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:

Wasn't directed at you at all Bobby T.

Bobby,

I must say, I am a hunter whom is very appreciative of the single shot setups, and you sir do it very well. We'll get a Toric in one of those pictures soon enough...

Trevor,I only say this to be helpful. I believe most of Bobby's scopes have illumination.I have spoken to him a little on the subject and it is very important in his style hunting that the illumination regulate low enough. A good low light illumination would not even be visible in decent light. High contrast optics and very low adjustable illumination is what sets apart an excellent low light scope from just one that can be used in low light.

Bobby can correct me if I have misrepresented in any way what he has told me. He is much more an expert on low light shooting then myself. I just want you guys at Tract to have the proper input to produce scopes that will excel for our needs.

I can second that part about the availability of low setting levels. My only scope with a light is a Mark AR Mod 1. Whatever its other shortcomings may be, the illumination works perfectly. In dim light, I set it to where the green dot just shows up. There's no flaring or star pattern, just a clean point of light that draws my eye right to the sticking spot, despite the slightly complicated reticle. Right now it's mounted on, of all things, an actual AR, but even if I happen to sell the rifle, the scope will stick. A company looking to venture into lighted scopes would be well-advised to emulate that one's function, if not the form.

Well then, I think you men will like what will be coming in the next few months.

As some one who only has FIXED 6x42 scopes on all my rifles
will you offer a fixed 6x42?

RH Clark- Yes, you are right about that. One thing about illumination at night: at close range, most of them work just fine. It's when the range increases that will separate the wheat from the chafe, so to speak. As the range is increased, the target will have less detail and appear softer and much dimmer to the human eye. Unfortunately, most of my night shots have to be at longer range since I have little mobility, and 150-175 yards is where most of them take place. That's why the smallest of dots and of the dimmest of illumination work best.

Some scopes with terrific glass are hindered by illumination that doesn't adjust low enough. Meopta really dropped the ball on this. Their R1 3-12x56 is a great value for the moonlight hunter, but -- especially considering the surface area that the dot covers -- the illumination is a bit too bright overall in soft moonlight and adversely affects one's vision. I was tickled when I heard they'd be offering an extra step with the R2, but to my dismay, it was to add a brighter setting and not a dimmer one. I can understand that thinking on a scope intended solely for daylight usage, but who uses one with a 56mm strictly for daylight when something much smaller/lighter would suffice?

The Minox ZX5i also has exceptional glass but suffers much the same situation as Meopta. It can be "fixed" somewhat by adjusting to a darker curve, something folks who don't thoroughly read the instruction manual will not be aware of. But even with that adjustment, it still needs to be a bit dimmer. But again, for ranges inside of 75 yards or so, they work OK. It's beyond that distance when too much brightness is problematic.

The absolute best for me in this regard has been the Leica ERi 3-12x50. While the dot is slightly bigger than I'd prefer, it adjusts so low that the dot size isn't an issue. Second would the the Kahles CSX followed by the Victory HT/#60. The Zeiss dot subtends the least and offers a very precise aiming point, but the illumination is quite intense. Ten to 15 percent dimmer would be absolutely perfect, but I must admit that it does work fine as-is. That's just me being picky ha ha.

Schmidt & Bender has addressed this with their Polar line. They went to a much smaller dot than previously used in the Klassik, Zenith and Stratos series and seem to have dropped the intensity of the lowest setting slightly, though there is no feasible way for me to measure that (I simply have to go by what is perceived by my vision).. Coupled with the best transmission out there, it is currently the cream of the crop for night-time hunting. No, it's not perfect, but it is close. My primary issue with the Polar is that the center wires of the D7 reticle are truly fine and do blend in very late in the day when looking at a dark target, making the illumination feature necessary. A bolder design would make it even more appealing. In the Stratos, the issue is much the same, but the Stratos offers somewhat higher contrast and richer saturation, negating that a bit. But in scope design, it's all about compromise, and to reach the 96 percent transmission, sacrifices had to be made.

Do you have a compilation of those test results anywhere?

I know I'll be anxiously awaiting your announcement!

I agree with JGRaider re VX6 having slightly better optics than Z3. I hav a 2-12x42 and a Z3 3-10x42. My friend has a Z3 4-12x50. We agree that in poor light the VX6 is slightly better.

PaulBarnard,

I believe the complete tests (or as complete as they were at the time) appeared in RIFLE LOONY NEWS. Would have to check on that to make sure. I came up with the rating system so I wouldn't have to compare scopes side-by-side to get an idea of the optical quality. Instead I'd have a record of how individual scopes did in the same test.

Arac,

In my chart-test, both a 1-6x and 2-12x VX-6 rated 8, while a pair of 3-9x Swarovski Z3's rated 7.

A 7 is still noticeably above average for today's multi-coated scopes, but 8 is tops.

Thank you, looking forward to some great stuff.

We've taken quite a few requests for one, so its certainly on the table. There are a few more holes in our line up that will be filled sooner though.

Thanks!

Add me to the 6x request list!

Me three for a 6x42'ish scope

Paul,

The list of scope brightness test results is in a chapter of my book MODERN HUNTING OPTICS, published in 2014. There have been a few more tests since then, including the Tract Toric, but otherwise the list's pretty complete, and the chapter explains both the test methodology and the stuff that can affect image brightness.

The Toric in a 6x42 with no AO would be great. A little lighter, a little brighter, and a little more reliable. If the 2-10x42 holds up and the 6x42 is cut from the same cloth I'm in for several.

Why bother with an adjustable objective. Very few shooters want them anymore, instead preferring a side-adjustment knob--but the present Euro-style quick-focus ring on the back of the Tract ocular bells would provide sufficient parallax precision for a 6x scope.

As for the market for a 6x scope, a recent survey of western big game hunters found that 6x scopes rank only slightly behind 3-9x/3-10x scopes as an overall choice--even for "long range" hunters. There are a couple of reasons for this. First, in modern scopes with larger eyepieces, field-of-view isn't a problem for 6x scopes even at very close ranges. Second, using a fixed-power scope bypasses all the problems of reticle size, whether first or second focal-plane.

Personally, if Tract offered 6x's that work as well as the 3-15x I've been testing, I'd put 'em on several rifles.

Sign me up for a Tract 6x42. And while we are making request I would like a low profile elevation turret and windage lines on the horizontal crosshair.
Or I would settle for a simple mil-dot

No no no. TPlex please!

I could probably go for a fixed 6x on a pure hunting rifle. I want the reticle to be a mil-dot and mil adjustments, though.

Yes, I should have stated it as "no parallax adjustment" rather than "no AO". Unless it's going on a rimfire it's not needed on a 6x for hunting.

I'm really liking the Tplex along with the Toric's low profile turret. The horizontal windage marks that are on the BDC might be useful for holding windage and wouldn't clutter the view to much while still allowing the reticle to be unbroken with no open spots....not a major issue either way. The basic Tplex is nice for a hunting scope that's going to be dialed.

6x42 please. No wide duplex

I'd like a 6x42ish scope too.

I just bought a Meopta 6x42. There may not be many fixed power guys but we seem like a loyal bunch that spends money.

With a HEAVY German #4 reticle (fine crosshair but heavy posts, best of both worlds)

Certainly agree with that.

I think I may have asked a while ago if there were any plans to come up with a fixed 6 and a #4. I like my old school Meopta with its #4 ranging reticle and would love another that wasn't as long or as heavy in weight.

I have 3 rifles and one ML that could wear one.

I have 2 Leupold FX-III 6x42 Heavy Duplex
1 Leupold FX-3 6x42 with Leupold Custom Shop German #4
1 Meopta Meopro 6x42 with their German #4
Would love to try a Tract fixed 6x42