Maven’s illumination sucks?

[Schmo]

Well, that has to factor in

 

[Schmo]

I paid $875 for my most recent 3-18x44.

The only way you find a 3-18x44 FFP Mil for $875 is used, or someone really desperate to sell. New you can’t find one under $1400

 

[WKR]

Honestly I don't think it's that bad

 

[HighUintas]

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.

What makes the tenmile superior to the rs1.2 even though the rs1.2 has a better reticle?

 

[Marbles]

There are things I whish were different on this scope, but I think it is the best balance of things I want available at the moment under $2.5K. I have two, and probably will not be adding more as I hope something better comes along.

 

[sndmn11]

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.

Here's their rs6 with the mil reticle.

 

[SDHNTR]

Here's their rs6 with the mil reticle.
View attachment 802069View attachment 802070

Not a fan of donuts. If I did I’d be all over a LRHS.

 

[SDHNTR]

There are things I whish were different on this scope, but I think it is the best balance of things I want available at the moment under $2.5K. I have two, and probably will not be adding more as I hope something better comes along.

I agree with this, which is why I bought one. The lame illumination is not a deal breaker and is simply a trade off that is fortunately outweighed by many other positive attributes. It’s just a little frustrating as it seems it could’ve been improved upon with a little additional attention to detail.

 

[Nine Banger]

It’s just a little frustrating as it seems it could’ve been improved upon with a little additional attention to detail.

They are OK with it or thought we wouldn't care or wouldn't notice. Or they are oblivious? Probably not.

It seems like collectively from the comments above we are giving them a pass on it.

 

[SDHNTR]

They are OK with it or thought we wouldn't care or wouldn't notice. Or they are oblivious? Probably not.

It seems like collectively from the comments above we are giving them a pass on it.

I just think that, unfortunately, we’ve become so used to having to compromise. It’s a generally accepted part of purchasing a scope. No such thing as perfect. There’s a bunch of options that are 80-90% there, none that are 100. Maven still comes the closest with this model, all things considered.

Still, they could’ve nailed it. They’re oh so close.

 

[sndmn11]

Not a fan of donuts. If I did I’d be all over a LRHS.

Aren't they great for "snap shooting"?


Zooming in with FFP...

 

[SDHNTR]

Aren't they great for "snap shooting"?


Zooming in with FFP...
View attachment 802165

Arguably, yes, but that's not the primary purpose of my scopes.

 

[N2TRKYS]

Aren't they great for "snap shooting"?


Zooming in with FFP...
View attachment 802165

It would be better if the crosshairs actually crossed. I’d be happy with a regular duplex reticle, but the SWFA ones are ok.

 

[Nine Banger]

Still, they could’ve nailed it. They’re oh so close.

"We're not mad at you...we're just disappointed..."

 

[sndmn11]

It would be better if the crosshairs actually crossed. I’d be happy with a regular duplex reticle, but the SWFA ones are ok.

Maybe. The next guy might say that's worse.

At least the fickleness of folks over thinking this stuff like they are a blend of Bill Paxton and Michael Biehn circa July 20th, 1990 is entertaining for a mundane Friday.

 

[Marbles]

It seems like collectively from the comments above we are giving them a pass on it.

Not really, no loyalty and if better comes along I will move on. Not just because of the illumination, but because Maven is a company actively thinks I am stupid. Maven got lucky and stumbled onto something good and so far is too stupid to figure out why.

Might as well say NF and Trijicon get a pass on bad reticles or SWFA gets a pass on old design or S&B gets a pass on limited erector travel. The options that meet the basic standards and are tough (what one Leupold lover has called destructive testing I consider harsh use), FFP, dial, and Mil/Mil. The rest is selecting which things I'm more willing to live with.

 

[Nine Banger]

Might as well say NF and Trijicon get a pass on bad reticles or SWFA gets a pass on old design or S&B gets a pass on limited erector travel.

I hear you but I am looking at the illuminated reticle on the RS1.2 as a defect not just an feature that can be improved upon like the Nightforce reticles.

 

[Marbles]

I hear you but I am looking at the illuminated reticle on the RS1.2 as a defect not just an feature that can be improved upon like the Nightforce reticles.

I'm not sure I see much difference between a defect or a poorly designed feature in this case, functionally they are the same in this case.

 

[N2TRKYS]

Maybe. The next guy might say that's worse.

At least the fickleness of folks over thinking this stuff like they are a blend of Bill Paxton and Michael Biehn circa July 20th, 1990 is entertaining for a mundane Friday.

Not sure whom would think it’s worse. The current offering is ok as a target scope, but falls way short for hunting I have found.

There’s nothing to over think about. Offer a crosshair that actually cross and it would be golden. Pretty common sense, actually.

 

[texasbbq]

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.

This has been my experience with the RS1.2. Just turn the illumination down to the first or second setting and it works perfectly. I don't understand the gripe.