Originally Posted by Jordan Smith
Originally Posted by Farmboy1
Thanks John for your review of the Tract Toric . Those results are very good by any measure.

Maybe this will sink in to some that think you need to drop test a scope, I don't and one test by Form, should not be the picture of any kind of reliability.


One test by anyone does not give an absolute indicator of reliability. Funny that you praise John’s test of one scope, and with the next sentence denigrate Form’s test of one scope.

Having said that, a single test that reveals a failure is far more telling than a single test that shows no failure. Here’s why: if it were possible to thoroughly test every scope of a given model, we may notice a trend of one failure in 100 scopes, for example. If we test one scope from this batch we expect to see no failure, as the probability of the scope passing the test is 99 in 100. Another model of scope may have a failure rate of 1 in 10. If we put all the scopes of both models in a pile and randomly test two scopes, with neither showing a failure, we don’t know whether we are testing the scope with one failure in 10, or one in 100. But if our random two tests both show scope failures, it becomes much more likely that we are testing a scope with a high failure rate, due to the likelihood of randomly getting a failure. A scope test that leads to failure says a lot more about the scope then a test showing a scope working the way it supposed to.



He didn't denigrate forms test! He said, "One test by Form should not be any picture of reliability" Do you really disagree with that statement?

Concerning Johns statements in his post I believe farmboy1 was most likely referring to the part where John had tested the Toric but also several others John knows have tested the Toric with the same results. Likewise a number of others have tested Tract scopes who are posting on this very thread and have experienced the same sort of results as John. Admittedly non of them were doing drop tests so I can see that being a valid argument.

It would sure be nice to get to the bottom of the SWFA logistics that enabled the company to have scopes built for $300. My guess is taxpayers dollars due to government involvement and likely a few strings pulled by someone who knows someone. I highly doubt Tract nor anyone else for that matter is going to compete with SWFA unless somehow the federal government gets involved and they get $800 for a hammer and $1200 for a toilet seat!

I've personally worked for the federal government and the stuff that goes on behind closed doors would make your head spin....or maybe not.
The fact that the feds were involved with the SS scope certainly opens possibilities and in a big way IME




Trystan

Last edited by Trystan; 06/22/18.
Good bullets properly placed always work, but not everyone knows what good bullets are, or can reliably place them in the field