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

[ChrisAU]

For those wondering:

1: Yes the Kestrel throw lever for the RS1 fits the RS1.2 perfectly.

2: Yes you can easily remove the Kestrel sticker if you want, peels right off.

 

[Dobermann]

I’ve signed up for notifications multiple times and have not received one yet…..

If you write to them, they seem to maintain a list of people they give a heads up to first.

I stupidly didn't remind them to put me back on it, so didn't find out about this last drop in time.

However, effectively having two lists makes me wonder how that works for the folks who just sign up via their site ...

 

[SloppyJ]

I’ve signed up for notifications multiple times and have not received one yet…..

Normally that's the case for me. At least when it comes to LRM primers. However, I can say that their notifications have been working for me. I've been pussyfooting around about getting another NF or this so I haven't pulled the trigger yet but I can't say I haven't had the opportunity. Now that I want to buy one, I probably just jinxed myself. You need to select the reticle version you want before you sign up for notifications, FYI.

For anyone that has both, would you pick the Maven over the NF SHV 4x14 with the Mil R SHV reticle? If so why?

 

[Dobermann]

Normally that's the case for me. At least when it comes to LRM primers. However, I can say that their notifications have been working for me. I've been pussyfooting around about getting another NF or this so I haven't pulled the trigger yet but I can't say I haven't had the opportunity. Now that I want to buy one, I probably just jinxed myself. You need to select the reticle version you want before you sign up for notifications, FYI.

For anyone that has both, would you pick the Maven over the NF SHV 4x14 with the Mil R SHV reticle? If so why?

Pretty sure a couple of folks on here have said the Maven reticle is superior for hunting ... I think Form has said this in at least two posts, and probably two or three other Slide members as well ...

 

[ridgeline]

My NF SHV 4-14 Mil R "good scope" just couldn't find any love for it and sent it down the road... So yesterday upon my Tikka/Bravo combo I peeled of another good scope to mount the new to me Maven RS1.2 SHR-Mil and can see with only a cursory finger blasting session and static tracking test that if live fire is money, I'd have no hesitation to buy more...

 

[ChrisAU]

Normally that's the case for me. At least when it comes to LRM primers. However, I can say that their notifications have been working for me. I've been pussyfooting around about getting another NF or this so I haven't pulled the trigger yet but I can't say I haven't had the opportunity. Now that I want to buy one, I probably just jinxed myself. You need to select the reticle version you want before you sign up for notifications, FYI.

For anyone that has both, would you pick the Maven over the NF SHV 4x14 with the Mil R SHV reticle? If so why?

Yes, and I’ve had a couple 4-14 SHVs including the new MIL-C model and the MIL-R. The Maven is a 1/4 lb lighter, has a much wider FOV on minimum mag, a touch higher max mag, a much better zero stop, is a more compact package, and I’d bet it has better glass though that’s not high on list of concerns for me. Oh, and of course the biggest thing, the reticle. Both NF reticles are awful for hunting compared to the Maven. I can’t think of any scenario where the SHV is a better tool for any job than the Maven.

 

[Grundy53]

Normally that's the case for me. At least when it comes to LRM primers. However, I can say that their notifications have been working for me. I've been pussyfooting around about getting another NF or this so I haven't pulled the trigger yet but I can't say I haven't had the opportunity. Now that I want to buy one, I probably just jinxed myself. You need to select the reticle version you want before you sign up for notifications, FYI.

For anyone that has both, would you pick the Maven over the NF SHV 4x14 with the Mil R SHV reticle? If so why?

Having now used both, I would pick the Maven. It has a much better reticle.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

 

[NSI]

Nothing wrong with the SHV, and it comes from a company that’s honest about their product. But yes - the reticle and weight of the Maven are undeniably better. I wouldn’t sell a SHV FFP that was well zero’d and performing well, but it would be a hard argument to choose it from a fresh start anymore.

-J

 

[Theross03]

This might be more a moa vs mils question, but all the “best ffp reticle for hunting” comments- is that universal across all their reticles? I’d prefer the mil version but continuously miss out on the last few times they’ve been in stock. I’ve always shot moa, but have been wanting to take the leap to mil on a new optic. So bottom line, I’m considering “settling” on the SHR MOA reticle just to have one in hand for an upcoming elk hunt in October, vs playing the wait and luck out game on a mil version.

 

[atmat]

This might be more a moa vs mils question, but all the “best ffp reticle for hunting” comments- is that universal across all their reticles? I’d prefer the mil version but continuously miss out on the last few times they’ve been in stock. I’ve always shot moa, but have been wanting to take the leap to mil on a new optic. So bottom line, I’m considering “settling” on the SHR MOA reticle just to have one in hand for an upcoming elk hunt in October, vs playing the wait and luck out game on a mil version.

Don’t settle for the MOA version. It’s not as good of a reticle, and it’s mils.

Where are you located? If you’re in the Denver area I can probably lend you one for your hunt.

 

[Theross03]

Don’t settle for the MOA version. It’s not as good of a reticle, and it’s mils.

Where are you located? If you’re in the Denver area I can probably lend you one for your hunt.

Absolutely appreciate the offer. I’m in Texas, and would really prefer to have some considerable range time leading up to the hunt if I’m moving to mils, just to be sure I’m comfortable with dialing on a new scale and different distances.

 

[fwafwow]

The video they posted for install instructions featuring Jake, he used a 25 inch lb fix it stick. When used against a calibrated torque wrench I found the 25 inch lb fix it stick to be 27-28 inch lbs. I torqued mine with blue loctite to 28 inch lbs then nail polish over the screws.

Now that I have my Maven, I went back to the UM site to confirm the torque specs. I may try it out on my RSS and my S20. The former has UM Tikka rings and the S20 has UM Premier rings.

For the UM Tikka rings, in the video Jake says that the clamp should be 45 in-lbs and the rings should be 25 in-lbs. The written instructions below the video specify 55 in-lbs and 30 in-lbs, respectively. The 25"# reference (at around 18:09) does have a graphic correction to 30 in-lbs, but there is no similar correction in the video for the clamps (which are covered at around 12:00). Does anyone know if the written instructions are current/correct? This post by UM (https://rokslide.com/forums/threads/um-tikka-scope-rings.310275/post-3174521) says 45 and 30, so I'm not sure if the 55 is a typo.

For the UM Premier rings, the written instructions say to use 45 and 25, respectively. I did not see a video. Are these what folks are using for these rings?

 

[finner]

Now that I have my Maven, I went back to the UM site to confirm the torque specs. I may try it out on my RSS and my S20. The former has UM Tikka rings and the S20 has UM Premier rings.

For the UM Tikka rings, in the video Jake says that the clamp should be 45 in-lbs and the rings should be 25 in-lbs. The written instructions below the video specify 55 in-lbs and 30 in-lbs, respectively. The 25"# reference (at around 18:09) does have a graphic correction to 30 in-lbs, but there is no similar correction in the video for the clamps (which are covered at around 12:00). Does anyone know if the written instructions are current/correct? This post by UM (https://rokslide.com/forums/threads/um-tikka-scope-rings.310275/post-3174521) says 45 and 30, so I'm not sure if the 55 is a typo.

For the UM Premier rings, the written instructions say to use 45 and 25, respectively. I did not see a video. Are these what folks are using for these rings?

Yeah I have the premier rings on an RS1.2 at 45 and 25

 

[Formidilosus]

Now that I have my Maven, I went back to the UM site to confirm the torque specs. I may try it out on my RSS and my S20. The former has UM Tikka rings and the S20 has UM Premier rings.

For the UM Tikka rings, in the video Jake says that the clamp should be 45 in-lbs and the rings should be 25 in-lbs. The written instructions below the video specify 55 in-lbs and 30 in-lbs, respectively. The 25"# reference (at around 18:09) does have a graphic correction to 30 in-lbs, but there is no similar correction in the video for the clamps (which are covered at around 12:00). Does anyone know if the written instructions are current/correct? This post by UM (https://rokslide.com/forums/threads/um-tikka-scope-rings.310275/post-3174521) says 45 and 30, so I'm not sure if the 55 is a typo.

For the UM Premier rings, the written instructions say to use 45 and 25, respectively. I did not see a video. Are these what folks are using for these rings?

The reason the specs are written different and all over the map, is because initially the torque specs were guessed at by someone before actually calculating it with the different thread and screw size taken into account. Then when it was calculated, there seems to have been “fear” over the numbers because they are higher than normal rings- they are higher because the screw size is larger, therefore less clamping force for same torque. Then, they sort of put the correct specs, but on the ring caps put a middle ground.

The correct torque is a minimum of 55in-lbs on the base screws for both. They will take 65in-lbs, but it has not been necessary. The ring cap torque is 34in-lbs for good scopes (this is equal to 25in-lbs on NF UL)- the RS1.2 is a good scope. 30in-lbs is about equivalent clamping force of normal NF UL rings at 18in-lbs.

The correct answer is-

Base acre torque- 55 to 65in-lbs (55 works fine).

Ring screw torque= 34in-lbs on good scopes with thick tubes- NF, RS1.2, SWFA, S&B, etc. 28in-lbs if using a Leupold, Vortex, Swaro, etc.

 

[fwafwow]

The reason the specs are written different and all over the map, is because initially the torque specs were guessed at by someone before actually calculating it with the different thread and screw size. Then, when it was calculated, there seems to have been “fear” over the numbers because they are higher than normal rings- they are higher because the screw size is larger, therefore less clamping force for same torque. Then, they sort of put the correct specs, but on the ring caps put a middle ground.

The correct torque is a minimum of 55in-lbs on the base screws for both. They will take 65in-lbs, but it has not been necessary. The ring cap torque is 34in-lbs for good scopes (this is equal to 25in-lbs on NF UL)- the RS1.2 is a good scope. 30in-lbs is about equivalent clamping force of normal NF UL rings at 18in-lbs.

They correct answer is-

Base acre torque- 55 to 65in-lbs (55 works fine).

Ring screw torque= 34in-lbs on good scopes with thick tubes- NF, RS1.2, SWFA, S&B, etc. 28in-lbs if using a Leupold, Vortex, Swaro, etc.

Thank you very much.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

Now that I have my Maven, I went back to the UM site to confirm the torque specs. I may try it out on my RSS and my S20. The former has UM Tikka rings and the S20 has UM Premier rings.

For the UM Tikka rings, in the video Jake says that the clamp should be 45 in-lbs and the rings should be 25 in-lbs. The written instructions below the video specify 55 in-lbs and 30 in-lbs, respectively. The 25"# reference (at around 18:09) does have a graphic correction to 30 in-lbs, but there is no similar correction in the video for the clamps (which are covered at around 12:00). Does anyone know if the written instructions are current/correct? This post by UM (https://rokslide.com/forums/threads/um-tikka-scope-rings.310275/post-3174521) says 45 and 30, so I'm not sure if the 55 is a typo.

For the UM Premier rings, the written instructions say to use 45 and 25, respectively. I did not see a video. Are these what folks are using for these rings?

I have since mounted up 4 total RS1.2s all using UM Tikka low rings. The stated torque specs on sites and videos are mismatched. Not sure if they’ve updated or put out an official number that should be used for their rings.

My ring bases to action are all now paint penned in instead of thread locker. Heard some issues of folks having blue loctite stay tacky or wet and didn’t want that to cause any problems long term. Hasn’t been an issue on my guns yet but figured better safe than sorry when I’m on a hunt. I torque the ring base to action screws to a calibrated 60” lbs. This will be anywhere from 53-67 ish lbs with most crappy torque wrenches folks use.

My ring caps to ring bases are also now paint penned in instead of thread locker, and then paint pen witness marks. I torque these screws to a calibrated 30” lbs. This will be anywhere from 23-37 ish inch lbs with most crappy torque wrenches.

My numbers are not “official” and may be over or under the UM stated numbers. This is just what has worked for me so far.

EDIT: Just saw that @Formidilosus posted up some spec numbers. Please ignore my post and go with those numbers.

 

[bojangles808]

The reason the specs are written different and all over the map, is because initially the torque specs were guessed at by someone before actually calculating it with the different thread and screw size taken into account. Then when it was calculated, there seems to have been “fear” over the numbers because they are higher than normal rings- they are higher because the screw size is larger, therefore less clamping force for same torque. Then, they sort of put the correct specs, but on the ring caps put a middle ground.

The correct torque is a minimum of 55in-lbs on the base screws for both. They will take 65in-lbs, but it has not been necessary. The ring cap torque is 34in-lbs for good scopes (this is equal to 25in-lbs on NF UL)- the RS1.2 is a good scope. 30in-lbs is about equivalent clamping force of normal NF UL rings at 18in-lbs.

The correct answer is-

Base acre torque- 55 to 65in-lbs (55 works fine).

Ring screw torque= 34in-lbs on good scopes with thick tubes- NF, RS1.2, SWFA, S&B, etc. 28in-lbs if using a Leupold, Vortex, Swaro, etc.

what torque specs would you use for sportsmatch to84s/rs 1.2 with paint pen for threads?

 

[Formidilosus]

what torque specs would you use for sportsmatch to84s/rs 1.2 with paint pen for threads?

Tight on the base, 25in-lbs on ring screws.

 

[Dobermann]

Heard some issues of folks having blue loctite stay tacky or wet and didn’t want that to cause any problems long term.

Pretty sure in another thread here some genius informed us that was because Form was an influencer, clearly paid for by Sinful Colors, to attract the massive untapped potential that is Roksliders who don't yet use nail polish.

 

[atmat]

Pretty sure in another thread here some genius informed us that was because Form was an influencer, clearly paid for by Sinful Colors, to attract the massive untapped potential that is Roksliders who don't yet use nail polish.

If @Formidilosus was smart he’d get into the base coat and top coat games, as well. He’s leaving lots of money on the table.