Maven rs 1.2 2.5-15 vs Tract Toric 2.5-15

[fdkay]

Iluminated on both models. This is for a hunting rifle
After suffering from anaylsis paralysis, I think I've narrowed it down to these two.
This is exactly the magnification range that I want.
Most specs are nearly identical, both made at LOW.
Both have well designed, usable reticles throughout the power range.
The Tract is a bit cheaper, but at what cost?
I have now seen several reviews, though not on this optic, of the Tract scopes not tracking well and not having that great of glass.
The only negatives I found on the Maven don't exist on the new illuminated model, though some complain it doesn't have a locking elevation turret, but it does have a zero stop.
The tract has giant turrets, the maven has human sized ones.
They are both the same length, have the same FOV etc...
I had considered the XTR III 3.3-18 and the new Steiner H6Xi or whatever it is called, but both of these offer what I'm looking for.
Anyone have experience with both?
I was pretty pumped about the Tract, but seeing reticle shift when adjusting parallax and reports of underperforming glass gave me pause, then I saw the Maven.
Help!

 

[NateVA]

My next scope in that price range will be the Maven RS1.2 due to a better reticle (for me) and also because they specifically focused on reliability and robustness when it comes to drops/knocks.

 

[tacoman69]

Definitely the maven. I would have picked one up but got another tenmile instead. Do a google search, the maven been tested pretty extensively and proven to be a step up in reliability from previous models. for hunting durability is tops. just bc the specs are the close and they look similar doesn't mean they are the same scope. internals is what counts

 

[redneckbmxer24]

No experience with the Maven but I had that Tract and didn’t like it. The reticle is very thick, the illumination is too bright on the low end and it wasn’t the greatest in low light which is important for a hunting optic. I also didn’t like the turrets and they had a good bit of slop.

The Leica Amplus 6 on closeout is less money, has better glass, a massive eyebox, and a better reticle for hunting.

 

[AleksanderSuave]

Iluminated on both models. This is for a hunting rifle
After suffering from anaylsis paralysis, I think I've narrowed it down to these two.
This is exactly the magnification range that I want.
Most specs are nearly identical, both made at LOW.
Both have well designed, usable reticles throughout the power range.
The Tract is a bit cheaper, but at what cost?
I have now seen several reviews, though not on this optic, of the Tract scopes not tracking well and not having that great of glass.
The only negatives I found on the Maven don't exist on the new illuminated model, though some complain it doesn't have a locking elevation turret, but it does have a zero stop.
The tract has giant turrets, the maven has human sized ones.
They are both the same length, have the same FOV etc...
I had considered the XTR III 3.3-18 and the new Steiner H6Xi or whatever it is called, but both of these offer what I'm looking for.
Anyone have experience with both?
I was pretty pumped about the Tract, but seeing reticle shift when adjusting parallax and reports of underperforming glass gave me pause, then I saw the Maven.
Help!

I was just looking at the maven rs 2.

I own the burris, its a LARGE scope, and its heavier than I'd want on a hunting rifle and the dragon scales on the magnification ring arent fun. It sits in my "SPR" rifle on a bobro mount, where weight is irrelevant, and I think thats the best use of that exact magnification XTR III.

Its a shame that Maven doesnt include this scope in their demo program, I bet its a winner.

 

[wind gypsy]

I have the RS1.2 and like it quite a bit. Glass is good, reticle is great for a precision hunting reticle, illum is meh bleeds quite a bit but would still be a benefit for hunting on low setting, parallax knob is pretty damn stiff. I mounted it in a static tracking fixture and tested elevation tracking to be nuts on perfect but only through 9 mils IIRC. My hunting rifles have all worn SWFA 3-9s or LRTS/LRHS variants for a while and I think this is a great option in that realm.

 

[Absoluterock]

No experience with the Maven but I had that Tract and didn’t like it. The reticle is very thick, the illumination is too bright on the low end and it wasn’t the greatest in low light which is important for a hunting optic. I also didn’t like the turrets and they had a good bit of slop.

The Leica Amplus 6 on closeout is less money, has better glass, a massive eyebox, and a better reticle for hunting.

I wish Leica had decent reticles. Plain crosshairs just aren’t for me.

 

[redneckbmxer24]

I wish Leica had decent reticles. Plain crosshairs just aren’t for me.

The one on closeout has a 5 mil tree with .2 hash marks…

 

[Absoluterock]

The one on closeout has a 5 mil tree with .2 hash marks…

Shoot, must have missed that.

Got a link?

 

[A.Redd]

Leica Amplus 6 2.5-15x56i Ballistic BDC Riflescope 50411

FREE SHIPPING on Leica Amplus 6 2.5-15x56i Ballistic BDC Riflescope 50411

www.eurooptic.com

 

[redneckbmxer24]

Shoot, must have missed that.

Got a link?

Guy above posted the link. The reticle isn’t entirely accurate on their site though, it shows the MOA version with only 4 bars. Here’s the mil.

 

[fdkay]

Guy above posted the link. The reticle isn’t entirely accurate on their site though, it shows the MOA version with only 4 bars. Here’s the mil.

I decided to go with the Leica. I would have preferred a 50mm objective, but for around 500 bucks cheaper, I'll deal with the 56mm

 

[RPN]

2nd focal plane on the Leica though...
I've been looking for a replacement for an Athlon 2-12 ffp that isn't made in Chyna, and the Mavern 1.2 seems to be the pick of the mid price range bunch.

 

[redneckbmxer24]

2nd focal plane on the Leica though...
I've been looking for a replacement for an Athlon 2-12 ffp that isn't made in Chyna, and the Mavern 1.2 seems to be the pick of the mid price range bunch.

FFP is not needed on a hunting rifle, especially if it’s not over 15x. Any distance that you need to use the reticle for holds you can be on 15x. You shouldn’t be making pop shots on animals at 500 yards. And it gives you a reticle on the low end that you have no trouble quickly picking up which is far more important than being able to hold drop at 4x.

 

[fdkay]

So, I went ahead and ordered the Leica, tahnks for all the responses.
I would have much preferred a 50mm objective on a hunting rifle, but I can live with it.
It took me a bit to realize, that I really just ordered a Trijicon Credo, the specs are almost identical in every regard, except the trijicon has a better reticle. I mean, down to the tooless turret reset and the zero stop.
I have the 2.5-15 credo, I am very pleased with it, the only two negatives with it are the very soft elevation adjustment and eyebox gets tight at 15x.
The windage turret has very crisp, tactile adjustments (it is capped), while the extra sealing on the elevation turret results in a soft adjustment. I wouldn't call it spongy, I thought about replacing the oring as an oring with a large cross section is typically the culprit, but I don't think I can find a replacement with a smaller cross section and I don't want to remove it.
Hopefully, the Leica is an upgrade in glass (the trijicon is actually pretty good in this respect) and turret feel.
Either way, price with the Leica on sale is a wash with the trijicon, I woud have preferred a more compact scope, but I've got old eyes and a limited budget.
I have no issues with SFP on a hunting scope, much of the hog hunting is done at last light, I need to be able to see the reticle.

 

[Earnhardt]

So, I went ahead and ordered the Leica, tahnks for all the responses.
I would have much preferred a 50mm objective on a hunting rifle, but I can live with it.
It took me a bit to realize, that I really just ordered a Trijicon Credo, the specs are almost identical in every regard, except the trijicon has a better reticle. I mean, down to the tooless turret reset and the zero stop.
I have the 2.5-15 credo, I am very pleased with it, the only two negatives with it are the very soft elevation adjustment and eyebox gets tight at 15x.
The windage turret has very crisp, tactile adjustments (it is capped), while the extra sealing on the elevation turret results in a soft adjustment. I wouldn't call it spongy, I thought about replacing the oring as an oring with a large cross section is typically the culprit, but I don't think I can find a replacement with a smaller cross section and I don't want to remove it.
Hopefully, the Leica is an upgrade in glass (the trijicon is actually pretty good in this respect) and turret feel.
Either way, price with the Leica on sale is a wash with the trijicon, I woud have preferred a more compact scope, but I've got old eyes and a limited budget.
I have no issues with SFP on a hunting scope, much of the hog hunting is done at last light, I need to be able to see the reticle.

Great review, fdkay!
Thanks!

 

[redneckbmxer24]

I’d be surprised if they’re the same as the credo since they’re made in Portugal and not Japan. The glass is definitely a big step up from Credo glass and the eyebox is excellent on 15x, it has a 3.7mm exit pupil on max magnification.

The elevation turret has a nice solid clunk to it and the windage is decent too but it’s not as nice of a windage turret as the credo.

 

[fdkay]

I’d be surprised if they’re the same as the credo since they’re made in Portugal and not Japan. The glass is definitely a big step up from Credo glass and the eyebox is excellent on 15x, it has a 3.7mm exit pupil on max magnification.

The elevation turret has a nice solid clunk to it and the windage is decent too but it’s not as nice of a windage turret as the credo.

Yeah, I'm pretty pumped over all.
I didn't realize the amplus was made in Portugal.
I was there once, the women are really hot.

 

[redneckbmxer24]

Yeah some of their stuff is made in Portugal and some in Germany. Mine is a sample size of one but it’s well built. I’d say it’s 100% worth the regular price, at the close out price it’s a bargain.

 

[RPN]

FFP is not needed on a hunting rifle, especially if it’s not over 15x. Any distance that you need to use the reticle for holds you can be on 15x. You shouldn’t be making pop shots on animals at 500 yards. And it gives you a reticle on the low end that you have no trouble quickly picking up which is far more important than being able to hold drop at 4x.

Yep, you sure nailed that one.

I'd disagree somewhat, but given your comments, I doubt it is worth debating with you. I have shot 5 deer so far this year. They have been from 330m to 683m - using the not necessary FFP, with a max magnification of an inadequate 12x. In winter the closest I shot one was about 15m - and FFP seemed to work ok there also.

Could have been just a run of luck though. WTF is a pop shot?

 

[redneckbmxer24]

Yep, you sure nailed that one.

I'd disagree somewhat, but given your comments, I doubt it is worth debating with you. I have shot 5 deer so far this year. They have been from 330m to 683m - using the not necessary FFP, with a max magnification of an inadequate 12x. In winter the closest I shot one was about 15m - and FFP seemed to work ok there also.

Could have been just a run of luck though. WTF is a pop shot?

For someone not looking for a debate you sure seem to want one

Congratulations though, you used a FFP scope to hunt deer where a SFP would have been absolutely fine and not held you back one bit. I’ve hunted plenty with FFP’s too, probably mostly FFP’s because it’s what I had on my precision rifle that I chose to use at the time. Do they work? Yes. Do they work better than a SFP? No. Are there times I wished I had a SFP in low light or in the woods even when I was using a FFP with illumination? Yes.

 

[NateVA]

Congratulations though, you used a FFP scope to hunt deer where a SFP would have been absolutely fine and not held you back one bit.

I mean given the ranges he mentioned (330-680 meters) and given he chose not to use the max magnification, isn't this just objectively not true? And sure he could have zoomed in to max but he obviously didn't want to for a reason, probably FOV for spotting his shot and re-acquiring the animal after it.

 

[RPN]

The Athlon reticle at low power and low illumination looks like a somewhat pointed red blob - and works superbly on close deer. I'd agree that a fine mildot reticle or similar wouldn't be great, but this particular reticle works just spot on for the way and places I hunt - and I've used a bundle of 2nd focal plane scopes to come to this conclusion.

There is nearly always wind here, so having measurable wind hold off is better for me than trying to estimate what 30" looks like on a deer over half a k away. I dial for elevation, and hold for wind usually, but if there is a mob of animals out then using the reticle is faster and entirely adequate.

The only concern I have with it is the COO, and this is why the interest in LOW products. I'm thinking a Mavern is in the near future for me.

 

[Luckyshot]

@fdkay So how did the Leica end up compared to the Trijicon? Glass or otherwise?

 

[fdkay]

@fdkay So how did the Leica end up compared to the Trijicon? Glass or otherwise?

I haven't had a chance to get them out side by side. When I do, I'll give a quick rundown

 

[fdkay]

@fdkay So how did the Leica end up compared to the Trijicon? Glass or otherwise?

Okay, so I had a chance to get both the Leica 2.5-15x56 out to the range and do a quick side by side with my trijicon 2.5-15x56.
First off, they are almost identical in form. They are nearly the same length. They both have the same, tool less setup on the elevation turret.
They have the same type of zero stop.
Both are mil/mil scopes.
The trijicon has a simpler, holdover style reticle with no additional widholds below the main cross hair.
The trijicon has a floating center dot, the Leica a full cross hair.
The trijicon has numbers on the even mil markings.
The Leica is not numbered. It does, however, have a windage tree on every full mil.
Glass wise, I couldn't tell the difference. I asked someone else, they thought the trijicon was a little brighter. When I compared it again, it looked like the color was a bit better in the Leica, but there wasn't enough color to make a determination.
Both elevation knobs are 8 mil.
The elevation knob on the Leica is fairly tactile, not excessively snappy and loud like the Athlon Cronus Gen 2, but very positive.
As noted, the trijicon is soft and muted, you really have to pay attention to what you're dialing.
The windage knobs are a whole different thing.
On the trijicon, they use the same tooless reset as the elevation. The knob is a bit more compact, the clicks are firm, tactile and very nice.
The Leica has a miniture knob that is harder to adjust. It is really small, the clicks are muted, the numbers are very difficult for my old eyes to read. It has a pull up, tooless reset. I don't dial for wind, so it really isn't a big deal, more of a WTF??
As far as the reticle goes, I prefer the trijicon, as I dial for elevation.
That isn't to say the Leica is bad, as a matter of fact, I prefer the less is more style of xmas tree reticle presented here.
It is sufficient for it's purpose, without clutter.
Both scopes fill the same budget arena.
All that being said, I have not had them out at low light together, so I can;t offer insight there.
If I had to pick one, it would probably be the trijicon, primarily for the reticle and a bit because of the windage knob.
They are both good, they both do the exact same thing, they both have an identical feature set with slight differences in how they get to the same point.

 

[Earnhardt]

fdkay...great review!
Thanks!