Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Tract Toric drop test part deux

forget that, anything over the 5-20 is too dang big and heavy...

I want a SHV 1.5-7x36 (or something similar, the mag numbers are always approximate) with a big fat German #4 in it

Make the X42 NXS in FFP with illumination and I think they'd have a very big winner!

You just wouldn’t be able to see the reticle at low powers.

Quite a few of these reviews popping up lately. I have to admit, I cringe even thinking about dropping a rifle on its scope from 4 feet once, let alone 3 times, and not confirming the zero. I am pleased to hear after the rifle and scope falling during your hunt last week that the rifle and scope did in fact hold zero, so that's the good in this equation in that in an actual field incident, the system would have performed perfectly. Also, I am glad to see in the various tests that even after the drops, a few clicks and the scope returns to and holds zero

We are a little alarmed in the issues with the inducing of failures in these tests. As I stated before, we are hear to listen to these reviews and comments as well as work towards potential solutions. I am also curious to see how other scopes and manufactures would compare in this same case, even with the controls being less constant. I would rather see a variable power scope in lieu of a fixed for the next test as they are much more similar ion construction.

Quite a bit to take away from these inducing tests. Something as simple as the turret height could play a role, as in any turret that may be taller than the objective, or even if the turret hits the ground first with the majority of force there on, could potentially cause an issue. Standard rigors of use are thoroughly tested as in recoil of a that of a 458 for thousands of firings, side to side impact, etc. Certainly there are types of hunts that may be prone to a failure in sling or accident which could cause scope first impacts, and we want to be the go to option.

It appears there is a desire to have an optic that can sustain multiple drops on the scope with full weight without loss of zero, with the quality and features found on our scopes with similar prices. As we've seen with NF, it can be done, and I will take this information back to see if we can offer options that are designed to sustain this type of abuse and still have the key features that hunters want, at the best prices possible.

As always, we're hear to listen and continue striving to meet the changing needs and wants of the hunting/shooting community.

I think it would be interesting if someone, perhaps with QR rings, would remove the scope, drop the rifle, reinstall the scope and see if the POI changes dramatically. Although there is plenty of anecdotal evidence there might indeed be an issue with the scopes being tested in the drop tests, conclusive evidence that the problem is the scope alone doesn't seem to be there.

That said, I'm still not dropping one of my rifles on the ground on purpose. I've dropped a rifle when taking a spill, had it slide of a rock, fallen down on it and had it fall over when leaned on a tree while I was taking a leak. Luckily I've not had one shift point of impact from any of those circumstances. But I'm also not dropping it repeatedly on the scope.

I do find these drop tests interesting, I'm just not 100% convinced the sole problem is the scope. There are other variable here as well as the scope.

YMMV,
Rob

The scope may not be 100% responsible. As Form mentioned, bedding (including screws/mags/etc), bases, and rings are all part of the equation. These have been degreased and blue lock-tite was used, the only difference between Form's method and the mounting of this one was the use of a sealant (fingernail polish) on the screws....which I need to start doing.

Understood. I wish, other than QR rings, there was a way to do this test and simply isolate the scope vs the rifle is all. I do appreciate your willingness to take one for the team and the time taken to do the test.

Rob

While I think a scope should be able to take some amount of shock,it is still a fairly delicate optical instrument. I do think there needs to be a more standardized way of testing.

THIS

Thanks for your contribution JM.

I've always enjoyed this series. It isn't filmed in a way that would be impossible to misrepresent, but I don't think Jered was pulling a fast one.

I guess I've got to find some tannerite.... No, no I'm not.

if there were an mil-spec for scopes, Night Force could probably meet it with no additional costs for the bill of materials and assembly. But meeting a mil-spec means testing, certification and a dedicated quality control process. These would drive up the cost. If you include a shake and bake production test, that would drive it up further. Depending on things like side impact and drop testing, there might be some redesign effort that would need to be recovered.

I wouldn't immediately equate MIL-SPEC with higher performance than COTS. It may, but until you read the spec you can't really know. MIL-SPEC powder temperature tolerance is one area where the spec is far below what anyone would actually expect of a temp resistant powder. Scopes may be better, I don't know.

I do expect my scope to retain zero after minor incidents. Things like me slipping and falling, rifle leaning on tree or against truck and falling over. I won't say they are common occurrences, but they occur enough to justify planning for. I look forward to seeing what happens with an SWFA SS 6x. I'm also interested in the rings. Are Talley Lightweights suitable, or would some other be better?

I think that Tract is being ganged up on and kicked unfairly. I don't drop my rifles, and no one I hunt with does, either. If I did, I would certainly expect the scope to lose zero. The first thing you do upon arriving in camp in Africa is to check the zero on your rifle to see if it has been affected by the trip over while in a quite substantial gun case in the hold of an aircraft. It is EXPECTED that rough handling will affect the performance of a scope. This has been the expectation for as long as I remember. Do a drop test like this on a Swaroviski and see how it turns out.Strange how we will blow off a $350 Toric and not be willing to put a $2500 Swaro through the same wringer.

Yeah, it has been the case for a long time. Technology changes, and products progress. Imagine a world where scopes never shifted zero unintentionally. You’d get to Africa and not have to check your zero. What would you do with all that saved time?

I've had two sets of Talley LW's crack. Both were on rifles that lived in ATV gun boots and were bounced around everyday. I didn't use a torque wrench on them to determine exact torque, but for rings (top to bottom) I just use 2 fingers and my thumb holding the short end of the wrench. I think the heavier the scope, the tougher it is on TLW's. I still have several pair of LW's on rifles that seem fine.

Several years ago, for lightweight, I started using DNZ's as they seem stronger (at least I haven't broken one)...but they limit ring spacing. On everything that comes in now I use a pic rail and Seekins rings.

I was hoping it wouldn't lose zero...but didn't expect it not to. I don't think the test should drive anyone away from Tract unless you're willing to test the scope you're leaving it for to ensure it would keep it's zero.

The Toric isn't a $350 scope. It's Tract's top of the line model....but it's not $2500 either.

The PH's make you check it before they let you hunt, no matter the scope. In my 3 trips taking my VX6 it's never wiggled. It takes all of 15 minutes anyway.

Again, that’s a product of decades of scope history being full of shifting zero problems. If scopes stopped shifting zero, I mean ALL scopes, then PH’s would eventually stop making people check their scopes upon arrival. What I’m envisioning is not a current reality, but we’re working in the right direction so that scope makers start to take the shifting-zero/scope machanics problem a little more seriously.

Tract's representative told me they are contacting the folks producing their scopes concerning this. They are noticing.