Maven RS1.2 Shortcomings? Is There Anything Better?

[jtg88]

A little background, I've got a Seekins Element 7 PRC that goes west for mulies/elk/antelope a few times a year but is also my primary whitetail rifle in Mississippi. It is currently wearing a Zeiss LRP 4-25x50, just because I had the scope when I got the rifle, and I've got some likes and dislikes with the current setup. I'm thinking very hard about switching over to the Maven RS1.2 2.5-15x44 after seeing all the praise that it gets and some PMs with aficionados more knowledgeable than myself on the subject.

Zeiss LRP Likes:

1. I like the fact that the Zeiss gather light very well. In Mississippi, some of our deer hunting occurs under very thick canopy and more often than not, your shot opportunity is going to come in the last 5 minutes of shooting light.
2. I like the 4-25x zoom as I can shoot anything from 30 yards to 1000 yards (targets) with no limitations due to zoom.
3. Good turrets. This comes into play when I hunt out west as none of my hunting shots at home are long enough to require dialing.
4. I like that the illumination is the center only and will display very dim on the lowest setting so as to not wash out the target on a dusk/dawn shot.

Zeiss LRP Dislikes:

1. It is a big, heavy pig at 37 oz (34 mm tube) and makes a rifle as light as the Element feel top heavy and unbalanced.
2. Not a huge fan of the Christmas tree reticle

If I make the switch to the Maven, I've read that the reticle is great for hunting scenarios, tracks well, and holds zero well. I guess I only have 3 concerns or questions with it.

1. How well does it gather light at dusk and dawn? The ability to make a shot in low light is something I'd like to retain.
2. One of the only real complaints I've seen regarding the Maven is the illumination system. What, specifically, is wrong with it? Does the center dot illumination turn down very dim so as to not wash out the target?
3. 15x zoom on the top end, is it enough for long range (800+/-), in your opinion? I know, I know, Form shoots 1000 yards with 6x but I'd like to know what the average Joe thinks as well as the experts.

Last question, in your opinion, is there anything in the sub $3k price range that gathers light great (Zeiss/Swaro/Meopta like), tracks well, is durable, and has useable hunting reticle better than the Maven and why?

 

[Shortschaf]

1. How well does it gather light at dusk and dawn? The ability to make a shot in low light is something I'd like to retain.

Havent seriously tested low light gathering of the Maven to see how it compares. I have never had an issue with this myself in my area (open plains) and hunting regs (30min past sunset) with any chinese optics, let alone my Japanese ones. That said, I am positive that there are better scopes than Maven in this if low-light is of utmost importance. I just don't know how much.

2. One of the only real complaints I've seen regarding the Maven is the illumination system. What, specifically, is wrong with it? Does the center dot illumination turn down very dim so as to not wash out the target?

In my sample of 4, I have not had issue with the extreme bleeding others have reported. It is not daylight bright illumination, and does get to very low dimness on mine. I also don't ever use illumination so I am biased toward being not picky at all

3. 15x zoom on the top end, is it enough for long range (800+/-), in your opinion? I know, I know, Form shoots 1000 yards with 6x but I'd like to know what the average Joe thinks as well as the experts.

I shot a prairiedog with the maven the other day at 850 yards. It was a hail mary to be sure, but the point I proved to myself was that seeing and aiming at a (tiny) target at extended ranges is not an issue at 15x mag.


Edit to add: I think the Maven is a solid 3-15x scope to recommend at the $1000 price point. I wouldn't call it "my perfect scope", but reticles and features are so subjective I'm not sure a perfect scope will ever exist. This is 90% perfect for my applications

 

[JohnJohnson]

I like the 4-25x zoom as I can shoot anything from 30 yards to 1000 yards (targets) with no limitations due to zoom.

You're shooting a lightweight 7PRC. The likelihood that you (or anyone really) can control recoil well enough to use over 15 power while still spotting your shots is almost zero. So the top end 15x magnification is not really limiting.

Zeiss LRP Dislikes:

1. It is a big, heavy pig at 37 oz (34 mm tube) and makes a rifle as light as the Element feel top heavy and unbalanced.
2. Not a huge fan of the Christmas tree reticle

Both valid and solved by the Maven.

One of the only real complaints I've seen regarding the Maven is the illumination system. What, specifically, is wrong with it? Does the center dot illumination turn down very dim so as to not wash out the target?

The complaint is that the illumination bleeds when on a high setting in low light. Which never seemed to make sense to me since if it's low light, I feel like I'd be using a low setting. But I also don't really use illumination so maybe I'm missing something big there.

15x zoom on the top end, is it enough for long range (800+/-), in your opinion? I know, I know, Form shoots 1000 yards with 6x but I'd like to know what the average Joe thinks as well as the experts.

PRS shooters with 22-28 lb rifles shooting tiny little 6mm cartridges spend 99% of their matches between 14-20 power as they shoot from 600-1300 yards. The reality is they tend to have 5-25, 6-36, and 7-35 scopes but that's not because they're actually using high magnification. They have reasons for it related to the magnification sweet spot of the scope for depth of field, field of view, image quality, low mirage, etc. But those aren't that relevant for hunting.

Last question, in your opinion, is there anything in the sub $3k price range that gathers light great, tracks well, is durable, and has useable hunting reticle better than the Maven and why?

If I had up to $3,000 to spend and had your requirements I'd be looking VERY hard at a Nightforce ATACR 4-16x42 with a MIL-R reticle. @EuroOptic tends to sell "like-new demos" like the one linked below. By like-new, trust me it's new. I've bought several like-new demos from EO including my EL 10x50s and NF 7-35x56.

Like New Nightforce ATACR 4-16x42mm F1 ZeroHold Mil-R Scope For Sale! - EuroOptic

Like New Nightforce ATACR 4-16x42mm F1 ZeroHold Mil-R Scope For Sale!

www.eurooptic.com

 

[nm.otter]

PRS shooters with 22-28 lb rifles shooting tiny little 6mm cartridges spend 99% of their matches between 14-20 power as they shoot from 600-1300 yards. The reality is they tend to have 5-25, 6-36, and 7-35 scopes but that's not because they're actually using high magnification. They have reasons for it related to the magnification sweet spot of the scope for depth of field, field of view, image quality, low mirage, etc.

I find much over 20x rather disturbing when I'm trying to settle a reticle. Why not build a rock solid 5-20x that's actually useful at 20x?

 

[JohnJohnson]

I find much over 20x rather disturbing when I'm trying to settle a reticle. Why not build a rock solid 5-20x that's actually useful at 20x?

I imagine it's extremely hard to build a scope that doesn't have some quality dropoff as you get to the magnification limit. I know the Tangent Theta 5-25 and 7-35 apparently accomplish it but that's a downright unreasonable bar almost.

 

[nm.otter]

Mass marketing rears its ugly head once again (surprise).

I know things get weird with 5x+ erector assemblies, but if you could deliver full edge-to-edge clarity across the range via a 3x, I'd bite. I'm thinking of how much I like a fixed WA eyepiece on a good spotter.

 

[cowdisciple]

I think the biggest complaint about the illumination is that most don't particularly value that feature and would be happy to see it deleted.

I own several of the Mavens and my biggest issue (which is still minor) is that the length of the scope necessitates setting it as far forward as possible on the receiver for eye relief, and while that works it sometimes looks a little funny.

 

[hibernation]

I think the biggest complaint about the illumination is that most don't particularly value that feature and would be happy to see it deleted.

Yep, that’s 100% my biggest complaint. I’d rather have it slightly slimmer and lighter. Pretty minor complaint, but still.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[flyfisher117]

I personally don’t care for the eye box. Max magnification I feel like I’m having to scoot into the scope more. I also feel like I have to have mine mounted way further forward than I usually would.

I don’t love the reticle (mil) it works and maybe it will grow on me but I’d prefer it to have a bit more going for it subtension wise. The illumination kind of sucks too. Since it’s only the little tiny center dot I’d rather see it daylight bright. Since it’s not daylight bright I’d rather see at least the center box illuminated, if not the whole reticle.

 

[JohnJohnson]

I personally don’t care for the eye box. Max magnification I feel like I’m having to scoot into the scope more.

That's interesting. The eyebox of the Maven is actually my favorite feature. I spent a couple years only using Vortex Razor 6-36's which have freakishly forgiving eyeboxes and now other scopes disappoint me in that area. The Maven's is very forgiving to me.

 

[SloppyJ]

Just ordered one to try for myself. Worst case, I don't like it and I'll grab yet another NX8.

I wanted to give it a shot because it's a pretty good reduction in weight compared to any NF model. I also wanted a smaller objective for the rifle I'm putting together and it fit the bill. It was between that or a Trijicon and after researching their reticles, I wasn't too impressed.

You don't NEED that magnification for shooting distance. The 15x will be plenty and likely too much anyway even on a much lighter recoiling rifle. Personally, I like it in the 10 to 12 range but I can make it work at half of that.

Illumination is overrated. I've yet to own a scope where the illumination didn't make low light situations worse so I've given up on it completely. I do have very shitty eyes though. How often are you really using your illumination feature?

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

What is your timeline? If its not a rush/next year kinda thing you may consider seeing what this scope shoot2hunt is working on brings to the table (supposedly they will have samples this fall).

 

[LongWayAround]

I also don't care about the illumination. My battery isn't even installed.

The farthest I have shot was about 850 and I'm on roughly 10-12x at that distance.

 

[jtg88]

Just ordered one to try for myself. Worst case, I don't like it and I'll grab yet another NX8.

I wanted to give it a shot because it's a pretty good reduction in weight compared to any NF model. I also wanted a smaller objective for the rifle I'm putting together and it fit the bill. It was between that or a Trijicon and after researching their reticles, I wasn't too impressed.

You don't NEED that magnification for shooting distance. The 15x will be plenty and likely too much anyway even on a much lighter recoiling rifle. Personally, I like it in the 10 to 12 range but I can make it work at half of that.

Illumination is overrated. I've yet to own a scope where the illumination didn't make low light situations worse so I've given up on it completely. I do have very shitty eyes though. How often are you really using your illumination feature?

I actually use it a few times a year shooting pigs that come in after shooting light (especially useful on the dark colored ones) and occasionally will use it on a deer if it is late on an overcast afternoon and I'm having a hard time picking up the black crosshairs against the black backdrop. Turn that baby on the absolute dimmest setting and you've got a little red dot of death as long as it is not so bright that it washes out your picture.

 

[jtg88]

What is your timeline? If its not a rush/next year kinda thing you may consider seeing what this scope shoot2hunt is working on brings to the table (supposedly they will have samples this fall).

Since I've already got the Zeiss mounted, I can make it work for a while. I didn't realize Shoot2hunt had something in the works.

 

[nm.otter]

Specs have shifted a bit (likely 3-14x and 25-ish ounces) since first proposed, but super promising (especially the reticle):

Thread 'Would you buy this scope?'

Sep 12, 2024

Scope specs:

FFP 3-12x40 to 3-12x44mm

Consistently holds zero through 3-foot drops and 3,000 rounds of constant use.

The reticle is specially designed for 25 to 600 yards, with bold outer posts and correct center aiming references.

Zero Stop

Low profile top turret.

Capped windage.

Large eye box

Good glass

20oz


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

• Ryan Avery
• Replies: 1,297
• Forum: Optics

• 
• 

 

[Kurts86]

Here is my 2 cents on the RS1.2. The reticle is really good for a hunting FFP design. The glass is adequate but was definitely worse than my NX8’s. The eyebox from 10-15x gets a little tight with the 44mm objective. I did not like the lack of a throw lever. The weight sits heavier than the lighter options like an NXS 42mm or an SWFA 3-9 (20 oz) and many of the 30mm MPVO’s out there (30 oz).

The scope is weird in that it’s largely an unremarkable optic in that there is nothing it does poorly but nothing besides its durability is remarkable. It mostly just checks a lot of boxes to be a good modern hunting optic with no significant draw backs.

 

[N2TRKYS]

The reticle is crap for hunting and the illumination bleeds really bad. I can deal with the illumination problem, but the terrible reticle is a deal breaker for me. I much prefer the SWFA scopes over the Maven RS1.2.

 

[Shortschaf]

The reticle is crap for hunting and the illumination bleeds really bad. I can deal with the illumination problem, but the terrible reticle is a deal breaker for me. I much prefer the SWFA scopes over the Maven RS1.2.

Until folks learn how to not overgeneralize their opinions, the internet arguments will continue

I am with you that the main stadia should at least come closer to the center, and the stadia even thicker than they are

 

[bpitcher]

The eye relief does seem a little long to me and you see a lot of them mounted pretty far forwards. Other than that and the weight, I'd say its pretty dang good. I won't be getting rid of mine anytime soon.