Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics A Tract Toric scope is comparable to a ...?

The feedback is good with respect to adjustment repeatability and zero retention. That's critical. They have general magnification ranges and objective lens sizes I'm looking for. That's good. The bad is that they're strictly SFP and either plain crosshairs or a dreaded BDC. Personal preference; I can't stand a SFP BDC. However, I can probably live with a straight crosshair for the application I have in mind if it's a GOOD scope at a good price.

What I don't know is what they compare to optically. So, optically speaking, what does a Tract Toric compete with? Not what is it 'nearly as good as, but cheaper than.' What is it in a dead heat with in terms of optical performance?

I have the 3-15 Toric w/plex reticle. I also have a VX6 in 2-12x42 that has optics (IMO) better than the SwaroA ( Z3) and Conquest, on par with the Z5. Side by side, I honestly see better optics in the Toric than I do in the VX6, but not earthshakingly better.

Interesting, JG. What particular attributes stand out to you? As I recall from other posts, you're oriented strongly toward hunting, correct? The application I have in mind would be almost exclusively hunting. In AZ, mind, so maybe fairly close in or maybe further away. Maybe broad daylight or maybe as late as I can legally shoot.

I am curious to hear the details as well since individual needs and criteria vary so much -- as do testing parameters. And I love hearing actual individual experience and results over anything else in regards to optics. Your usage in the rugged southwest will certainly merit attention.

For most, and in my limited exposure to and time with the VX-6 2-12x42 as well, it falls slightly short of the Swarovski Z3 3-10x42 in terms of transmission/apparent image brightness and its ability to resolve fine detail under the poorest of lighting conditions. There seems to be little difference to discern between them during usage in strong daylight. (I believe a friend of yours & his son concluded the same when you sent him your scope.) Also, the Z5 does not have any different glass or coatings than the Z3. Only the internals differ. Application of the PA, however, can certainly seem to give the Z5 (or any other similar scope) a perceived edge in low light when testing beyond the range of the fixed setting of a scope like the Z3. I wish manufacturers would use 200 instead of 100 yards for fixed parallax models or at least offer it as an standard option. The effect -- increased definition as the target seems to "fade" in low light as the range increases -- may be negligible in decent daylight but certainly becomes more apparent once the sun dips below the horizon.

I am interested in the 3-15x Toric scope and will anxiously await your details..I have the scope fund blues at the moment after recently snatching up a couple great deals on new glass that I did not need, so it may be a good while before I get my hands on one. But I certainly learned something somewhat surprising with those recent purchases: the current-production Schmidt Bender Klassik 2.5-10x56 actually equals my Victory HT 3-12x56 -- and the 2.5-13x56 Stratos slightly edges it out. While I still prefer the smaller dot of the #60 reticle in the Zeiss compared to the reticles in the Klassik & Stratos, there is MUCH to like about the newer SBs (not that the older ones were bad ha ha!). Schmidt & Bender is unique in that it constantly improves existing products lines and doesn't halt current production and rename the model. And the consumers are the direct beneficiaries.

On another note, my 3-12x54 Polar is currently back in Germany for debris that surfaced internally. It's frustrating to have something like that happen in alpha glass, but none of the manufacturers are immune from a mistake or two. Anyway, once it's back, one or possibly 2 of these need to go as I simply can't afford to keep all of these -- and certainly don't need that many nice scopes, either. Deciding which will stay and which will show up on the classifieds will be a tough decision.

Everyone has slight differences in perception on optics quality but I feel that my 3-15x42 Toric has better quality glass than any of the Leupolds I own or have looked through, including the VX6. Much better than SWFA. I don't have any $4000 German scopes but I would be surprised if they would significantly exceed this scope. I'd appreciate a little less weight, similar Leupolds are lighter, but it is in the ballpark of other respected brands. Great hunting scope. If you don't like it, I think they'll take it back so I don't see how you can lose.

You are right in that I'm primarily just a hunter who doesn't twist much. Probably why I've liked my Leupold's so well, and they have been very effective for the way I hunt. I only twist when target shooting, or when hulling at 'yotes and hogs.

Optically, the Toric is stupid-good. I can't remember what our own MD's night time resolution test said but I'd bet it's top shelf.

I particularly like the plex reticle (I'm old school though, and would likely call it a #4), and how easy it is to manage in poor light, with the bold wires coming close together. That is particularly important to my 56 yr old eyes.

I also like the audible, very distinct clicks of the turrets.

The zero stop mechanism included with the other turret set that comes with the scope is very ingenius, easy to put together, and very effective. I like zero stops very much anyway and this is a good one.

I like the euro focus mechanism, as it is very smooth, as well as the magnification dial.....buttery smooth.

Just the overall impression is that it is very well built.

The only dislike I have is that when on 15x, eye relief and positioning gets very critical. It's very usable, but critical. The least bit of movement causes blackouts, etc.


BobbyTomek, we'll just have to agree to disagree on the VX6/SwaroA comparison. I can't see a difference. The Vx6 gets me way past legal light and that's really all I care about. The VX6 duplex is also far superior to any Swaro I've seen personally, but Swaro may have changed things up recently.

I ran my night optics-chart test on a Toric 3-15x42. This involves looking at a chart of black-and-white lines at 25, lit by a 100-watt incandescent bulb (yeah, I still have a supply), also at 25 yards. All scopes are set on 6x, and the rating is the smallest line that can be seen.

Have been running this test for almost a decade now. The best ANY scopes have rated is 8, which is the 1/8" line on the chart. All the previous scopes rating an 8, however, cost over $1000. This indicates that Tract's strategy of selling directly through the Internet, rather than through the traditional wholesale/retail system, does indeed save the consumer money, since it bypasses several layers of mark-up. The price of this particular model is listed at $724 on Tract's website.

Optically the 2-10x42 I've been using is very good. I don't have any truly high quality glass to compare it to, I use mainly SWFA 6x's, Leupold 6x's, and various 4x's. It trumps all of them optically.

One thing I really like about this model is how it is very easy to get behind and is non-critical. Nice open window view much like a 6x42 Leupold. It gets a little tighter at 10x, but even there I feel like it has more wiggle room than the SWFA 6x42 (which isn't bad)...why I don't know but it seems that way. That's important to me in a hunting scope.

Actually, I don't think we fully disagree on this one. As you do, I prefer the VX-6 duplex over the Swaro. And these two are neck-and-neck on my charts until virtually all of the light is gone. Not until then does the Swaro Z3 hold an edge. The ones I compared were new (within a year or so of actual manufacture). Since you mention "A", that's an older scope than the VX-6, and the coatings may have degraded over time, throwing another variable into the equation and perhaps explaining why no differences were noted. Then, too, everyone's eyes are not the same, either..

Honestly, when it comes to the VX-6 and Z3, most people will never see a difference in the two when it comes to performance unless you spend hours behind them and chart them in varying atmospheric conditions. Only then do the differences make themselves known, and then again, it's ONLY in the lowest of light where the Swaro Z3 shows a slight edge.

So John, are you saying the Toric is a 8 by your testing as well? Just curious, for clarity sake.

My Toric is the best I have in low light, but with a pile 'o kids I don't have a lot of money to justify high end scopes. It's noticeably better at low light than my FFII, and some what better than a Legend HD, the Burris Predator Quest (same as the E1 I believe), and the Viper PA (although I've only briefly compared it to these last 3 as I'm in "hunt" mode so these three haven't made it on the trips lately).

Yes, the Toric rated an 8.

Thanks to all for the helpful feedback in this area.

P.S. Don't quit if you've more to say. I just wanted to say thanks. :-)

This down-and-dirty test a) is a good idea; b) reminds me of Petzal's "Ballistic Buffalo."

If I'm not mistaken, a rating of 8 puts it firmly in S&B, Z6 territory optically.

Yeah, but the test is relatively crude. I give the rating a +, as in 7+, if the line is very visible. Since all the scopes tested since I started using the chart have rated between 5 (old scopes with uncoated lenses), which is the 3/8" line, and 8, the variation isn't as precise as when testing scopes with an intregrated sphere. This is the industry standard for light transmission, which measures differences less than 1%. However, they cost an awful lot, as in hundreds of thousands of dollars, and most optics firms don't allow anybody else to use 'em.

My system is the best I could come up with for comparing scopes, given the limitations of my budget--but does provide a rough idea of optical sharpness. Differences in individual perception (especially of color, which isn't part of the test) will affect how various people perceive the view through any scope.

Thanks for the clarification. One thing I really like about your testing is that you are consistent in that you control what you can control, then let you eyeballs sort it out.

Also, the fact is that you do actually test them, instead of coming up with some ridiculous review and opinion about something you've never seen. There are obviously some extremely skilled people here at the 'fire that have the ability to do that.

I like resolution comparisons as well for a crude baseline, but -- unfortunately -- it doesn't always translate into performance that parallels those results in the field. One of the sharpest scopes I have ever used is the Schmidt Bender Stratos 2.5-13x56, but I was a little concerned about the sub tension of the center wire (fairly thin). Yes, it has the FD7 reticle, but if Murphy's law comes into play and you lose the illumination, would you lose the shot? Those concerns got put to ease a few days ago when a coyote decided to show itself near the house.

The light had all but gone away (probably 40 minutes after sundown and with cloud cover), and this was a hurried opportunity -- so much so that I did not have a chance to even think about turning on the illumination. But I managed to get the crosshairs onto the young canine and was lucky enough to put a 120 grain bullet through its vitals from 235 yards. Even though that center wire is thin for my liking, the scope's superb contrast level and ability to resolve fine detail allow a sight picture in which the crosshairs still stand out amply and do not blend in, as has been the case with other scopes over the years.

I couldn't agree more (though that may have been directed at me ). Over the past couple of years, I've tried just about everything I could get my hands on in search of the ultimate in low-light hunting performance. And yet, not everything is definitive or concrete as there can even exist enough variation within a product line to open one's eyes, as was the case last year with two top-tier scopes (same model) produced within the same year and within the same factory. While both were high quality, things like contrast and color rendition were distinctly different. Bottom line, though: if I haven't given it a workout, I won't offer advice or opinions. Here are just a few that I recently gave a shot, so to speak:

One thing is certain, though: my Warne rings really get a workout...

Polar: