|
Joined: Nov 2016
Posts: 88
Campfire Greenhorn
|
Campfire Greenhorn
Joined: Nov 2016
Posts: 88 |
Why people will willingly spend lots of money on unproven, over hyped and over marketed products, but won't spend $300 on a bombproof scope that just works baffles me. Slick salesman and catchy marketing really do work I guess.
Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! When I made similar comments on Tract products a few weeks back, I was attacked by the Tract people and their fanboys. Clearly, their products are just an overhyped junk that does not deserve to be on anyone's rifle. Hopefully, they will be banned from this site as they just keep spamming every Hunting Optics topic with their "you should check out Tract, its German quality at a fraction of the price" crap. Thanks again for your work and your time!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,878
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,878 |
Having a 1.5x larger group size with a $350 scope compared to a $1500 scope isn't that alarming to me. Can there be an issue with the scope, possibly, but it leaves some room for improvement.
The problem is, that whether $350 or $1500, that result indicates that the scope isn't mechanically working correctly. Optical quality and features take second fiddle compared to mechanical integrity. Once you get used to systems that work right, it’s really hard to accept one that doesn’t. If a $5000 scope was the only one that worked properly, I’d save up to afford one. Luckily, that’s not the case!
Empirical results rule!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 343
Campfire Member
|
Campfire Member
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 343 |
Having a 1.5x larger group size with a $350 scope compared to a $1500 scope isn't that alarming to me. Can there be an issue with the scope, possibly, but it leaves some room for improvement.
The problem is, that whether $350 or $1500, that result indicates that the scope isn't mechanically working correctly. Optical quality and features take second fiddle compared to mechanical integrity. Certainly understandable. For shooters looking for and needing a sub MOA competition scope, this may not be the choice for them. I just wanted to point out that consistent 1 MOA-1.5MOA may be better than some need or want, especially while it tracked that well. The other features may be what people like, want, and need. Now, there may be an issue with this scope because of its use and abuse over a few reviews and members shooting it. Thats why I would like to get it back so we can narrow down what the problem maybe or if we can just improve it to be more competitive with the NF and similar scopes in regards to drops, etc. The first reviews posted of it from the members that shot and used it were favorable and it was up to their liking. But, its certainly not a $1500+ combat optic like a NF.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 8,852
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 8,852 |
Having a 1.5x larger group size with a $350 scope compared to a $1500 scope isn't that alarming to me. Can there be an issue with the scope, possibly, but it leaves some room for improvement.
The problem is, that whether $350 or $1500, that result indicates that the scope isn't mechanically working correctly. Optical quality and features take second fiddle compared to mechanical integrity. Certainly understandable. For shooters looking for and needing a sub MOA competition scope, this may not be the choice for them. I just wanted to point out that consistent 1 MOA-1.5MOA may be better than some need or want, especially while it tracked that well. The other features may be what people like, want, and need. Now, there may be an issue with this scope because of its use and abuse over a few reviews and members shooting it. Thats why I would like to get it back so we can narrow down what the problem maybe or if we can just improve it to be more competitive with the NF and similar scopes in regards to drops, etc. The first reviews posted of it from the members that shot and used it were favorable and it was up to their liking. But, its certainly not a $1500+ combat optic like a NF. I personally would like to see Tract send FormD a Toric for him to run the same tests. If not, there will always be the lingering question of Response vs Toric.
Adversity doesn't build character, it reveals it.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,395 Likes: 2
Campfire Tracker
|
OP
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,395 Likes: 2 |
I read through all of this again, and I'm fairly impressed that the Response tracked this well on 25 MOA adjustments as shown above. The larger original group size (we should be safe assuming that it wasn't going to get smaller) was reflected here but the consistency of 25 up/down seemed pretty good to me. Again, if the initial group size was larger this one is going to be as well. The tracking seemed much better than I would have expected based on the original group and the .5 which resulted in 1 MOA adjustment.
Except that it was only one gun. The other two, and other adjustments showed very inconsistent movements. As well no manufacturer has the wrong spec. Scopes that groups double in size, inconsistent adjustments, and incorrect RTZ- WILL have other issues eventually. All of those problems are symptoms of poor QC. I am happy that on the 25 moa stringer, the Response did hit both marks well with only a 1.5x larger group than a Nightforce
Brother, any scope that loses 50% precision due to mechanics isn't a "good" thing. Also it had inconsistent adjustments throughout. More than once it was adjusted and produced significant errors to what was input. Example- when initially zeroing the 14.5 M4A1 it need a 1.5 MOA left adjustment. When adjusted left 1.5, it moved POI left nearly 3 MOA. I did the same tracking "test" with both of those guns and if you took the center of POI for groups on adjusted approximately 23 MOA and the other 24 MOA, for the 25 MOA adjusted. Granted it hard to truly tell with 2+ MOA "groups". Having a 1.5x larger group size with a $350 scope compared to a $1500 scope isn't that alarming to me. Can there be an issue with the scope, possibly, but it leaves some room for improvement.
Tell me you are not serious? The difference in a $350 scope and a $1,500 shouldn't be in correct functioning. The SWFA SS scopes are $50 less than this scope and have spot on functioning. Of course they put the $300 into mechanics, not "features". I am curious is you left the magnification on the NF as the same as the Response being the NF has more magnification.
10x for both. Not that it matters as I shoot 6x scopes nearly daily and have zero issues shooting 1 MOA ten round groups. However, to keep equal footing, again 10x for both.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 28,268 Likes: 7
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 28,268 Likes: 7 |
You do more whining than the girls at my 6th grade daughter's slumber party. Geeesh.
Last edited by JGRaider; 10/30/17.
It is irrelevant what you think. What matters is the TRUTH.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,536 Likes: 3
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,536 Likes: 3 |
Having a 1.5x larger group size with a $350 scope compared to a $1500 scope isn't that alarming to me. Can there be an issue with the scope, possibly, but it leaves some room for improvement.
The problem is, that whether $350 or $1500, that result indicates that the scope isn't mechanically working correctly. Optical quality and features take second fiddle compared to mechanical integrity. Once you get used to systems that work right, it’s really hard to accept one that doesn’t. If a $5000 scope was the only one that worked properly, I’d save up to afford one. Luckily, that’s not the case! Very true. A year or two ago, a close friend had a Leup on his target rifle. After seeing how my SS's, Razor, and LRHS worked, he decided to buy an LRHS. I've heard him mention several times how it's difficult to go back to zeroing or dialing a Leup after using the LRHS for a while. He now has multiple LRHS, DMRII, etc. Scopes that work right are like Pringles- once you pop, you just can't stop.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,536 Likes: 3
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,536 Likes: 3 |
Having a 1.5x larger group size with a $350 scope compared to a $1500 scope isn't that alarming to me. Can there be an issue with the scope, possibly, but it leaves some room for improvement.
The problem is, that whether $350 or $1500, that result indicates that the scope isn't mechanically working correctly. Optical quality and features take second fiddle compared to mechanical integrity. Certainly understandable. For shooters looking for and needing a sub MOA competition scope, this may not be the choice for them. I just wanted to point out that consistent 1 MOA-1.5MOA may be better than some need or want, especially while it tracked that well. The other features may be what people like, want, and need. Now, there may be an issue with this scope because of its use and abuse over a few reviews and members shooting it. Thats why I would like to get it back so we can narrow down what the problem maybe or if we can just improve it to be more competitive with the NF and similar scopes in regards to drops, etc. The first reviews posted of it from the members that shot and used it were favorable and it was up to their liking. But, its certainly not a $1500+ combat optic like a NF. I want ALL my scopes, hunting or target, to be capable of pointing my bullet to the same pin-point POA every time. Then if I get MOA groups, I know that it's my rifle or load that is responsible, not my scope. The last thing I want nagging in the back of my mind is whether my rifle/load are actually capable of shooting 0.2-0.5 MOA, but my scope is jumping my POA all over the place within a 0.5-1 MOA circle. A rifle system that bugholes builds confidence, even if it'll only be used for hunting at 300 yards or closer. Field shooting is largely a mental game, and confidence in one's rifle is an advantage in that respect. I doubt there is a single hunter or target shooter here who, if given the choice between two identical rifle systems- one that shoots consistent 0.5 MOA groups, and one that shoots 1.25 MOA, would ever choose the 1.25 MOA rifle. My SWFA SS's do this for $299. I'm confident that if TRACT is willing to listen to the customer and make the necessary improvements, it can put out scopes with the same mechanical integrity that the SS's have.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 28,268 Likes: 7
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 28,268 Likes: 7 |
Jordan, you menttioned those LRHS scopes. What purpose does that circle at the center of the reticle serve?
It is irrelevant what you think. What matters is the TRUTH.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 343
Campfire Member
|
Campfire Member
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 343 |
I'm confident that if TRACT is willing to listen to the customer and make the necessary improvements, it can put out scopes with the same mechanical integrity that the SS's have.
Exactly why we are here and sent this scope out. First few reviews went well then this scope was put thru some added paces. Form will be shipping it back so we can look at whats come about and push on from there for improvements.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,536 Likes: 3
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,536 Likes: 3 |
Jordan, you menttioned those LRHS scopes. What purpose does that circle at the center of the reticle serve? To funnel one's eye to the center of the scope in fast target-acquisition or low-light scenarios.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 23,501 Likes: 11
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 23,501 Likes: 11 |
Business will be brisk this year during the SWFA Black Friday Sale, as usual.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 28,268 Likes: 7
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 28,268 Likes: 7 |
Jordan, you menttioned those LRHS scopes. What purpose does that circle at the center of the reticle serve? To funnel one's eye to the center of the scope in fast target-acquisition or low-light scenarios. That's it?
It is irrelevant what you think. What matters is the TRUTH.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 32,130 Likes: 1
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 32,130 Likes: 1 |
Business will be brisk this year during the SWFA Black Friday Sale, as usual. If it weren't for the metric system, I'd be there. 99% of my world is in MOA. I fear upsetting the apple cart without a conscious commitment to start over.
If you put Taco Bell sauce in your ramen noodles it tastes just like poverty
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,395 Likes: 2
Campfire Tracker
|
OP
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,395 Likes: 2 |
Business will be brisk this year during the SWFA Black Friday Sale, as usual. If it weren't for the metric system, I'd be there. 99% of my world is in MOA. I fear upsetting the apple cart without a conscious commitment to start over. To be clear, mils are angular measurement- they're not "metric" though it works with the metric system obviously. Having said that learning to use mils is the easiest thing to do. A 20 min talk, 20'minutes playing with it and it is highly unlikely that you'll want to go back to MOA.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 44,878 Likes: 8
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 44,878 Likes: 8 |
Yep, they're just base ten fractional parts of radians.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 32,130 Likes: 1
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 32,130 Likes: 1 |
Poetic license aside, I've been on the fence for some time. My world is in inches and fractions of an inch. Most days, a 16' x3/4" Stanley tape measure is clipped to my right front pocket. I've got no problem working in 10ths or 1000ths of an inch. As irrational as it might be, I've got a pile of scopes with MOA adjustment graduations and reticles with MOA graduated subtensions and fear being compelled to replace them all with those based on milliradians. Maybe I'm over thinking it.
Either way, I thank you for your continued encouragement.
If you put Taco Bell sauce in your ramen noodles it tastes just like poverty
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,523
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,523 |
Yep, they're just base ten fractional parts of radians. Says the guy with "math" in his screen name.....
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,536 Likes: 3
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,536 Likes: 3 |
Poetic license aside, I've been on the fence for some time. My world is in inches and fractions of an inch. Most days, a 16' x3/4" Stanley tape measure is clipped to my right front pocket. I've got no problem working in 10ths or 1000ths of an inch. As irrational as it might be, I've got a pile of scopes with MOA adjustment graduations and reticles with MOA graduated subtensions and fear being compelled to replace them all with those based on milliradians. Maybe I'm over thinking it.
Either way, I thank you for your continued encouragement. There was a time when I was in the same boat. I finally made the plunge and bought my fist MRAD scope, and I’m glad I did. Now nearly all of my scopes are in MRAD, and I won’t be going back.
|
|
|
|
586 members (160user, 10gaugeman, 10ring1, 10gaugemag, 12344mag, 52 invisible),
2,497
guests, and
1,253
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,193,053
Posts18,501,069
Members73,987
|
Most Online11,491 Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|