Originally Posted by Magnumdood
Originally Posted by Jordan Smith
Originally Posted by Magnumdood
Originally Posted by Jordan Smith
You are randomly selecting a scope every time you buy one and the retailer randomly picks one off the shelf. Not sure what point you’re trying to make. If a model of scope has a failure rate of 1 in 1000 over the entire population, and you randomly select a sample of 30 test scopes, chances are high that you will see zero failures in those tests.


The point I'm trying to make is just because the first scope you pick is a dud doesn't mean you can infer that that scope and/or scope manufacturer is going to have a higher failure rate on their scopes than a manufacturer that did not yield a dud on the first scope you grab. As you note, they are all random picks, and as such each scope, dud or not, has an equal chance of being selected. If you get a dud on the first pick, it is more than likely bad luck rather than the manufacturer's bad product. Now, if a lot of people are getting duds (which according to folks who are running the Tract Optics, is not the case) on the first random selection then you have an argument for poor manufacturing/quality and poor QC.

This is my point. Every single “dud” you test is statistically meaningful, and the more duds you have, the more statistically meaningful they become. Not enough legitimate, 3rd-party testing of Tract scopes has taken place yet to have any statistically meaningful information about their correct functioning and longevity.

I’d disagree about a single dud being more likely bad luck than indicative of the failure rate of the product. That depends on the failure rate of the population of the product. If the failure rate is 50%, then you getting a single failure is not just a case of bad luck, but is indicative of the probability of getting a dud. In that case, you are as likely to get a dud as a good scope. But if the failure rate is 1 in 1,000,000, then getting a dud is indeed a case of very bad luck.

Where is this list of significantly meaningful "duds"? From what I've read here the only tested Tract scope was a dud. One. Not 50%, not 30%...one. It was a randomly chosen scope which means the probability of it being a good example was as great as it being a dud.

You're not getting it. The Toric has a certain failure rate, even though that rate is currently unknown until a much larger sample of the scopes is properly tested. Just because we don't know what the rate is, does not mean that it doesn't exist.

So far I know of 2 Tract failures, and slightly more positive reviews. Certainly not a confidence-inspiring ratio at this point. Every time a valid test surfaces, it's statistically meaningful. You need to re-visit your statistics if you think that random selection automatically equals a 50% probability of a particular outcome. Even though the true number is currently unknown, let's pretend that the Toric has a population rate of 1 in 30 failures within 1000 rounds fired or 50 miles carried while hunting. If you select a Toric scope at random for comprehensive testing, it has exactly a 1 in 30 chance of failing the test, and a 29 in 30 chance of passing. That is NOT the same as a 50:50 chance of that single scope, selected randomly, being a dud.