hunt a lot of time the descent bucks run together and it’s nice being able to identify which one you really want. Elk season we have spike only and any bull (2 different season). A lot of time with the spike season the higher mag when at good distance is very nice making sure it’s a spike (if a smaller one) there’s not always time to pull the spotter out or if your solo you don’t have someone over your shoulder talking you into the right animal. A lot of the time we will split up to glass different areas and people like my wife doesn’t usually pack a spotter and will glass with her binos then occasionally get a closer look at an animal through the scope. These are just some situations that have me liking 20-25x

 

[Carl Ross]

This scope’s going to change my life!




Almost certainly not (I have way too many good scopes as is), but I do like the package. If I remember I’ll report back with thoughts after some range time.

 

[HighUintas]

I have spent years dealing with this. It’s a visual comfort thing- not a physiological difference thing. I have spoken with several optometrists, even shot with a couple heavily. Anyone that can get corrective glasses to legally drive can see what you see. When they go in and get tested as X/X vision, and you are the same X/X vision- you are both resolving the same things at the same level. There are differences in color perception of course, but that hasn’t shown to have any correlation to the “I need more magnification” people.

On the other side of this, thousands- nigh, tens of thousands of those same people are shooting 8-12” targets at 400+ yards with 1-4x and 1-6x scopes on there AR’s all over the country. Yet somehow, when it’s a bolt action they all of a sudden need 20+ mag. It’s BS. I have taken dozens upon dozens of the “I can’t see it with 6x people” and made them shoot 6x with no excuses, including very unpleasant consequences for missing, and wonder of wonders they somehow magically find a way to shoot good groups on paper, and hit 12” targets all the way past 1,200m with that 6x scope that they couldn’t before.


People need to learn to separate “I like, I think, I feel”, from “I can’t”. The two are vastly different and yet almsot across the board when people say “I can’t” or “I need”, what they really mean is “I like”, or “I want”. That wouldn’t be an issue except generally people’s likes and wants aren’t based on rigorous study, practice, and comparative use- it’s based on at best- feelings. And feelings lie.

This is not entirely correct. It may be true for normal visual acuity differences that are correctable, but not for people with visual field defects.

There's many types of visual field defects, but a common age related issue is "floaters" , due to occlusions in the eye's vitreous. There can be various causes and the best case scenario is that they're reabsorbed in to the eye or the brain filters them out. In some cases, the floaters are large and permanent and always noticeable.

I have an eye issue that's left me with these permanent large floaters. It looks like a big stringy bug smashed on my windshield that's floating around, but primarily likes to hang out right in my central vision. I have trouble shooting at 600, as accurately as I could without the issue, even with my swfa 3-9 turned up to 9 because the occlusion blues that spot on the target.

Solution? Flick my eye around until I get a momentary break in the cloud to be able to see the target better. Or, use higher magnification.

For hunting, I don't think there's much of a practical difference for me except for scenarios that involve the extremes of light, distance, and coverage of the animal by branches. I should be able to use the outline of the animal to help place my shot accurately enough while having the mag turned down enough to be able to keep the animal in view or close to it after the shot.

However, having that extra magnification would help me in hunting to avoid that issue with light and cover extremes. It would also help be able to verify if there's branches in the way of the bullet path... Something I dealt with last year and missed a shot opportunity because it slowed down my decision process.

Yes for most people it's likely a comfort issue. For some it is not.

 

[ljalberta]

Need a restock on the bundles so I can hop on the bandwagon.

 

[atmat]

Need a restock on the bundles so I can hop on the bandwagon.

Would someone remind me what the bundle deal was?

 

[HighUintas]

Would someone remind me what the bundle deal was?

RS1.2 Riflescope Bundle

Buy Maven Outdoor Equipment Company RS1.2 Riflescopes. Our RS Series Riflescopes stack up with the most celebrated and expensive scopes in the world…bar none.

mavenbuilt.com