Maven RS1.2 Review (updated Jan. 21)

[sndmn11]

Are we there yet? Are we there yet?

@Justin Crossley and @robby denning have it, I'm unsure of when they will publish. It's usually about 3-4 weeks after submitted, so it might be another week.

 

[Justin Crossley]

@Justin Crossley and @robby denning have it, I'm unsure of when they will publish. It's usually about 3-4 weeks after submitted, so it might be another week.

I'm hunting geese this weekend so it will be early next week.

 

[sndmn11]

Maven RS1.2 Riflescope Review

Maven RS1.2 Riflescope Review. In this review, Kyle performs a Rokslide Drop Test of the new Maven RS1.2 riflescope to test zero retention.

www.rokslide.com

 

[Macintosh]

Thanks. Couple questions.
Why the deviation from the “standard” drop height of 18” and 36”?
Did Maven say anything about reticle design, ie what the heck is the intended use for the long 5 and 10 mil elevation hashes, the 10-mil windage hashes?
It sounds like maven said nothing was different about the scope from their previous version. In terms of construction, I thought I read elsewhere form, saying that it explicitly was different. Did they give any indication of what change could have resulted in such a big difference in reliability? My recollection is that previous scope model did not test very well.

 

[Crow Hunter TN]

Great review. I can't see the reticle diagram though in the review. Looks like a file extension not supported type error on the publisher side. Might be something with my PC, but all the other pictures came through fine.

Really appreciate you taking the time to do this,

 

[sndmn11]

Thanks. Couple questions.
Why the deviation from the “standard” drop height of 18” and 36”?

It seemed more natural and this able to replicate. I had done this testing from "standard" heights without issue several times with that scope and the all black one, there was that one guy in one of the above linked threads complaining about the pad. So, if someone wants to hit on the latter while seeing something drop at should height of a 6' person, I'm out of ideas.

Did Maven say anything about reticle design, ie what the heck is the intended use for the long 5 and 10 mil elevation hashes, the 10-mil windage hashes?

Nothing remarkable or groundbreaking and I didn't ask about the intention of each reticle component. To me, the 5/10 horizontal lines assist in pushing my view to center and as a measuring tape.

It sounds like maven said nothing was different about the scope from their previous version. In terms of construction, I thought I read elsewhere form, saying that it explicitly was different. Did they give any indication of what change could have resulted in such a big difference in reliability? My recollection is that previous scope model did not test very well.

I'm not aware of an RS1 being tested in this manner notoriously. So, there's no baseline I'm aware of for a change/no-change of results. I don't think I've ever held RS1, so I certainly haven't cut one open to see what's inside.
I disagree with the "big difference in reliability" sentiment for those reasons. The most prudent thing for me to do is relay through my review what Cade and Mollie have told me, quotes from my review,

"Maestas stated a few different ways that nothing changed structurally inside the RS1.2 from the RS.1 version; the only “changes” were simply a tightening up of specifications to “fine tune” the the unit as a whole and constant quality improvements through QC/QA refinements. The RS1.2 is, for all intents and purposes, an RS1 with exposed elevation, a zero stop, and reticle illumination added."

I try to look at these reviews I have done as presenting information as mundane and objective as one can, with the hopes the reader can decide what they think about the product. So, I should write about what I can demonstrate/exhibit/"prove" and what I am told by the most credible sources I can dig up. I believe Maven regarding what I quoted above; enough so to write them out and have Rokslide put my name at the top because Maven knows their scope and I don't have first hand or credible info to the contrary.


Edited--> I didn't spell Mollie's name correctly.

 

[sndmn11]

Great review. I can't see the reticle diagram though in the review. Looks like a file extension not supported type error on the publisher side. Might be something with my PC, but all the other pictures came through fine.

Really appreciate you taking the time to do this,

View attachment 660580

I can see it on my phone.


Does the screenshot help?
If not, give me a few minutes to get the kid dressed for church and I'll attach the photo here.

 

[sndmn11]

@Crow Hunter TN

 

[Crow Hunter TN]

I can see it in the forum and on my kindle in the article, but not my work laptop.

Not sure why. My guess would be it is something with when you edited it and the file extension you used and Microsoft Windows not liking it for some reason.

I do appreciate you putting it on the forum separately.

At a 0.10 Mil thickness, I can see why it would be so much more visible at lower power than others out there.

I think that is actually thicker than a Leupold VX Freedom 3-9X40 at 9X (or the VX-5HD 2-10). According to Leupold their thin crosshair at 9X covers .3 MOA = .087 Mil and their thick portion is .8 MOA = .23 Mil.

Sounds like I know what my next scope needs to be.

For reference (since I looked them up in case others are wondering) This is assuming that the measurements quoted on Trijicon's downloads are correct and at full magnification, although it doesn't technically say that.

+Accupoint 3-9X40 Duplex reticle is:
-Thin .5 MOA = .145 Mil
-Thick .9 MOA = .26 Mil
-Thin opening 8.6 MOA = 2.5 Mil

+Credo 3-9
-Thin .125 MOA = .036 Mil
-Thick 1MOA = .29 Mil
-Thin Opening 20 MOA = 5.82 Mil

To add more:

+Leupold VX6HD 2-12
-Thin .3 MOA = .09 Mil
-Thick 1.4 MOA = .41 Mil
-Thin Opening 15.3 = 4.5 Mil

+Leupold VX6HD 3-18
-Thin .2 MOA = .06 Mil
-Thick .5 MOA = .15 Mil
-Thin Opening 15.3 MOA = 4.5 Mil

+Leupold VX5HD 2-10
-Thin .3 MOA = .09 Mil
-Thick .8 MOA = .23 Mil
-Thin Opening 28.6 MOA =8.3 Mil

+Trijicon Accupoint 2.5-12.5
-Thin .3 MOA = .09
-Thick .6 MOA = .17 Mil
-Thin Opening 6.4 MOA = 1.9 Mil

+Nightforce Force Plex
-Thin .125 MOA = .04 Mil
-Thick .75 MOA = .22 Mil
-Thin Opening 5.0 MOA = 1.45 Mil

+Schmidt and Bender P3L Reticle
-Thin .07 Mil
-Thick .6 Mil
-Thin Opening 10 Mil

 

[BCD]

How is the reticle at low light and low magnification? Would this be a decent crossover scope for hunting longer ranges and timber in low light?

Thanks!

 

[sndmn11]

How is the reticle at low light and low magnification? Would this be a decent crossover scope for hunting longer ranges and timber in low light?

Thanks!

I think it would be fine. What type of trees, situation, and background is "timber" to you? I can try and find a similar scenario and take some pictures if I understand better what you are playing through in your mind.

 

[BCD]

I think it would be fine. What type of trees, situation, and background is "timber" to you? I can try and find a similar scenario and take some pictures if I understand better what you are playing through in your mind.

I hunt a lot in WI so pine thickets, swamps, hardwoods. Some of it is very thick. Thank You!!

 

[sndmn11]

I hunt a lot in WI so pine thickets, swamps, hardwoods. Some of it is very thick. Thank You!!

So standing in timber and shooting within timber to 150yds max?

 

[BCD]

So standing in timber and shooting within timber to 150yds max?

Yes. Sometimes only being able to see 50-60 Yards max

 

[sndmn11]

Yes. Sometimes only being able to see 50-60 Yards max

Ok, I'll see what I can come up with. It might be a week or two to find the right situation for pictures.

I think it would be no issue though.

 

[BCD]

Thank You!!

 

[BCD]

Ok, I'll see what I can come up with. It might be a week or two to find the right situation for pictures.

I think it would be no issue though.

Have you looked through a Credo or SWFA 3-9 for comparison? Thank You!

 

[sndmn11]

Have you looked through a Credo or SWFA 3-9 for comparison? Thank You!

The latter, but I don't remember anything remarkable about it in low light/timber.

The inner portions of the RS1.2 are thicker (.1 vs .07), but the outer right/left/top post of the SWFA reticle is thicker (.4 vs 1.2)



I do have some of the fixed SWFAs and I am pretty certain the 6x has the same reticle sub tensions as the 3-9x. I haven't run across anyone who has used it and complained about the reticle being hard to see.

 

[HighUintas]

The latter, but I don't remember anything remarkable about it in low light/timber.

The inner portions of the RS1.2 are thicker (.1 vs .07), but the outer right/left/top post of the SWFA reticle is thicker (.4 vs 1.2)
View attachment 693006
View attachment 693010

I do have some of the fixed SWFAs and I am pretty certain the 6x has the same reticle sub tensions as the 3-9x. I haven't run across anyone who has used it and complained about the reticle being hard to see.

Did Maven give you the sub tensions through email or did they put out some updated literature on it somewhere? I've been wondering about it since the image on their website isn't helpful

 

[sndmn11]

Did Maven give you the sub tensions through email or did they put out some updated literature on it somewhere? I've been wondering about it since the image on their website isn't helpful

They gave me their diagram.