When I sought a scope with a little more magnification than the 6x42, which really meets my needs for most shooting, at my club's 300 yard range, I really wanted a 10x42 with a 1" tube with about 4" of eye relief, a plex or No. 4 and a fast focus eyepiece. No one made such a creature and would not start producing it for the very limited market, probably just me (At one time you could buy the Leupold Mk. IV M3 10x40 with a duplex in a 30mm tube, but that option soon disappeared). So I started out with the SS 10x42 and mounted it on a 700 VLS in .308. The SS in 10x42 had adequate glass and excellent eye relief, about 3.9" and a good eyebox. It had parallax adjustment which I would never use, excellent turrets which I would never touch after sight-in and a mil-dot reticle which I would use as a duplex. I shot a few rounds through the rifle and then adjusted the Butler Creek objective cover. When I did so, the sunshade hood started to unscrew. As it unscrewed, I realized that it was not a hood, it was part of the main tube on which the seal was now broken. It seemed to be designed so that the objective lens was part of the sunshade and not part of the main tube. How odd! All the other qualities just don't matter if the scope comes apart when you had no intention of it doing so. When you tell me this is "military grade", you have zero credibility, I will no longer believe a thing you say.

I had shot enough rounds through the VLS to realize it was shooting no more accurately than my other .308's and the rifle with scope attached was something you would emplace rather than carry. I sold the factory stock and barrel, put a standard contour barrel on the action and had them bedded into a McMillan Remington Compact stock, which is the same pattern but a little heavier than the Edge stocks on my other rifles. I fooled around with short throats for a while only encountering frustration and then decided to get a really good barrel for it. Recently, a forum thread convinced me that my really good barrel should be chambered in 6.5 Creedmoor rather than the .308 if I wanted the ultimate .308.

I still needed a scope with a little more magnification than the 6X42 and wanted to go to 10X. Another SS 10x42 was out of the question. (Fooled me once, shame on you! Fooled me twice, shame on me!) I realized that I would have to go to a variable, probably on the order of 2.5-10X42. I wanted 4" of eye relief, a large eyepiece with fast focus adjustments, a more compact scope with a 1" tube, a plex or No. 4 reticle and windage/elevation adjustments reliable enough to hold zero after being sighted in. I was concerned about a 1" variable even though my old Zeiss Conquests worked fine because a well regarded authority has stated that all 1" tube variable scopes fail sooner or later, because there is not enough room for the most rugged internal mechanicals.

About this time Tract appeared and I looked at the Toric 2-10X42. I liked the model of taking money normally spent on distribution and using to invest in better glass and better mechanicals. I read some of the early reviews of it as a hunting scope and bought first one, then two. I got to shoot one a little, but I have to wait on my 6.5 Creedmoor barrel for more time with it. The Toric and the SS 10x42 have about the same eye relief. The Toric is more compact, has better glass and image and an excellent hunting reticle in the T-Plex. I have no idea how the adjustment tracking compares to the SS 10x42 (nor does any one else for that matter), but I am sure they will suffice for my needs. As to ruggedness, the main tube of the Toric has survived adjusting the Butler Creek objective cover, where the SS 10x42 did not, making the Toric much more rugged than the SS 10x42 in a very limited sample.

There has been a suggestion that Tract send another scope to Form for an extensive test. His testing is really useful for someone who is headed downrange. I am not and never will be headed downrange. It is also useful for those who shoot at long range but not under conditions of military usage. I will never shoot over 300 yards. I am lucky to have a 300 yard range. So for me and perhaps me alone, his testing is for different requirements than mine.



Last edited by GrimJim; 06/12/18.