Maven’s illumination sucks?

[z987k]

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.

This. I never use it and won't ever. I'd rather lose the weight and have the parallax knob be slimmer.

I do realize some people actually use the feature, but it's got to be like 5% or less of the hunting public. I've not yet understood why so many scopes have illuminated reticles.

 

[sndmn11]

That’s the problem....it is helpful to have a scope that can do double duty, short and long.

You've never tried a 1-Xx?

 

[jamesmc8]

Totally agree that the illumination was poorly executed. That being said I don't really see ever needing it.

It would be ideal if they just offered the RS 1.2 in a non-illuminated version for $100-200 less and 1-2oz lighter.

The parallax knob is also sub-par, stiff and kind of slick so hard to adjust quickly especially when it is cold.

Still an awesome scope but not perfect.

 

[ElPollo]

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.

What you are describing seems to be one of those special circumstances. Sounds like a good reason for a 1-8 Nightforce. Those scopes are really designed for illumination.

 

[SDHNTR]

You've never tried a 1-Xx?

I have, various LPVO’s in SFP. 1-4x and 1-6x. Never owned one I was that happy with for the longer stuff. Never tried an FFP LPVO either, maybe I need to.

 

[Axlrod]

This. I never use it and won't ever. I'd rather lose the weight and have the parallax knob be slimmer.

I do realize some people actually use the feature, but it's got to be like 5% or less of the hunting public. I've not yet understood why so many scopes have illuminated reticles.

I agree. My batteries are always dead on any illumination feature that doesn't have auto-OFF anyway.
Leave it off the scope, save a little weight, and complexity. Knock $20 off the price I'm happy.

My RS 1.2 reticle is visible in low light, but it does bleed.

 

[mt terry d]

Totally agree that the illumination was poorly executed. That being said I don't really see ever needing it.

It would be ideal if they just offered the RS 1.2 in a non-illuminated version for $100-200 less and 1-2oz lighter.

The parallax knob is also sub-par, stiff and kind of slick so hard to adjust quickly especially when it is cold.

Still an awesome scope but not perfect.

I agree. And that parallax knob is stiff. Sometimes I think I'm turning it but I'm just turning the illumination.

Maybe I have it all wrong but I'm guessing it would save them a couple bucks in manufacturing.

Just like all the electronic crap they put on cars and trucks and refrigerators and washing machines and phones, etc., no one really wants them or actually need them ( sure, after they have them they are like "oh, I like this") but it allows the manufacturer to increase their profits.
People more and more love bling and gadgets.

 

[Finn]

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.

The pin prick in low light is one of my favorite features of this scope. I wanted a setup that would work well for western hunts with opportunities at ranges between 300-600 yds but also be appropriate for deer and bears back home where it is heavy dark timber and the shots are often under 100. Having the magnification down at 2.5x with the dot on has been working really well for me in those low light situations. I went with the Maven instead of a NX8 because I didn't think the ffp reticle would work well for black bear hunting on low magnification.

 

[B_Reynolds_AK]

Yeah one of mine is pretty good. My newest one is as bad as some of you are saying. Definitely sample variation.

Saying that, I could care less really. I’ve never had to use illumination, ever. If I did, it would be zoomed way back on the magnification and dark enough that setting 1-3 would be sufficient and any bleed over from the illumination would either be invisible or irrelevant.

 

[HighUintas]

I've never actually used mine. Just fiddled with it in the house and out shooting, but haven't ever actually used it

 

[Grundy53]

Saying that, I could care less really. I’ve never had to use illumination, ever. If I did, it would be zoomed way back on the magnification and dark enough that setting 1-3 would be sufficient and any bleed over from the illumination would either be invisible or irrelevant.

Same. I actually turned mine on this season when I was hunting some timber early morning for elk. I had it on the lowest setting. It was fine.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

 

[Jason Snyder]

My parallax knob loosened up significantly by just cranking it in and out a dozen times.

I foresee the illumination being very nice when I’m still hunting whitetails in the timber.

 

[prm]

I’ve concluded that any modern scope with a good reticle does not require illumination for my purposes. A dot or very small cross is not objectionable, but not likely to ever be used.

 

[SloppyJ]

I've seen illumination from a lot of what I consider good scope companies. Nightforce, trijicon and zeiss are the most recent. None of them have been usable IMO. The closest I've seen is the CF2D MOA F2 nightforce reticle with the dots.

Anything that illuminates the entire reticle is automatically out for me. It blows out my eye and I can't see anything behind it. I do have a corneal disease and wear extremely custom fitted lenses to function daily. But the splash i see in the reticle has to be bad for people with normal eyes too.

I would only consider using illumination at the extremes of dusk and dawn in thick timber and ive yet to have a time where that's been a benefit. To me, illuminated reticles are a useless feature because I've yet to see one that works for my uses. I never bother with them.

 

[PredatorSlayer]

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.

Or…we are comparing them to trijicon and NF illumination and it truly does suck compared to theirs. I get what you are saying about not needing it, but when yours is worse than everybody elses figure that shit out. An FFP scope on 2.5x…someone might want to use illumination in the middle of the day.

In addition to their shitty illumination they missed the boat on weight. For about the same weight penalty you can buy a nightforce NX8 or shave a couple ounces with a tenmile.

 

[Schmo]

For about the same weight penalty you can buy a nightforce NX8 or shave a couple ounces with a tenmile.

NF would be 4 - 6 ounces heavier. I love my Tenmile. However, a new 1.2 costs $1200. A new Tenmile costs $1500 and is only 2 ounces lighter. A NF costs $1600-$1800. Are you really gonna spend $300 more for a Tenmile to save two ounces?

 

[PredatorSlayer]

NF would be 4 - 6 ounces heavier. I love my Tenmile. However, a new 1.2 costs $1200. A new Tenmile costs $1500 and is only 2 ounces lighter. A NF costs $1600-$1800. Are you really gonna spend $300 more for a Tenmile to save two ounces?

NX8 is 28oz. Maven RS1.2 is 26.4. I have never paid that much for a tenmile and I have 3 of them. I do think the tenmile is a superior scope. I paid $875 for my most recent 3-18x44. I also have two NX8s FWIW. I do get the MIL/LEO discount, so I dont pay retail.

 

[elkguide]

I guess that I don't get it because the times that I wanted/needed/used the illuminated dot on one of my Mavens, it has worked just fine for me.

 

[Schmo]

I paid $875 for my most recent 3-18x44. I also have two NX8s FWIW. I do get the MIL/LEO discount, so I dont pay retail.

Sure, deals can be found. I got deals on mine. But for comparison, everyday price is what to go by.

 

[PredatorSlayer]

Sure, deals can be found. I got deals on mine. But for comparison, everyday price is what to go by.

Since Maven is direct to consumer it’s harder to find deals.