Nightforce NX8 vs. Maven RS 3.2

[Ian_clark]

Hey guys!
I’m looking at getting a new scope and was pretty set on a NF NX8 4-32 with either the MIL C or MIL XT reticle. I recently found the Maven RS 3.2 with the SHR - Mil reticle. From other things I’ve read folks seem to prefer the Maven reticle. They are very comparable in weight, length and elevation adjustment.
Does anyone have experience with both scopes or any other information?
Thanks!

 

[Ian_clark]

Bump

 

[Matt5266]

I'll say I have no experience with Maven but u have heard good things. I do have a NX8 4-32x50 with the FFP Mil XT reticle. And love it. You probably wouldnt have problems with either but I went with the tried and true Nightforce.

 

[Ian_clark]

Bump

 

[Bubblehide]

There are scope evaluations in the long range hunting forum. Both the scopes you mention have passed the evaluations. You might want to check those evaluations in that forum.

 

[Timberline001]

There are scope evaluations in the long range hunting forum. Both the scopes you mention have passed the evaluations. You might want to check those evaluations in that forum.

The 3.2 has been evaluated? I thought just the 1.2.

 

[Bubblehide]

The 3.2 has been evaluated?

Oops, sorry, I over looked the model.

 

[Timberline001]

Oops, sorry, I over looked the model.

Hoping to see an eval on it. I’d like to think both the .2 models are above the rest.

 

[sndmn11]

Hoping to see an eval on it. I’d like to think both the .2 models are above the rest.

I don't believe the 3.2 would retain zero.

 

[Timberline001]

I don't believe the 3.2 would retain zero.

I agree but am still wishful. It’s the same weight as the smaller 1.2 so my best guess is it’s missing some heavier duty components. Just a WAG though.

 

[IDVortex]

I don't believe the 3.2 would retain zero.

Curious why you think that?

 

[sndmn11]

Curious why you think that?

The RS3 did not many times and nothing changed internally. I've asked for .2 a few times and don't have one. Other unmentionables.

 

[grfox92]

The RS3 did not many times and nothing changed internally. I've asked for .2 a few times and don't have one. Other unmentionables.

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

 

[sndmn11]

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



Sent from my SM-G990U2 using Tapatalk

Who tested an RS1?

 

[Timberline001]

Who tested an RS1?

I didn’t test mine but it did lose zero between trips.

 

[grfox92]

Who tested an RS1?

No one officially that I know of, but many claimed between here on RS and I believe LRO that they had major issues holding zero.

Sent from my SM-G990U2 using Tapatalk

 

[sndmn11]

No one officially that I know of, but many claimed between here on RS and I believe LRO that they had major issues holding zero.

Sent from my SM-G990U2 using Tapatalk

I didn’t test mine but it did lose zero between trips.

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.

 

[realunlucky]

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.

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

 

[Timberline001]

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.

Holy hell dude, all I stated was mine lost zero. Not trying to make any sort of statement.

 

[sndmn11]

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.

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

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.

Holy hell dude, all I stated was mine lost zero. Not trying to make any sort of statement.

"All I stated" sounds like a statement.