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

[wind gypsy]

Who was it?

I don’t know who any of those dudes are, I only listened to about 5 minutes.

 

[wind gypsy]

What I really want to know is who this “Formalicious” guy is? Sounds way cooler than @Formidilosus

 

[4cMuley]

Optics companies are infuriating. Simple, and repeatable is all we’re asking. No illum bs, simple mil/MOA reticles, and simple magnification ranges…If SWFA did it… c’mon. The glass doesn’t have to be world class either

 

[freddyG]

Maven is in an odd situation. Some of their designs work, while others don’t. Updating the designs that don’t would be the correct choice, but it will cost money. Are they a big enough company to absorb that cost, in order to justify the potentially extra sales?

 

[RWT]

I have completed a low end test on a RS 1. I believe it held zero for “my rifle set up”. Then again I also believe I have an issue with my set up. The entire zero grew from 1.5 to 3”. During the test and the entire Cone moved down about 1”. this is after the 18”/36” drops. I did not go all in on the 9 consecutive drops as I am comfortable stopping at single 36’s. I will post results soon. I believe I need to bond my rail to the action and try again.

I can state I would hunt with this set up now as it shoots to my ability and I limit myself to 500yrds and under shots.

 

[Formidilosus]

I've seen some sort of put a scope in a rest/clamp, look through it, remove, whack, put back in the rest sort of thing. The removal then reinstall didn't come across as anything more than "it didn't break" because it didn't appear to be repeatable or precise.

NF’s collimator and impact process works very well, and can resolve shifts way smaller than can be seen.

 

[sndmn11]

NF’s collimator and impact process works very well, and can resolve shifts way smaller than can be seen.

Do you believe that if you had their setup, you would no longer have a need for your zero retention testing?

 

[SteveAndTheCrigBoys]

I know… I was joking

Same

 

[Ucsdryder]

NF’s collimator and impact process works very well, and can resolve shifts way smaller than can be seen.

I’ve always wondered about this. Rather than the time and effort you’re putting into these scope evaluation, why not just do the NF process? Your process is much more “real life” testing but if it works in a similar fashion it seems it would be a lot less effort on your part.

 

[Formidilosus]

Do you believe that if you had their setup, you would no longer have a need for your zero retention testing?

No. Not for me anyways. The NF system checks the erector moving/ it doesn’t check binding from rings, or bending a tube- and all lab tests should be, and in actual testing- are, checked with field testing for the same issues.

 

[Formidilosus]

I’ve always wondered about this. Rather than the time and effort you’re putting into these scope evaluation, why not just do the NF process? Your process is much more “real life” testing but if it works in a similar fashion it seems it would be a lot less effort on your part.

See post above, but also because it causes the same things with people- “well how hard do you hit”, “how many times do you hit it”, etc. NF’s system is good for a lab setup to check every scope before you ship them- that already have a very refined design and have been throughly tested. But doesn’t work for long term zero retention with high round counts, binding of the tube, bending of the tube, etc.

 

[sndmn11]

The NF system checks the erector moving/ it doesn’t check binding from rings, or bending a tube-

I think you should start a thread on your experiences and observations with rings.

 

[Dobermann]

Where’s Sightron, Vortex, Bushnell or the others???

At this point, I personally don't care.

Well ... it would be great if all scopes were durable - but the RS1.2's combination of durability, reticle, weight (and even 'features' and 'glass') ticks almost all the boxes enough for me to quit worry about the others and just get out there and shoot.

 

[Dobermann]

Seems like a bad business practice to pick on the demographic that you’ve admitted is paying the bills. I have a couple RS1.2’s, and although I’m not going to ditch them, that alone makes me think I won’t purchase another.

I get where you're coming from ... but from what @Ryan Avery has posted, it sounds like they did listen, and gave us (mostly) what we asked for. That's more than anyone else in the scope world has ever done.

I'm happy to ignore if they're slightly asshatty given what they delivered.

It would take more than that - like a THLR reticle in a similar scope with proven durability - to get me to shift from the RS1.2 any time soon.

 

[JollyRoger]

At this point, I personally don't care.

Well ... it would be great if all scopes were durable - but the RS1.2's combination of durability, reticle, weight (and even 'features' and 'glass') ticks almost all the boxes enough for me to quit worry about the others and just get out there and shoot.

I mostly agree with you. I do not find myself wanting more for a general hunting rifle scope outside of what the RS1.2 has to offer. It’s fantastic and I plan on a few more. I like that it works and holds zero, dials correctly, as well as the mag range, zero stop, capped windage, and of course the reticle.

However… it wasn’t that long ago you could go buy a SWFA 6x or 3-9 on any given day and have it within a week. Before most even knew who they were. And now you most definitely cannot do that. I hope Maven keeps on trucking with this design even if they don’t want to make other scopes that function the same. I also want to see the day when I can walk in to Cabela’s or go to a website and take my pick of the best scope that does all the things correctly. Or when we see the posts “which 6x 20oz scope is the best for my grandson’s lightweight sheep rifle” and have legitimate scopes to choose from.

More options = more gooder. We are already seeing that with stock design… its just a slow process

 

[TxLite]

Looks like it’s on east meets west.

Edit: just listened to it, that’s the one. The dudes on the podcast from maven definitely don’t understand the drop test. Picked on guys breaking their scope from trying to duplicate.

I guess I took this differently.

It sounded to me like they were just having a good time and joking about guys not checking for rocks before dropping their scope for a YouTube video. It didn’t seem to me like they were trying to make guys or the test look bad, just mentioning that the warranty was being abused by people doing the test incorrectly. They also mentioned that the drop test was meant to simulate real life fall situations.

Maybe I misinterpreted but to me it didn’t sound as bad as some people took it. Admittedly I skipped to the drop test portion of the podcast so they could’ve said something different earlier or later on.

I did find it funny when they said “Formilicious”. Instant fish net form vibes.

 

[Dobermann]

Just listened to the podcast - and less than impressed. A lot of misunderstanding and/or misrepresentation there. Given that we've been told they're paying attention to this thread, they obviously haven't paid very close attention at all.

I'm not going to bother listing them all here, but they got a lot wrong about the drop eval, who has done what 'testing' and why/how, and more.

I'm going to revise my position above: if their attention to detail about something so simple - and that apparently has been so positive for their orders - is that messed up, then that doesn't bode well for their attention to detail in other areas.

My strategy has shifted to try to buy half a dozen RS1.2s before they stuff it up through lack of care.

 

[Bluumoon]

I guess I took this differently.

It sounded to me like they were just having a good time and joking about guys not checking for rocks before dropping their scope for a YouTube video. It didn’t seem to me like they were trying to make guys or the test look bad, just mentioning that the warranty was being abused by people doing the test incorrectly. They also mentioned that the drop test was meant to simulate real life fall situations.

Maybe I misinterpreted but to me it didn’t sound as bad as some people took it. Admittedly I skipped to the drop test portion of the podcast so they could’ve said something different earlier or later on.

I did find it funny when they said “Formilicious”. Instant fish net form vibes.

I feel slightly targeted by the checking for rocks comment. I dropped one right on the rocks. It’s fine and I didn’t need a repair…. Thankfully…

 

[HighUintas]

If I were running a business I probably wouldn't spend a ton of time on forums. Some but not as much as now.

Some people don't do forums. I wouldn't fault them for that.

 

[Dobermann]

If I were running a business I probably wouldn't spend a ton of time on forums. Some but not as much as now.

Some people don't do forums. I wouldn't fault them for that.

I think the issue, though, is that they credit Rokslide with some of the success of the RS1.2, but then misrepresent many aspects of the drop eval, the Slide as a forum, and so on.

So not saying they 'should' be on here - but they reference the Slide multiple times in a short period on that episode - and get a lot of things wrong. Not a good example of 'know your market', and not a good example of attention to (basic) detail.