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

[Formidilosus]

@Formidilosus is the vet wrap for protection/slight padding for knocks or is it to help obscure the scope as it wasn’t yet released?

Just to obscure.

 

[Dobermann]

@Formidilosus is the vet wrap for protection/slight padding for knocks or is it to help obscure the scope as it wasn’t yet released?

Was thinking about raiding my wife’s tack room and adding some to mine for some padding. Mine took a spill on lava rock unfortunately on Friday. I checked zero and it was fine but the vet wrap has me thinking it could be beneficial for those scenarios, plus provide a bit of texture for picking the rifle up by the scope.

If it's your kind of thing, ScopeChaps are well made and are good people: https://www.scopechaps.com/

They made one for me that was not on their standard list - I just sent dimensions and they had it to me quickly.

 

[prm]

I’ve always thought a shrink fit dense rubber/foam on the scope in key areas would really help with drops and zero retention.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

If it's your kind of thing, ScopeChaps are well made and are good people: https://www.scopechaps.com/

They made one for me that was not on their standard list - I just sent dimensions and they had it to me quickly.

I’ve used vet wrap forever since it’s always readily available in my wife’s barn/tack room. It’s light, sticks on easy with no residue, and easily replaceable. I’ve had it on rifle stocks, binoculars, and other random crap over the years. If I go this route I’ll probably just throw some vet wrap on the scope.

 

[Sled]

I’ve used vet wrap forever since it’s always readily available in my wife’s barn/tack room. It’s light, sticks on easy with no residue, and easily replaceable. I’ve had it on rifle stocks, binoculars, and other random crap over the years. If I go this route I’ll probably just throw some vet wrap on the scope.

I use it on my bow grips

 

[willfrye027]

I borrow it from the hospital great to have for cuts and minor stuff in the woods

 

[Mish-pop]

Eval updated.

Form, thanks for all the rigors you put this scope through. I was not planning on updating scopes but I recently had an issue with a scope on backup rifle. I wasn't planning to drop 1k on new scope but I may move my scope on my main rifle to backup rifle and get this Maven!

 

[Frank Dux]

Any winner as far as reliability between this and Tenmile 3-18x44?

I bought both with the intent of picking a winner and sending the other back, but I’m finding the choice more difficult to make than expected.

 

[atmat]

Any winner as far as reliability between this and Tenmile 3-18x44?

I bought both with the intent of picking a winner and sending the other back, but I’m finding the choice more difficult to make than expected.

My understanding so far is that both are excelling.

The Tenmile obviously has more history at this point.

Between the two, I’d pick what you want as far as other factors and assume reliability is the same.

 

[jamesmc8]

Any winner as far as reliability between this and Tenmile 3-18x44?

I bought both with the intent of picking a winner and sending the other back, but I’m finding the choice more difficult to make than expected.

At this point both the The Trijicon 2.5-15x42 and Tenmile 3-18-44 "passed the test" and the Credo 3-9x40 faired very well. Whearas the earlier Maven failed and this newer model passed. Hard to know if the actual design was totally reworked, I think Maven would have to weigh in on that. It is also possible that it was just chance/luck that the new model passed.

I think it is important to be realistic that in all these cases only one scope was tested. Extrapolating that to other scopes, product lines and entire companies has its limitations. This is not statistical unbiased randomized data, it is observational data. It is certainly valuable but it does have its limitations. Thankfully using this info and this forum each test simulates discussion and an atmosphere for larger groups of scope owners to report back on performance, durability etc.

 

[sndmn11]

Whearas the earlier Maven failed and this newer model passed. Hard to know if the actually design was totally reworked, I think Maven would have to weigh in on that.

I don't believe any RS1 model was ever evaluated. If one was, there is no thread on it here at Rokslide.

I have most of the speculation that folks have done about the RS1.2 addressed in the review I submitted a few weeks ago. It should be close to being published and will show up here https://rokslide.com/forums/threads/maven-rs1-2-home-page-review-inbound.338853/

 

[jamesmc8]

I don't believe any RS1 model was ever evaluated. If one was, there is no thread on it here at Rokslide.

Correct I was referring to the review of the Maven RS5, but should have made that more clear. I greatly look forward to the publication of your article and the additional information it provides.

 

[ResearchinStuff]

more Maven RS1.2's have been tested and had results posted here than trijicon tenmiles.

most scopes fail the eval hard and fast on a single sample, making it a near certainty that the design and/or manufacturing are fundamentally flawed. Factor in that these things are built by companies with effective six sigma programs, and it's a near certainty that the problem is actually the design.

Any models that pass the evaluations a single time standout in the positive direction. When multiple samples pass for multiple people that scope is an obvious outlier, and provides the strongest indication currently available that that particular scope is actually trustworthy.

 

[Formidilosus]

At this point both the The Trijicon 2.5-15x42 and Tenmile 3-18-44 "passed the test" and the Credo 3-9x40 faired very well. Whearas the earlier Maven failed and this newer model passed. Hard to know if the actually design was totally reworked, I think Maven would have to weigh in on that. It is also possible that it was just chance/luck that the new model passed.

The RS1.2 is not the same design as any other Maven.

I think it is important to be realistic that in all these cases only one scope was tested. Extrapolating that to other scopes, product lines and entire companies has its limitations. This is not statistical unbiased randomized data, it is observational data. It is certainly valuable but it does have its limitations.

It’s not one Tenmile or one RS1.2. Multiple of each have been done.

 

[jamesmc8]

The RS1.2 is not the same design as any other Maven.

It’s not one Tenmile or one RS1.2. Multiple of each have been done.

Good to know and appreciate the additional information. Just to clarify have the multiples of each been tested by you? If so any idea of the approximate numbers of each scope. Or are you referring to the collective testing done by other forum members using their own protocols?

 

[jamesmc8]

more Maven RS1.2's have been tested and had results posted here than trijicon tenmiles.

most scopes fail the eval hard and fast on a single sample, making it a near certainty that the design and/or manufacturing are fundamentally flawed. Factor in that these things are built by companies with effective six sigma programs, and it's a near certainty that the problem is actually the design.

Any models that pass the evaluations a single time standout in the positive direction. When multiple samples pass for multiple people that scope is an obvious outlier, and provides the strongest indication currently available that that particular scope is actually trustworthy.

Yeah I totally agree. Those that fail quickly and noticeably probably have a higher predictive value that other scopes of the same design and from the same manufacturer would show a higher failure rate as well. I am by no means being critical of the process and have been following with great interest. Great to see positive trends and be able to select scopes that probably have lower rates of issues/failures. Even better when this feedback is looked at by scope manufactures that could bring about positive changes in the industry.

 

[Formidilosus]

Good to know and appreciate the additional information. Just to clarify have the multiples of each been tested by you? If so any idea of the approximate numbers of each scope. Or are you referring to the collective testing done by other forum members using their own protocols?

I have done 4-5X Tenmiles, and 2x RS1.2’s personally. I am aware of two other RS1.2’s that were done correctly by people that are competent with how the initial eval is conducted- those are besides the drops done by people on this board.

 

[jamesmc8]

I have done 4-5X Tenmiles, and 2x RS1.2’s personally. I am aware of two other RS1.2’s that were done correctly by people that are competent with how the initial eval is conducted- those are besides the drops done by people on this board.

That is awesome and thank you. Apologize for my ignorance in thinking only a single scope was being tested.

 

[Formidilosus]

That is awesome and thank you. Apologize for my ignorance in thinking only a single scope was being tested.

Nothing to apologize for- I was just clarifying. While multiple RS1.2’s have done well, one cannot say they are good across the board. They are doing well enough that I am relatively comfortable saying that I would choose them over the Tenmile or any other scope for hunting in the power range.

 

[SDHNTR]

The RS1.2 is not the same design as any other Maven.

Yet when I asked Maven what makes the 1.2 different and more durable, I got the lame canned response… “all of our scopes are built to the same outstanding durability standards”.