Rifle scopes you'd love to see Form test

[RussDXT]

At that weight why not run a tenmile?

 

[JakeSCH]

At that weight why not run a tenmile?

"IF" it does truly pass. I really like Maven's MOA-2 reticle for hunting and load development. To me that would be worth the 2 oz penalty vs the tenmile. If it doesn't pass, then I will run the tenmile HX 3-18 or the NXS 3.5 - 15.

Just preference.

 

[amassi]

FYI - Justin from Maven responded and said the RS1.2 has passed a 3rd party testing...(referencing the form drop testing) - so it may be a winner.

Any mil options?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JakeSCH]

Any mil options?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Looks like it. https://mavenbuilt.com/products/rs1...GcLTkY_wgjFaaOE9a-2F1Or87iSmZLNSXrwJY=.WZGSSt

 

[4th_point]

FYI - Justin from Maven responded and said the RS1.2 has passed a 3rd party testing...(referencing the form drop testing) - so it may be a winner.

Very interesting! Not sure what 3rd party testing means but maybe they will release some details?

Anyone recall if the RS1 and Tract UHD came out at a similar time? They seem very similar.

ETA - typos

 

[Mountainrancher]

At that weight why not run a tenmile?

At a quick glance the reticle may be better for low mag shooting and it’s ten mil per rev vs the 8 mil of the tenmile. It should also be about 200 bucks cheaper than you can get a tenmile for.

 

[amassi]

Looks like it. https://mavenbuilt.com/products/rs1...GcLTkY_wgjFaaOE9a-2F1Or87iSmZLNSXrwJY=.WZGSSt

Hey that doesn’t suck!
Finally less than 120 mile of mils on the wind holds


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dobermann]

FYI - Justin from Maven responded and said the RS1.2 has passed a 3rd party testing...(referencing the form drop testing) - so it may be a winner.

Well ... you'd sure hope so, when choosing 'RS' as a name ...

 

[Dobermann]

At that weight why not run a tenmile?

Well ... I'll be the first to dare suggest that Maven's SHR-MIL reticle has some features that look like it would be a better hunting option that the Tenmile's tree.

Looks like they might have even borrowed some design elements from the THLR reticle ...

 

[Dobermann]

Is the Maven RS.1.2 (2.5-15X44 FFP) on the list yet?​

Do we know who the manufacturer is? LOW?

EDIT: We already have a thread on this scope, so let's move discussion there: https://rokslide.com/forums/threads/maven-rs1-2-2-5-15x44-new-model.333202/

 

[caberslash]

Please test the Bushnell LRHS2 along with the old LRHS/LRTS.

@Formidilosus used to reccomend these but not anymore it seems. Any particular reason why?

Have 3 (2x 3-12, 1x 4.5-18) and very happy with them.

 

[Wrongside]

Well, other than the limited, GAP only LRHS2, they aren’t made anymore?

 

[Dobermann]

Please test the Bushnell LRHS2 along with the old LRHS/LRTS.

@Formidilosus used to reccomend these but not anymore it seems. Any particular reason why?

Have 3 (2x 3-12, 1x 4.5-18) and very happy with them.

That question has been asked and answered on at least one other thread here ... have a hunt around ...

 

[caberslash]

That question has been asked and answered on at least one other thread here ... have a hunt around ...

Haven’t used the 2. They are likely the same internally.

That was the answer, hence my question.

 

[Dobermann]

That was the answer, hence my question.

Sorry - I didn't read your question that way.

Form has made many posts about reliability for the LRHS/LRTS line (which you referred to in your first line), and I don't think has recommended the LRHS2 (and your second line referred to what he has recommend in the past).

So I parsed your second line to read 'Form used to recommend the LRHS/LRTS but not anymore it seems. Any particular reason why?' ... and that's the question that has been answered here.

It's worth doing the research so you can read the answes in Form's own words. I don't want to mis-quote him, but I think the gist of it was a combination of the Mil-Quad reticle being better, the SWFA 3-9 doing most all of what the 3-12 LRTS can do for less weight, and the 4.5-18 as being too high mag for general hunting to justify the weight (exception to this being what the THLR reticle offers in the current ZP5 5-25 x 50 - but that would be better in a smaller package). Hope that helps.

 

[caberslash]

Sorry - I didn't read your question that way.

Form has made many posts about reliability for the LRHS/LRTS line (which you referred to in your first line), and I don't think has recommended the LRHS2 (and your second line referred to what he has recommend in the past).

So I parsed your second line to read 'Form used to recommend the LRHS/LRTS but not anymore it seems. Any particular reason why?' ... and that's the question that has been answered here.

It's worth doing the research so you can read the answes in Form's own words. I don't want to mis-quote him, but I think the gist of it was a combination of the Mil-Quad reticle being better, the SWFA 3-9 doing most all of what the 3-12 LRTS can do for less weight, and the 4.5-18 as being too high mag for general hunting to justify the weight (exception to this being what the THLR reticle offers in the current ZP5 5-25 x 50 - but that would be better in a smaller package). Hope that helps.

Yup have looked up what he has posted in the past, on both this forum and 24hr Campfire.

Might have to try and attend one of these 'R-University' training courses and ask him myself...

We can't get the SWFA SS HD line in Europe, and the Minox ZP5's are out of the question for me (too expensive, too heavy, spotty QC from a few people I know who have used them a reasonable amount and the fact they were recently sold at 50% off RRP via a Blaser Group deal in the USA) mean that the LRHS is the only scope I've had access to.

The 3 I have are solid performers and a friend who also shoots for a living has bought a couple to check them out. The fact that Bushnell is not a 'name brand' in the UK means their secondhand or New Old Stock value is relatively low, between $400-800 (£300-600) vs. the $700-900 odd that they seem to go for on here.

If the new Maven is a step-sibling in design, that's great in mechanical terms, but finanically the LRHS/LRTS failed to meet projections and was thus canned (hence the end of line blow out sales which lowered the value of the optic, which was originally priced around what Maven is asking for their new scope).

The fact that their rep on another forum has repeatedly noted that the LRHS/LRTS were poor sellers, and that George Gardner had to go out of his way to get the LRHS2 as a GAP exclusive scope, says a lot about the market IMO.

Not saying it will be a repeat of what happened nearly 10 years ago, but has the market really changed much?

I liked the fact that Bushnell cross-sectioned their Elite Tactical scopes for these videos, might give an inkling as to why they were somewhat servicable?

https://fb.watch/ooPpuBV-65/

https://fb.watch/ooPxDagq8o/

 

[Formidilosus]

The fact that their rep on another forum has repeatedly noted that the LRHS/LRTS were poor sellers, and that George Gardner had to go out of his way to get the LRHS2 as a GAP exclusive scope, says a lot about the market IMO.

Not saying it will be a repeat of what happened nearly 10 years ago, but has the market really changed much?

The issue with those scopes is multi fold.

1). It’s a Bushnell. That can’t be ignored. In the PRS world Bushnell overcame their crappy rep with good scopes. They have not done so with hunters.

2). People, even Bushnell greatly underestimate how many hunters hate donut reticles. Especially uneven, stupid marked ones.

3). It was too early and the market wasn’t ready for FFP, mil/mil, and 24oz scopes. It’s quite different now.

4). The 3-12x is the correct one, but it didn’t sell due to the above issues with hunters. The current 4.5-18x is a long, “heavy” scope with stupid reticle and hunters don’t want that. PRS shooters looking for a hunting scope don’t want simple and reliable.



The niche for the scope isn’t the problem, those specific scopes are their own problem.

 

[Balderdash]

The issue with those scopes is multi fold.

1). It’s a Bushnell. That can’t be ignored. In the PRS world Bushnell overcame their crappy rep with good scopes. They have not done so with hunters.

2). People, even Bushnell greatly underestimate how many hunters hate donut reticles. Especially uneven, stupid marked ones.

3). It was too early and the market wasn’t ready for FFP, mil/mil, and 24oz scopes. It’s quite different now.

4). The 3-12x is the correct one, but it didn’t sell due to the above issues with hunters. The current 4.5-18x is a long, “heavy” scope with stupid reticle and hunters don’t want that. PRS shooters looking for a hunting scope don’t want simple and reliable.



The niche for the scope isn’t the problem, those specific scopes are their own problem.

Formidilosus:

I agree with your discernments on the Bushies in reference. Another issue I'd add, especially for the 3-12 varient, is that a lot of hunters have themselves thoroughly convinced that they need way more X.

I've used multiples of both the LRHS/LRTS scopes for years; they've endured tons and tons of rounds downrange, testing, rough use/weather, and many miles of backroads. I have buddies who've experienced about every common scope malody with some of their "top tier" scopes, yet they still scoff at the Bushies being a legitimate scope and, by extension, won't bolt one on their rigs.

While I've gotten used to them, and both are plenty usable, I, too, hope for something better than the LRHS and LRTS reticles, and have been hoping for years that a scope company would pick up the torch on the 3-12 size with a better reticle. Maybe the Maven will be it? Such as it is, I still snap up the 3-12 Bushies when I can.

 

[Formidilosus]

Formidilosus:

I agree with your discernments on the Bushies in reference. Another issue I'd add, especially for the 3-12 varient, is that a lot of hunters have themselves thoroughly convinced that they need way more X.

I've used multiples of both the LRHS/LRTS scopes for years; they've endured tons and tons of rounds downrange, testing, rough use/weather, and many miles of backroads. I have buddies who've experienced about every common scope malody with some of their "top tier" scopes, yet they still scoff at the Bushies being a legitimate scope and, by extension, won't bolt one on their rigs.

While I've gotten used to them, and both are plenty usable, I, too, hope for something better than the LRHS and LRTS reticles, and have been hoping for years that a scope company would pick up the torch on the 3-12 size with a better reticle. Maybe the Maven will be it? Such as it is, I still snap up the 3-12 Bushies when I can.

The best thing Bushnell could do is to make a solid reticle in the 3-12x, and something like a 3-18x or 4-16x with smaller objective, then bring back the Bausch and Lomb name and brand it under that as a high end hunting scope.

 

[eric1115]

The best thing Bushnell could do is to make a solid reticle in the 3-12x, and something like a 3-18x or 4-16x with smaller objective, then bring back the Bausch and Lomb name and brand it under that as a high end hunting scope.

Man I just felt a little tingle in my tummy thinking about a THLR Bausch & Lomb Elite Hunter.

I've been wishing for them to bring the LRHS back with a THLR reticle as they seem to be open to things along those lines (see GAP LRHS2), but the Bushnell stigma is real for sure with the guys I hunt and shoot with. B&L might be able to overcome that.