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

[ME180]

Rockslide has me sold on this scope for a Tikka 7PRC build. I just wish it was in stock.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

Rockslide has me sold on this scope for a Tikka 7PRC build. I just wish it was in stock.

They’ve been coming back into stock very quickly so far.

 

[SDHNTR]

Has anyone found out yet what’s different about this scope? Thicker tube? Stronger springs?

 

[Formidilosus]

Has anyone found out yet what’s different about this scope? Thicker tube? Stronger springs?

According to Maven, the RS1.2 is “exactly the same” as the RS1 except for external turret and reticle…. They are supposed to be sending Ryan an RS1 to eval.

 

[atmat]

According to Maven, the RS1.2 is “exactly the same” as the RS1 except for external turret and reticle…. They are supposed to be sending Ryan an RS1 to eval.

Are you skeptical of their statement?

 

[gbflyer]

Can permanent adhesive used in the manufacturing process be part of the equation? I’ve tried to research this a bit. I’ve had hints that high end NF and Trijicon as an example are so well glued that it can’t be serviced, the need for such results in a scope being replaced instead of repaired. Lesser adhesives can be released and scope repaired, saving the manufacturer from full replacement.

Wish someone would just spill the damn beans as to what makes them tick! lol.

 

[ResearchinStuff]

It's propriety competitive advantage not to tell, so they shouldn't. But companies should be applying the secret sauce to all their products, not just a random selection as maven currently seems to.

 

[Marshfly]

Need to get a drop test going on the RS.2. We need some lightweight scope options that don't break.

 

[Reburn]

lightweight scope options

that don't break.

These 2 dont seem to go together.

 

[DangerRanger]

Does maven usually do sales? I missed the timing that the bundle

 

[SDHNTR]

It's propriety competitive advantage not to tell, so they shouldn't. But companies should be applying the secret sauce to all their products, not just a random selection as maven currently seems to.

Yes, but plenty of scope manufacturers use things like tube thickness, stainless steel, brass, etc., metal vs plastic, and coil vs leaf springs in their marketing materials to illustrate how their construction is more robust than the competition. They could be general enough to answer the question without divulging trade secrets. There’s no secret to a 3/32” thick tube vs 1/16”.

Their response that it’s all the exact same except for features is obviously BS.

I’d buy one in a heartbeat, but I need more confidence and a legit explanation what makes this one different. BS answers and hiding behind marketing speak does not instill confidence. Actually, for me, it does the opposite.

 

[Kimber7man]

Yes, but plenty of scope manufacturers use things like tube thickness, stainless steel, brass, etc., metal vs plastic, and coil vs leaf springs in their marketing materials to illustrate how their construction is more robust than the competition. They could be general enough to answer the question without divulging trade secrets. There’s no secret to a 3/32” thick tube vs 1/16”.

Their response that it’s all the exact same except for features is obviously BS.

I’d buy one in a heartbeat, but I need more confidence and a legit explanation what makes this one different. BS answers and hiding behind marketing speak does not instill confidence. Actually, for me, it does the opposite.

Marketing materials don't mean crap, and it's about drop tests and reall life use. Isn't it???

 

[gbflyer]

It's propriety competitive advantage not to tell, so they shouldn't. But companies should be applying the secret sauce to all their products, not just a random selection as maven currently seems to.

True. They could secretly tell me though. I wouldn’t spread anything. Promise.

 

[Reburn]

Yes, but plenty of scope manufacturers use things like tube thickness, stainless steel, brass, etc., metal vs plastic, and coil vs leaf springs in their marketing materials to illustrate how their construction is more robust than the competition. They could be general enough to answer the question without divulging trade secrets. There’s no secret to a 3/32” thick tube vs 1/16”.

Their response that it’s all the exact same except for features is obviously BS.

I’d buy one in a heartbeat, but I need more confidence and a legit explanation what makes this one different. BS answers and hiding behind marketing speak does not instill confidence. Actually, for me, it does the opposite.

True. They could secretly tell me though. I wouldn’t spread anything. Promise.

How exactly is a rainbow made? How exactly does a sun set? How exactly does a posi-trac rear-end on a Plymouth work? It just does.
- Daddy Dirt

 

[ResearchinStuff]

Yes, but plenty of scope manufacturers use things like tube thickness, stainless steel, brass, etc., metal vs plastic, and coil vs leaf springs in their marketing materials to illustrate how their construction is more robust than the competition. They could be general enough to answer the question without divulging trade secrets. There’s no secret to a 3/32” thick tube vs 1/16”.

Their response that it’s all the exact same except for features is obviously BS.

I’d buy one in a heartbeat, but I need more confidence and a legit explanation what makes this one different. BS answers and hiding behind marketing speak does not instill confidence. Actually, for me, it does the opposite.

The explanation that they're all the same, despite evidence that they're not, is keeping me away too.

 

[sndmn11]

Yes, but plenty of scope manufacturers use things like tube thickness, stainless steel, brass, etc., metal vs plastic, and coil vs leaf springs in their marketing materials to illustrate how their construction is more robust than the competition. They could be general enough to answer the question without divulging trade secrets. There’s no secret to a 3/32” thick tube vs 1/16”.

Their response that it’s all the exact same except for features is obviously BS.

I’d buy one in a heartbeat, but I need more confidence and a legit explanation what makes this one different. BS answers and hiding behind marketing speak does not instill confidence. Actually, for me, it does the opposite.

I am interested in reading these rifle scope marketing materials from plenty of manufacturers that describe the usage of different types of metal and springs, can you link or PM them?

What marketing speak is being hidden behind in the case of the RS1.2?

 

[SDHNTR]

I am interested in reading these rifle scope marketing materials from plenty of manufacturers that describe the usage of different types of metal and springs, can you link or PM them?

What marketing speak is being hidden behind in the case of the RS1.2?

Here’s a couple examples:

3 reasons why March Scopes are strong and can be relied on at toughest conditions. | Quality, Factory | MARCH Scopes | DEON Optical Design CorporationMARCH Scopes | DEON Optical Design Corporation

MARCH Scopes Official Site

marchscopes.com

Beyond the Glass - Nightforce Optics

At most of the annual hunting and shooting shows attended by high-end manufacturers exhibiting their wares, there is a phenomenon known as “the whistler.” This refers to the old boy that wanders up to a booth, inspects one of the products on display, and inquires, “How much is one ‘o them things?”

www.nightforceoptics.com

And the marketing speak I’m referring to came in the form of an email from the company when I specifically asked what is different about this scope. I was told the same things apparently Form was: the reticle had changed and the exterior turret was different. I was told “ all of our scopes are designed to the same durability standards”. to me, that’s marketing speak when real world results have shown otherwise.

 

[sndmn11]

Here’s just one example:

3 reasons why March Scopes are strong and can be relied on at toughest conditions. | Quality, Factory | MARCH Scopes | DEON Optical Design CorporationMARCH Scopes | DEON Optical Design Corporation

MARCH Scopes Official Site

marchscopes.com

And the marketing speak I’m referring to came in the form of an email from the company when I specifically asked what is different about this scope. I was told the same things apparently Form was: the reticle had changed and the exterior turret was different. I was told “ all of our scopes are designed to the same durability standards”. to me, that’s marketing speak when real world results have shown otherwise.

I was told the same by Cade when interviewing him for the review here. RS1 and RS1.2 have no internal changes. I am not seeing how that is marketing speak though and nobody has information to the contrary. Would it be marketing speak if true?

I think we have different concepts of what "marketing materials" are, but I appreciate the link.

 

[SDHNTR]

I was told the same by Cade when interviewing him for the review here. RS1 and RS1.2 have no internal changes. I am not seeing how that is marketing speak though and nobody has information to the contrary. Would it be marketing speak if true?

I think we have different concepts of what "marketing materials" are, but I appreciate the link.

I’m not trying to call anyone out, but why then do the results not mirror the claim? Multiple people have asked for further explanation, and not gotten any genuine answers. Only the same regurgitated response. The lack of concrete info just seems evasive. It triggers the BS meter. Address the issue head on. If there’s a logical explanation, let’s hear it.

If the statement were proven true, no, I wouldn’t brush it off as marketing speak, but it needs substantiation. That’s what’s missing. The dots don’t seem to connect. Prove me wrong, please. I’d love to be wrong on this one. We need more good scope options.

 

[sndmn11]

I’m not trying to call anyone out, but why then do the results not mirror the claim?

There's no results. No RS1 has not been notoriously tested here or elsewhere. @Formidilosus replied to you above that he believes one is en route to test.

According to Maven, the RS1.2 is “exactly the same” as the RS1 except for external turret and reticle…. They are supposed to be sending Ryan an RS1 to eval.

The information he seems to have matches my first hand conversation in regards to the RS1 = RS1.2.

@SDHNTR I quoted your statement because I think it's premature and a good example of slippery slope assumptions that have been repeated enough here that some think they are fact. One of those is that there were some magical changes inside the RS1.2. Without anyone having tested an RS1, or looked at the parts list/build sheet of each, or cut each open and compare, it's just baseless speculation without substantiation.

I think the prudent course would be patience in waiting for dot two to show up (RS1 testing) before jumping to the conclusion of dots not connecting. If "we" want objective testing, objective results, and ultimately to get an objective view of these tests by brands/mfgs, then "we" need to also concluded objectively and apply what was learned of a SKU only to that SKU and put away the jump to conclusion mats.