Nightforce NX8 vs. Maven RS 3.2

[Timberline001]

I see it differently. Why would they say nothing changed, when they could sell out of RS3.2s by riding the RS1.2 testing and saying all .2s were "updated"?
...they ARE in the business of selling stuff.

Instead the RS1.2 is MEeMEe famous on Instagram for being a half hour sell out, while there's a surplus of R3.2s. Same reticle, an ounce heavier, twice the upper end zoom with a fully usable 5x bottom end, but not offered by Maven as a dependable substitute.


"All I stated" sounds like a statement.

A statement that mine lost zero yes but not a big overall statement like your dramatic post is trying to make it out to be. You need to go touch some grass, that was a crazy reaction to me saying my one scope didn’t hold zero.

 

[grfox92]

If the standard to determine yes/no likelihood how retaining zero is following the protocol, these are irrelevant. Much the same when folks say, "my X brand scope has never lost zero, but the Rok says it sucks, this testing is stupid", is irrelevant as well. "We" either start validating credibility to random experiences, or "we" hang out hat on the method that's been developed. For the testing to gain traction outside of Rokslide you guys have to see it at face value and stop trying to make a bunch of what if connections.

An RS1 has not been notoriously tested.
Several RS1.2s have been properly tested and we're fine.

RS3s have been tested notoriously and failed. No RS3.2s have been tested notoriously.

Maven, many there, have said first hand to me the .2 versions are the internally as their original versions. Credible people have said the same.
There is no reason to not believe Maven, and nobody has stepped up to prove their statement false but purchasing an RS1 and RS3.2 to have properly tested notoriously.

The only jumps off of the RS1.2 and RS3 notorious tests, if one wants to stick to the protocol, is that the RS1 and RS3.2 are unknown, but probably a respective yes and no based on Maven's statement.

The RS1 had a reputation for losing zero, as spoken by many people on the internet. The RS1.2 has no instances reported on the internet as having lost zero. Why would we pretend that means nothing?

 

[realunlucky]

I see it differently. Why would they say nothing changed, when they could sell out of RS3.2s by riding the RS1.2 testing and saying all .2s were "updated"? .

No doubt Maven wishes all thier scope product lines would sell out immediately.

Building on a different platform to achieve that increased magnification means each model has its own design challenges and objectives. How features are prioritized in the original design phase definitely impacts what allowable upgrades are available in the future 2nd generations without major redesigns to change those priorities.

All that to say- there's lots of reasons not to directly address that question.



Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

 

[sndmn11]

A statement that mine lost zero yes but not a big overall statement like your dramatic post is trying to make it out to be. You need to go touch some grass, that was a crazy reaction to me saying my one scope didn’t hold zero.

I think you are overreacting.

The RS1 had a reputation for losing zero, as spoken by many people on the internet. The RS1.2 has no instances reported on the internet as having lost zero. Why would we pretend that means nothing?

I think it means anything because it is picking and choosing instances to support the conclusion one wants to land at. When someone comes here and says their XYZ brand has never failed, people point to the scope evaluation testing and say they are wrong. If the standard response to "mine works" is to reference the testing, then the standard response to "mine doesn't work" should also be to reference the testing.

Again, if we want scope brands to deliver a better end product, we have to apply the same standard to all of them and form opinions based on adhering to the protocol as closely as possible. Having gone through it many times, there are too many variables outside of it, including subjective fandom, to do much more than shrug shoulders when reading of random experiences.

Irrelevant to the discussion, but frankly I don't think I've read of anyone actually owning a RS1, so when you say it had any reputation other than bizarre, it's a surprise to me. You two are the firsts!

How features are prioritized in the original design phase definitely impacts what allowable upgrades are available in the future 2nd generations without major redesigns to change those priorities.

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

This is a big reason why short of someone water jetting down the middle of these, I don't think I could be convinced the .2s are different inside. If they were, I believe they'd just call it a new model like the DRS1 (durable rifle scope), or RS9, rather than growing the model variations.

I don't think admitting to changes if there were any would matter to anyone; the people who believe in the zero retention testing would stick to the vetted SKUs and avoid the problematic ones, while those who don't believe in the testing would buy whatever.

Much the same reasons that I'd not consider a Zeiss s5 https://rokslide.com/forums/threads/zeiss-lrp-s5-3-18x50mm-field-eval.278228/

But might consider a Zeiss s3 https://rokslide.com/forums/threads/zeiss-lrp-s3-6-36x56mm-field-evaluation.313216/

Or I'd be a-ok with a LRTS/LRHS, but wouldn't consider any other Bushnell https://rokslide.com/forums/threads/bushnell-lrtsi-4-5-18x44-drop-test-mini-eval.252043/

 

[Southern Lights]

If you want to take the safest route, get the NF.

The scope evals are fine, but are extremely limited in sample size. Each NF scope is beat around individually and checked for zero shift before it is ever shipped. I don't think Maven is doing this level of QC that NF does on each scope. I don't think any manufacturer is.

I only wish the NF reticles were better, because as a wide mag range hunting reticle, they are universally mediocre to bad.

 

[Ian_clark]

If you want to take the safest route, get the NF.

The scope evals are fine, but are extremely limited in sample size. Each NF scope is beat around individually and checked for zero shift before it is ever shipped. I don't think Maven is doing this level of QC that NF does on each scope. I don't think any manufacturer is.

I only wish the NF reticles were better, because as a wide mag range hunting reticle, they are universally mediocre to bad.

Yeah the reticle is my only hesitation!

 

[SDHNTR]

To be fair they told me nothing changed internally on the rs1.2, but the 1.2 holds zero, the rs1 didn't.

I brought that up earlier in this thread *edit, i brought it up in the scope eval thread** and it was discussed. Maybe the mechanicals are the same but they use a different adhesive, locking rings, ect. ect. I don't know what scopes look like on the inside, but, Maven said all the internals are the same across the .2 line as they were on the original RS models. If thats true, they are doing something different on the .2s


Sent from my SM-G990U2 using Tapatalk

They told me all their scopes were made to the same durability standards too. Outright lie or shameless marketing stretch?

 

[SDHNTR]

To be fair maven said the the internals of the 1 and 1.2 were the same only with higher QC standards. That's unlikely so why would they say that? Well they are in the business of selling stuff.

Can they make a scope that has durability as a main design feature? Of course they've proven it's possible with the 1.2 but until they admit they had to adjust the internals to make it happen ill remain skeptical.

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

Yeah, I don’t understand the obscurity. Come clean with it Maven.

 

[SDHNTR]

I see it differently. Why would they say nothing changed, when they could sell out of RS3.2s by riding the RS1.2 testing and saying all .2s were "updated"?
...they ARE in the business of selling stuff.

Instead the RS1.2 is MEeMEe famous on Instagram for being a half hour sell out, while there's a surplus of R3.2s. Same reticle, an ounce heavier, twice the upper end zoom with a fully usable 5x bottom end, but not offered by Maven as a dependable substitute.


"All I stated" sounds like a statement.

To me, the better question is why weren’t ALL internals updated? If, as they claim, all of their scopes are made to the same durability standards, why don’t they all demonstrate the same qualities of durability across the entire line? They obviously don’t, so the claim comes off as disingenuous.

 

[sndmn11]

To me, the better question is why weren’t ALL internals updated? If, as they claim, all of their scopes are made to the same durability standards, why don’t they all demonstrate the same qualities of durability across the entire line? They obviously don’t, so the claim comes off as disingenuous.

I have never heard anyone from Maven say anything about durability standards. I've also never heard them say any internals were updated. To the latter, they have specifically said no internals were updated.

I think there's a lot of grasping at straws and unhealthy obsessions with wanting to have a gotcha type moment. Objectively and sticking to what is known through testing, the RS1.2 is presenting as a scope that tracks and holds zero appropriately.

Beyond the RS3 and RS5 (I think is the other one in the eval threads) Maven's remaining line of scopes are an unknown and should be evaluated on their own.

 

[SDHNTR]

I agree, in theory. But I was also clearly told via email, and I quote: “All of our riflescopes are built with the same durability standards.” You can draw your own conclusion.

 

[sndmn11]

I agree, in theory. But I was also clearly told via email, and I quote: “All of our riflescopes are built with the same durability standards.” You can draw your own conclusion.

Sounds like you caught them. Are you going to order an RS3.2 now? They are in stock.

 

[SDHNTR]

Sounds like you caught them. Are you going to order an RS3.2 now? They are in stock.

No. Because I don’t believe them. Even though on paper I like the 3.2 specs better. I’ll wait for for the 1.2 to show up again, but I’ll admit, I feel kinda dirty even wanting one.

 

[sndmn11]

No. Because I don’t believe them. Even though on paper I like the 3.2 specs better. I’ll wait for for the 1.2 to show up again, but I’ll admit, I feel kinda dirty even wanting one.

Stick with Maven saying there are no internal changes. It's what I have been told by several at Maven in various interviews, it's what has been communicated to @Formidilosus and it makes the most sense. We still land at it being likely that the RS3.2 will not retain zero, but without it being connected to anything nefarious. I land there due to their honesty.

 

[SDHNTR]

Stick with Maven saying there are no internal changes. It's what I have been told by several at Maven in various interviews, it's what has been communicated to @Formidilosus and it makes the most sense. We still land at it being likely that the RS3.2 will not retain zero, but without it being connected to anything nefarious. I land there due to their honesty.

Well, I hope I’m wrong. And while I want to say that the email I got was disingenuous, I think it’s was probably just the marketing person who didn’t know any better and probably actually believed that statement.

Maybe I’ll wait until the 3.2 is tested. Is that in the works?

 

[sndmn11]

Maybe I’ll wait until the 3.2 is tested. Is that in the works?

I would put an RS3.2 through all the effort I did for the RS1.2 if one ended up in my doorstep. I have no plans to buy one. You'd have to ask @Formidilosus or @Ryan Avery if they have plans to play with any.

 

[SloppyJ]

Here's the safe bet:

NF NX8 with Mil-C or XT depending on if you're dialing or holding. If it's a short action you can get away with the 2.5x20. If it's a long action, go with the 4x32

 

[Ian_clark]

Here's the safe bet:

NF NX8 with Mil-C or XT depending on if you're dialing or holding. If it's a short action you can get away with the 2.5x20. If it's a long action, go with the 4x32

Thank you! I’ve decided on the NF 4-32 with Mil C

 

[SloppyJ]

Thank you! I’ve decided on the NF 4-32 with Mil C

Solid choice. I love my 4x32. I went with the CF2D. My 2.5x20 was in MOA but just recently sold it for the same in Mil-C. Depending on how I like the Mil-C I might do the same with my bigger one. The illuminated dots in the CF2D seem perfect for hunting though.

Enjoy it.