Maven’s illumination sucks?

[Formidilosus]

Am I the only one that feels this way? The dot is barely visible at all, especially at lower powers.

That’s what a hunting illumination should be- barely visible in the lowest light. The reticle does not need illum in daylight, and therefore a daylight bright illumination is wasted- and generally dramatically hurts the lowlight illum.

Makes me wonder why they even bothered. Yet I also haven’t heard too many complaints about it. Am I the only one who thinks this? Or did I get a turd?

I agree. I got behind one of my buddies and felt the same way. Its one of the reasons I haven’t purchased one.

It’s not getting talked about because it is unneeded on the SHR-Mil reticle in the 1.2. Of the 20-30 people that I personally know using them heavily, I’m not sure a single one has the battery even in it.

IMHO it sucks. If you don’t need it - fine, but it seems odd to have it when (at least for me) it’s invisible during the day (when even I don’t think about it), and at dusk it’s invisible at less than 6x. I traded emails with Maven CS and it seems that it’s because the dot is so small. Is this a FFP thing because if the illuminated dot was bigger at 2.5x, it would be huge at 15x?

As above- it is not a daylight bright illumination- that is totally different technology; and it is should be a pin prick in lowlight. Anything more than barely visible in very lowlight and the illumination blows out the whole image.

Ok, well, glad to know I’m not nuts, but what a disappointment.

Is it that damn hard to get it right?

At $1200 with the money and effort being spent on making sure the scope actually functions first- it is that hard. Or at least there will be variation, because it is literally the least important aspect of that scope.




Some of yall have extremely unrealistic expectations, or are not well versed in how illumination works with the trade-offs inherent.

 

[Lonewolf72]

Had one, then returned it due to the bleed-over. The positives of the scope weren't enough to sway me from buying 2 SWFA variables on the used market for less than the Maven. $1200 was a "stretch" for me at the time, so I did not see the value then, and wasn't happy with my purchase. YMMV.

 

[sdupontjr]

As form mentioned, very few optics get the illumination correct. And those that don't, have the intention to make the daytime bright, which goes against low light illumination. Its too bright and either bleeds into reticle, or blinds you so you can't see.

My Schmidt Bender Polar got this correct, as well as the Zeiss Victory HT, a few of the Meopta line, Leica and a few others. I also have a trijicon accupoint 2.5-10x56 with amber dot cross hairs that is also under $1000 and is very nice.

I did have a 4-16x50 credo hx, great glass, tracked well, but the same issue as the OP stated. The entire reticle illuminated thus making the illumination usless in low light condition. Other than that, it was a great optic, so I sold it on the site and picked up a Tenmile 4-24x50. Didn't really need 24x, however this reticle too has illumination. But only the center dot illuminates and is very low power like my SB Polar. I haven't tried it yet in true low light conditions, but the glass is great, tracks well, so well see. Just a thought for those looking for an illuminated reticle

 

[swavescatter]

Yes, the illumination/splash is inconsistent between units (I have 5). My other wish is that they could have a NightForce-style push power button with auto-off.

But yeah, not a feature I use much. Just have to remember to keep it off.

 

[stevie]

Yes, its really bad on my 1.2

 

[Kurts86]

I think the illumination on mine is fairly good, certainly adequate. It’s enough to provide a focal point for your eye.

If you are getting a bunch of bloom and bleed on illumination you need to turn it down.

 

[N2TRKYS]

If Maven would fix the reticle in the RS1.2, it would be an ok scope. I bought one to try out, but may move away from it until they figure out their reticle situation.

 

[ElPollo]

I guess my question would be when was the last time you really needed illumination on a hunting scope? Is this one of those features we think we might need, but just add weight and complexity to scopes that we don’t need? If we have an appropriately designed reticle, does illumination do anything for us? My opinion is I would rather scope manufacturers give me a good reticle and delete the illumination to save weight.

 

[SDHNTR]

That’s what a hunting illumination should be- barely visible in the lowest light. The reticle does not need illum in daylight, and therefore a daylight bright illumination is wasted- and generally dramatically hurts the lowlight illum.







It’s not getting talked about because it is unneeded on the SHR-Mil reticle in the 1.2. Of the 20-30 people that I personally know using them heavily, I’m not sure a single one has the battery even in it.




As above- it is not a daylight bright illumination- that is totally different technology; and it is should be a pin prick in lowlight. Anything more than barely visible in very lowlight and the illumination blows out the whole image.






At $1200 with the money and effort being spent on making sure the scope actually functions first- it is that hard. Or at least there will be variation, because it is literally the least important aspect of that scope.




Some of yall have extremely unrealistic expectations, or are not well versed in how illumination works with the trade-offs inherent.

Sorry Form, not buying it. I’ve got at least a dozen other scopes with illumination, and none of them are like this. Even at similar price point. None of my SHV‘s have this problem. I know exactly how a hunting scope’s light should work and this ain’t it.

 

[PredatoronthePrairie]

I guess my question would be when was the last time you really needed illumination on a hunting scope? Is this one of those features we think we might need, but just add weight and complexity to scopes that we don’t need? If we have an appropriately designed reticle, does illumination do anything for us? My opinion is I would rather scope manufacturers give me a good reticle and delete the illumination to save weight.

Agree.

Shot my buck this fall within the first min of legal light. Had no issues.

Honestly seemed brighter with the light gathering than it actually was. Coming from the bow world and having to see through a peep. It was like night and day difference. I don't plan on using it. Just like the ability to light up my pins on the bow. Think it is just a Non essential feature.

 

[mt terry d]

I tried it just to see what it looks like but I never use it.

I've heard there's much less hunting pressure at night; probably be useful then.

 

[ElPollo]

I feel like we all chase features we don’t need like a bass after a sparkly bait. Illumination and big zoom ranges have their place, but I think they are specialized tools that aren’t that helpful in everyday hunting scopes. I prefer to optimize reliability, durability, a good reticle, and weight, pretty much in that order. I don’t need illumination or 15x or a chonky 31 oz boat anchor on top of my rifles. But given the state of the industry today, we all have to make compromises. So I’m still rocking my beat up, early nineties-era, SWFA 6x MQ as my primary.

 

[sndmn11]

I’ve got at least a dozen other scopes with illumination, and none of them are like this.

When do you use it?

Reading a page and a third of this thread, there are complaints of it (assuming the 1.2 because the RS6 is purpose built for it and exectued fine) being too dim and also being too bright (---> bleed over).

Genuinely, how is illumination being used, or predicted to be used, by Roksliders to have such widely varying thoughts?

 

[SDHNTR]

In the last several years, I can think of exactly 3 times I’ve needed illumination to fill a tag. An elk in thick oak brush, a deer in mahogany’s, and a big boar hog in a creek bottom. All were within legal light, and none would have been ethically possible without illumination. All were killed cleanly with one shot. On a percentage basis, that’s probably less than 5% of the hunting kills I’ve had within that timeframe, but each one is important to me. So I do want functional illumination, especially if I’ve paid for it in terms of additional dollar cost and additional weight.

 

[BRTreedogs]

I would just rather not have it at all. With multiple different scopes, I cant ever remember how to turn it on in the heat of the moment.

So I’d rather not even have the electronics in the scope and a better parallax knob.

 

[SDHNTR]

When do you use it?

Reading a page and a third of this thread, there are complaints of it (assuming the 1.2 because the RS6 is purpose built for it and exectued fine) being too dim and also being too bright (---> bleed over).

Genuinely, how is illumination being used, or predicted to be used, by Roksliders to have such widely varying thoughts?

I want it for low light initial shots. And at least theoretically, I want it for better reticle visibility at low power when recovering animals.

I’ve yet to use one of my FFP scopes (but have many times with SFP scopes!) in this scenario but it worries me… make a less than perfect first shot and see the animal go into thick brush or trees. The light is waning, the terrain is broken and thick with mixed ahadows and brush. You have to follow up the animal, it may be wounded, or even dangerous, the animal is black itself (boars and bears) and the finishing shot is likely to be at close range. You need maximum FOV and may have to take a snap shot. I want that illumination working and very visible, drawing my eye to it immediately. This scope no worky in that scenario.

It’s not that it’s too bright. It’s that it’s either too dim to see at all, or it bleeds if you can see it. Bleeding doesn’t have to be a byproduct of visibility.

In the case of this scope, I think it would have been helpful to light up more than just the center dot. They could have lit up the center stadia, and that probably would have provided enough light to make it visible at lower power, lower intensity, without having to turn it up so much that there’s bleed over.

 

[sndmn11]

I want it for low light initial shots. And at least theoretically, I want it for better reticle visibility at low power when recovering animals.

I’ve yet to use one of my FFP scopes (but have many times with SFP scopes!) in this scenario but it worries me… make a less than perfect first shot and see the animal go into thick brush or trees. The light is waning, the terrain is broken and thick with mixed ahadows and brush. You have to follow up the animal, it may be wounded, or even dangerous, the animal is black itself (boars and bears) and the finishing shot is likely to be at close range. You need maximum FOV and may have to take a snap shot. I want that illumination working and very visible, drawing my eye to it immediately. This scope no worky in that scenario.

It’s not that it’s too bright. It’s that it’s either too dim to see at all, or it bleeds if you can see it. Bleeding doesn’t have to be a byproduct of visibility.

In the case of this scope, I think it would have been helpful to light up more than just the center dot. They could have lit up the center stadia, and that probably would have provided enough light to make it visible at lower power, lower intensity, without having to turn it up so much that there’s bleed over.

Sounds heart-pumping and intense!

 

[SDHNTR]

Sounds heart-pumping and intense!

I hunt a lot of hogs in thick mountainous terrain. They are most active right on the edges of daylight and they sometimes die hard. That scenario happens sometimes.

 

[sndmn11]

I hunt a lot of hogs in thick mountainous terrain. They are most active right on the edges of daylight and they sometimes die hard. That scenario happens sometimes.

Do you shoot them at long ranges?

I've never hog hunted. From what you described, I'd play with a 1-Xx, Aimpoint, or turn the illumination/magnification up to pseudo-BAC.

 

[SDHNTR]

Do you shoot them at long ranges?

I've never hog hunted. From what you described, I'd play with a 1-Xx, Aimpoint, or turn the illumination/magnification up to pseudo-BAC.

That’s the problem. This isn’t TX. These are legit mountains and steep canyons. Sometime we do shoot them across a canyon at distance. I keep a .44mag carbine rifle in the truck for recoveries, but sometimes going back to the truck to get it (or packing it along with a scoped rifle) isn’t practical. So it is helpful to have a scope that can do double duty, short and long.