Maven RS1.2 vs S&B Klassik 3-12x42

[wedgetail]

G’day guys. Just wondering if anyone can chime in with some direct experience. Been doing a bit of gong banging and wanting to get a reasonable scope to put on a new rifle I’m building with a view for hunting longer (for me - 5-600 yards) ranges. I had my heart set on a S&B Klassik 3-12x42 P3L, but it’s proving very hard to source in Australia.

I’ve been reading up on the Maven, it’s more available (as in, some coming into the country in the next 3 weeks). It’s more or less the same price as the S&B. It ticks a lot of boxes, although I much prefer the classic styling of the Klassik, not that the Maven is ugly.

My other scopes are S&B, I love the glass quality and robustness - I have absolute confidence in them in the field. According to reviews, the Maven is also no slouch here. Probably the main advantage the Maven has is elevation travel, although I don’t think the 4.8Mils of the Klassik will limit me. So assuming they are both able to hold zero under regular conditions, have good tracking, are similar prices and similar specs (15 vs 12 power doesn’t worry me) - that pretty much leaves image quality. How do they compare? I’m sure S&B is better but by how much? What about CA? There seemed to be a question about CA in a Kiwi review

 

[RWT]

I have both scopes. S&B glass is better by 5% at least and allows you to shoot earlier or later by a few minutes. Both will get you well past legal light.. Color is better to my eyes. Features are smaller and less likely to snag or spin on you. Reticle is OK Illumination is better than Maven.

Maven for me works better due to reticle and dialing ability. Glass is more than good enough for hunting and not hindered in any way. Parallax adjustment is nice at distances. Have not shot the S&B past 200 soI haven’t noticed an issue. I have 4 Rs1.2’s. Only 1S&B due to availability and features.


I don’t look at CA as it has never kept me from shooting any target. If there is any CA in these scope it is at the outer edges of the FOV and I don’t use that portion of the glass. For me lack of CA is the last requirement for a scope.

In the end I’ll pick both, but favor the Maven for longer distances. If I am in thick woods I’ll take the S&B.

 

[Marbles]

I like both. For me Maven wins due to more elevation travel, better elevation turret, and better reticle. If I did not like shooting out to distances that need more than 4.8 mils (for fun, not needed for hunting), the S&B would win. The S&B has clearly better glass, but the Maven RS1.2 is pretty good. The S&B is also lighter.

I would take either one on a hunting rifle. If my S&B had the dialing turret, I would have kept it, but as it was, it made more sense to sell it. I whish I still had it, but can't justify keeping everything.

 

[wedgetail]

Thanks for the replies guys. I was actually expecting stronger Maven support - I still have a preference for S&B but availability is a serious problem. It seems like the Maven is an extremely capable stand in

 

[Honzi]

Is there a reason to look at Maven vs other "made in Japan" private label scopes? Bushnell, Vortex, Tract, etc all have scopes come out of the same factory. Maven is really just a warehouse and marketing department similar to other companies.

 

[Shortschaf]

I posted this while owning both the Maven rs1.2 and the S&B 3-12 at the same time. The S&B glass was nothing special, worse reticle, and lack of dialability wasn't for me, so I sold it for another Maven rs1.2

I did not do a direct comparison to anything in the short time I owned it, so I won't formally add it to anything above but as a standalone summary:

• Resolution was good. I would not need more inside the ranges that it can dial
• Eyebox was good/great. Easy to get behind. No complaints
• Overall image quality was good--I was not blown away by it. Had fishbowl effect in outside 15% of image at max magnification. So, it honestly just ranks in mid-pack of the scopes compared above

Shortcomings:

• On a 0moa mount, I had only 4.2MILs left to dial. I would need a 5moa to 10moa mounting system to use the full turret, which in this case would add weight (and cost). A 4.2MIL gun is not appealing to me personally
• straight MILDOT reticles are not my jam for wind holding. Especially did not like this one because of the gaps in center crosshair
• Windage turret does not have markings on the circumference (not visible to the shooter when it is uncapped). So dialing wind is not feasible without counting clicks

Those shortcomings outweighed (no pun intended) the ~5oz weight savings it offered for me, a person who lives in a wide open, high wind state

If I absolutely needed to have a 20oz optic I would look at an SWFA 3-9 before another Klassik even if prices were the same (full disclosure I have never used a 3-9)
Glad I got to try it and thanks to @SamsonMan22 for doing a trade. I traded a Maven RS1.2 for it, and I'm replacing it with another Maven RS1.2

 

[TxLite]

I am in the minority and have posted about it before, but the Klassik 3-12x42 I have experience with had a veiling glare at dusk/dawn when aimed towards a horizon. For the whitetail hunting I typically do it was a non starter for me and went back to the vendor.

Google searches have shown similar experiences for folks but I know a lot of people love them and haven’t had that issue.

My maven has not had that issue. Aside from that I liked both scopes from a quality standpoint.

 

[JohnJohnson]

Is there a reason to look at Maven vs other "made in Japan" private label scopes? Bushnell, Vortex, Tract, etc all have scopes come out of the same factory. Maven is really just a warehouse and marketing department similar to other companies.

The recent Backfire video resulted in a lot of people assuming things about scope production. There's even a thread about that video.

Thread 'Scope industry secret?'

May 11, 2025

Just found this video from Jim at BackFire where he found over a dozen "different" 4-16x44 scopes that were all made in the same factory to nearly identical specs.

This got me to wondering just how many optics manufacturers ARE out there? and has anyone put together a list of what manufacturer is making optics for which of the big and medium name optics companies like Nightforce, Leupold, Vortex, Arken, Tract, etc.?
It also seems that even the companies making scope here in the states are just building the bodies here and assembling them using either German or Japanese...

• Pilsner
• Replies: 19
• Forum: Optics

A simple question would be this, if Mavens are all made in the same factory why did the RS1.2 pass the droptests when other Maven scope models failed? And why do Vortex scopes made in the LOW facility not have the same durability as Nightforce scopes made by LOW? There are nuances about what he was talking about that he didn't communicate well and that caused people to assume incorrect things about how this stuff works.

 

[Honzi]

There are nuance about what he was talking about that he didn't communicate well and that caused people to assume incorrect things about how this stuff works.

Watched the video and it’s basically a noob figuring out what others already knew, especially if you work in manufacturing. This isn't only with scopes but a lot of products. But he does make the valid observation of why are there so many new optics companies…because private labeling …duh

I’m not going to go into nuisanced detail but suffice to say if it’s a mechanical/optical product and they don’t at minimum have designer, engineering, prototype and full assembly departments they are just fully private labeling and marketing the product. It’s better if the company has full manufacturing department of the raw materials vs just getting all the parts from vendors.

If I break my Swarovski, I send it in and they fix it other lesser companies just replace it since they don’t have the ability to actually take it apart and repair.

As to why some scopes from the same factory are more durable… probably as simple as tolerances and skill of assemblers which causes the price to go up but also the quality.

 

[Marbles]

I am in the minority and have posted about it before, but the Klassik 3-12x42 I have experience with had a veiling glare at dusk/dawn when aimed towards a horizon. For the whitetail hunting I typically do it was a non starter for me and went back to the vendor.

Google searches have shown similar experiences for folks but I know a lot of people love them and haven’t had that issue.

My maven has not had that issue. Aside from that I liked both scopes from a quality standpoint.

Mine had it, there is a thread on here where I talk about it. I have not played with the Maven in the same conditions.

 

[Shortschaf]

Mine had it, there is a thread on here where I talk about it. I have not played with the Maven in the same conditions.

I was able to replicate the glare with the Klassik in my living room. It was a pretty specific angle.
I dont remember if I also tried with the Maven. Ill attempt it but I doubt it will come up personally

 

[wedgetail]

Great discussion thanks guys. I must say I’m not really any further on my decision - I kept swaying both ways. On the one hand the S&B is from a higher pedigree with a legendary status of extreme durability, on all my direct experience and hunting circles they remain unchallenged. However, there are a few independent reports of recent QC slipping - such as a high quality optics company saying they no longer deal with them due to to many send backs in recent years.

Then there is a lot of hype about Maven, but with some digging there do some to be some complaints. Has anyone seen this review?

He’s suggesting it falls short - main gripes I’d worry about being the illumination bleed through and the weak clicks on the turrets. Has anyone else had these issues or did the reviewer get a lemon?

 

[JohnJohnson]

He’s suggesting it falls short - main gripes I’d worry about being the illumination bleed through and the weak clicks on the turrets. Has anyone else had these issues or did the reviewer get a lemon?

Illumination bleed, small parallax knob, and non-locking elevation turrets seem like common gripes about the RS1.2 from other people too. Personally I just don't care much about illumination but even with some bleed the RS1.2's illumination will work for my very limited use case for it. I don't mind a non-locking elevation turret either. The parallax thing is a little annoying but it's something I can live with.

The generous eyebox is a huge selling point for me. I exclusively used Razor 6-36's for a couple years and didn't realize how much they were spoiling me with a freakishly big eyebox. I ended up choosing a Maven over a NF NX8 4-32x50 and all other options below $1500. It arrives Friday.

 

[Macintosh]

For me: for hunting ONLY, I’ll stick with my s&b. For any longer range practice, I’d try that maven.

I have a s&b, but have never had an opportunity to look thru a maven. My comments are specific to the s&b.
I like my scope, I disagree with some of the criticisms in that my personal scope does not exhibit some of those issues—but thats ok, different eyes. For sure the glass is clear, sharp edge to edge on mine—absolutely none of the optical distortion or “fishbowl” others talked about, even re-looking just now. I have never had an issue with glare, but in the right conditions could be an issue—thats an issue of lens coatings I believe. The color contrast doesn't “pop” as much as some glass, which 99% of the time is a non-issue, and 1% of the time helps you define a brown deer amidst a sea of brown twigs. I also STRONGLY prefer a fixed parallax and capped windage for a short to moderate range scope—even if its unlikely, one of those moving inadvertently is a liability, and there is no benefit at the ranges in question, so to me its nothing short of a liability. This has happened to me, therefore it can happen again. Dialing windage is not a thing for most people—some do it, but I thinknits safe to say the vast majority of people dont want or need to do this.
Personally, given the fairly universal good feedback on the maven, Im happy sticking with my s&b as a hunting scope, but as soon as practice at longer range enters the discussion, the s&b is immediately out of the running and Im moving to a scope with sufficient internal travel and adjustable parallax.

Tons of scopes have illumination bleed thru, including the klassik. If you want good illumination get a trijicon. S&b illum is meant for low-light only, its not a good daylight-bright illumination (and for me isnt necessary as its still a decent reticle at 3x). Cant speak to the maven, but I wouldnt let that get in your way. Part of the reason folks like these scopes is that both have pretty bold reticles that are useable without illumination even at minimum magnification.

 

[wedgetail]

That’s a good summing up thanks Macintosh, I’m glad you see the merits of S&B. I have a 6x42 Klassik and 2-10 Summit, haven’t had a problem with glare and love the image. So unless the 3-12 is a step down (doesn’t sound like it) I’d be more than happy. I’ve heard if people get bothered by the glare a shade will fix most of it.

The generous eyebox is a huge selling point for me. I exclusively used Razor 6-36's for a couple years and didn't realize how much they were spoiling me with a freakishly big eyebox. I ended up choosing a Maven over a NF NX8 4-32x50 and all other options below $1500. It arrives Friday.

This is a point I read a bit, it’s my one criticism of my S&B 2-10x42, the eye box is a bit stingy. What’s the view on the eye box like in the 3-12x42 Klassik?

 

[Macintosh]

My klassik 3-12 has a fine eyebox. I’m not sure, but I think the poster above was comparing the maven to an NX 8, which has a reputation for a finicky eye box.
I think theres several things about the 3-12 klassik that lots of people would not like—the magnification ring spins the opposite direction of every other scope I’ve ever used. Also the travel of the magnification ring is long enough that it can’t go from low to high in one motion, you have to reset your hand mid-way— every other scope I have goes from low to high in 180°, wheras the klassik takes about 320. this also prevents you from using a throw lever if you like such things.The elevation turret spins opposite of every other scope as well. Those two things to me are significant when it comes to being dialed with your equipment so you can use it expediently in a field situation. But the eye box has never bothered me even a little bit, it’s an easy scope to get behind, eye relief is very comfortable.

 

[UKwildcatfan]

I am in the minority and have posted about it before, but the Klassik 3-12x42 I have experience with had a veiling glare at dusk/dawn when aimed towards a horizon. For the whitetail hunting I typically do it was a non starter for me and went back to the vendor.

Google searches have shown similar experiences for folks but I know a lot of people love them and haven’t had that issue.

My maven has not had that issue. Aside from that I liked both scopes from a quality standpoint.

Have a dozen Klassics in different configurations. They're all outstanding.

 

[TxLite]

Have a dozen Klassics in different configurations. They're all outstanding.

Very well could have just been my specific example but I’ve definitely seen reports that matched my experience. Had mine not done that, it would have been an awesome scope. That’s the only one I’ve had my hands on.

When they went on sale for $900 I heavily considered trying another one but with my discount + stacking their Black Friday sale the Maven was a little cheaper, so decided to play it safe.

I don’t regret the Maven but do wish it was in the same weight class as the SB

 

[wedgetail]

My klassik 3-12 has a fine eyebox. I’m not sure, but I think the poster above was comparing the maven to an NX 8, which has a reputation for a finicky eye box.
I think theres several things about the 3-12 klassik that lots of people would not like—the magnification ring spins the opposite direction of every other scope I’ve ever used. Also the travel of the magnification ring is long enough that it can’t go from low to high in one motion, you have to reset your hand mid-way— every other scope I have goes from low to high in 180°, wheras the klassik takes about 320. this also prevents you from using a throw lever if you like such things.The elevation turret spins opposite of every other scope as well. Those two things to me are significant when it comes to being dialed with your equipment so you can use it expediently in a field situation. But the eye box has never bothered me even a little bit, it’s an easy scope to get behind, eye relief is very comfortable.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that. I do realise he was comparing the Maven to a known bad-eyebox scope, but the Maven is often specifically mentioned to have a good eyebox and my S&B Summit has a poor one. However, it’s good to hear yours has a good one.

I’ve now tracked down the importer who has Klassik one left. Got the price down to Au$2810. The Maven is Au$2290. The Au$520 difference boils down to an equivalent value of roughly US$260. If the Klassik is the 4.8Mil version I’m leaning that way - the capped price windage, traditional appearance, better glass and lighter weight are all looking good. The mag and turret direction doesn’t worry me (I have no other scopes to dial), the mag dial range sounds marginally annoying but I don’t change mag all that much. Would be great if if they could fit an RS1 windage turret to an RS1.2…

 

[atmat]

I prefer the SB if you’re never shooting over 600. The lack of elevation is really the only knock I have against the SB.

At higher zoom, I prefer the Maven reticle. But at low zoom I actually prefer the P3L.