Maven RS1.2 2.5-15x44mm SHR-Mil Q&A

[MidGAHunter]

To add a data point, my Maven RS 1.2 showed up this week. Got it mounted and yesterday did a little shooting. Zeroing was uneventful. Return to zero (shoot at 100 yards, dial lots of elevation, return to zero stop, shoot, repeat) was uneventful. It tracked well to 400 yards (the farthest I can shoot off my back porch). I did a mini drop eval. By mini, I dropped it 6 times total onto a padded shooting mat on soft/wet grass. Dropped on all three sides from somewhere between 18 and 24 inches, then 1 shot, dropped three more times then one shot. Both shots hit inside a 1 inch paster (this rifle shoots this ammo around 1.25 inches for 10 shot groups). So far I'm liking the reticle and now having tested it side by side with my baby ATACR with Mil-R reticle I like this one better (didn't think I would...I was wrong). About the only thing I like better on the Mil-R is the detailed measuring tool on the bottom right quadrant of the field of view. The actual Maven reticle itself is superior though.

 

[Buzby]

Chevy Vegas and Cadillac Coupe de Villes were both made by GM.

Not at the same plant with the same frame, like these 2 scopes.

That’s a poor equivalency. 2 completely different cars at opposite ends of their model range. Maven also makes a $375 CRS.1, doesn’t mean it’s close to the same as their $1600 RS3.2
Not the same equivalency as a Silverado and a Sierra with about 90% compatible parts, and the same external dimensions.

 

[Axlrod]

Not at the same plant with the same frame, like these 2 scopes.

That’s a poor equivalency. 2 completely different cars at opposite ends of their model range. Maven also makes a $375 CRS.1, doesn’t mean it’s close to the same as their $1600 RS3.2
Not the same equivalency as a Silverado and a Sierra with about 90% compatible parts, and the same external dimensions.

I was just trying to show comparing cars to scopes is the height of internet semantics. But i really don't care.

 

[wind gypsy]

That Toric looks pretty decent. Like the locking turret. Reticle looks decent. Wonder if the parallax is less stiff without illum? Couple ounces heavier and looks like a higher profile turret. Wonder what the cost premium was to use Schott glass so they can say Schott 57 times in there marketing and also how the glass compares.

 

[BradArnett]

Wonder what the cost premium was to use Schott glass so they can say Schott 57 times in there marketing and also how the glass compares.

my coffee pot has schott glass too

 

[Marbles]

That Toric looks pretty decent. Like the locking turret. Reticle looks decent. Wonder if the parallax is less stiff without illum? Couple ounces heavier and looks like a higher profile turret. Wonder what the cost premium was to use Schott glass so they can say Schott 57 times in there marketing and also how the glass compares.

You forget, they are the same scope, so the Maven uses Schott too. Lean manufacturing and all. Probably every scope made of LOW uses German glass, you know, GMC and Chevy prove it.

Sarcasm

 

[JohnJohnson]

Wonder what the cost premium was to use Schott glass so they can say Schott 57 times in there marketing and also how the glass compares.

I imagine it'll pay off for them in marketing. People don't understand glass at all and seem to think Schott makes the same glass for that stuff as they do for Tangent Theta.

 

[Buzby]

That Toric looks pretty decent. Like the locking turret. Reticle looks decent. Wonder if the parallax is less stiff without illum? Couple ounces heavier and looks like a higher profile turret. Wonder what the cost premium was to use Schott glass so they can say Schott 57 times in there marketing and also how the glass compares.

The tract has illumination also.

TORIC UHD 30mm 2.5-15X44 FFP Illuminated MRAD/MRAD Hunting Rifle Scope

Featuring fully multi-coated SCHOTT high-transmission (HT) glass and extra-low dispersion (ED) lens, which make up TRACT’s advanced Ultra High Definition (UHD) optical system. The TORIC 30mm 2.5-15x44 provides the long range hunter with the perfect magnification and objective size and an...

tractoptics.com

Don’t bother though. I stand corrected. Apparently the Tract is a POS and not at all similar to the Maven. You can’t even get it with super cool custom colors!!!

 

[ResearchinStuff]

If you all aren't familiar with jw at tract and tracts activity on here you really should look at it before you plunk down your $.

 

[Formidilosus]

Don’t bother though. I stand corrected. Apparently the Tract is a POS and not at all similar to the Maven. You can’t even get it with super cool custom colors!!!

I have not used that scope and it may be great, however your assertion that they are the same or similar in performance to the RS1.2 because they share the same basic body does not mean they will perform similarly. There are multiple scopes, from multiple companies that are nearly identical- so much so that turrets, zero stops, eye pieces, etc can be swapped between them; yet they perform vastly different.
LOW absolutely makes different spec parts and internals in the same basic design. It is a mistake to assume that because they look similar, they will be built and perform similar- they may, they not.

As for Tract, as has been stated some reading would be helpful to you. The short version is that initially they came on here and made several posts that they thought the field evals were just very well done and performed, they had no issues with it and believed in it, and that their scopes should perform well in them. Then, a few days later they changed what they said and if I recall deleted posts, then told multiple people that no scope could work after being dropped. Then when it was pointed out that multiple different scope makes/models do work, they changed it to that wanting a scope to stay zeroed after being dropped is stupid, and they would not warranty their scopes after that.

 

[Buzby]

I have not used that scope and it may be great, however your assertion that they are the same or similar in performance to the RS1.2 because they share the same basic body does not mean they will perform similarly. There are multiple scopes, from multiple companies that are nearly identical- so much so that turrets, zero stops, eye pieces, etc can be swapped between them; yet they perform vastly different.
LOW absolutely makes different spec parts and internals in the same basic design. It is a mistake to assume that because they look similar, they will be built and perform similar- they may, they not.

As for Tract, as has been stated some reading would be helpful to you. The short version is that initially they came on here and made several posts that they thought the field evals were just very well done and performed, they had no issues with it and believed in it, and that their scopes should perform well in them. Then, a few days later they changed what they said and if I recall deleted posts, then told multiple people that no scope could work after being dropped. Then when it was pointed out that multiple different scope makes/models do work, they changed it to that wanting a scope to stay zeroed after being dropped is stupid, and they would not warranty their scopes after that.

I agree with all of that. Where I guess I’m lost is, its a mistake to assume that because they look similar they might perform similar.
But not a mistake to assume they would not perform similar?

I brought up the tract as something worth looking into, and seems like there’s push back against doing so. I guess theres a deeper story than what I know of.

 

[sndmn11]

I agree with all of that. Where I guess I’m lost is, its a mistake to assume that because they look similar they might perform similar.
But not a mistake to assume they would not perform similar?

I brought up the tract as something worth looking into, and seems like there’s push back against doing so. I guess theres a deeper story than what I know of.

Buy one and try it out, or send it to Ryan. I was going to buy one when they came out and do the same when both Johns told me their scope was infallible. I sent them the videos I have posted on here testing Nightforce/Bushnell/Maven and they changed to saying it was abuse.

 

[bojangles808]

aren't tract a newer company? how do these random companies get their foot in the door at LOW? need low to build a rokscope eventually. somthing in between this and the swfa 3x9

 

[bruceleroy]

aren't tract a newer company? how do these random companies get their foot in the door at LOW? need low to build a rokscope eventually. somthing in between this and the swfa 3x9

Money. Show them the money.
Their website shows/tells how to get into production.

 

[ResearchinStuff]

It's not just $. LOW only works with you if you've had sales for 3 years and have a minimum # of employees. I tried repeatedly to get them to work with me over the summer.

 

[Sled]

It's not just $. LOW only works with you if you've had sales for 3 years and have a minimum # of employees. I tried repeatedly to get them to work with me over the summer.

The owners from tract and maven came from other established optics companies. My guess is there was a previous relationship that made the transition easier.

 

[ResearchinStuff]

Most likely.

 

[ddowning]

my coffee pot has schott glass too


View attachment 668261

After reading scope threads about how good the glass is for 8 years and people just not getting it, this probably wins the internet for the day!!

 

[fwafwow]

I agree with all of that. Where I guess I’m lost is, its a mistake to assume that because they look similar they might perform similar.
But not a mistake to assume they would not perform similar?

I brought up the tract as something worth looking into, and seems like there’s push back against doing so. I guess theres a deeper story than what I know of.

@JW@TRACT - can you shed some light?

 

[Dobermann]

my coffee pot has schott glass too


View attachment 668261

I'm pretty sure my shot glass is made of Schott glass too.

It even says 'Made by Tract on the bottom' so must be legit.