Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Tract Response Range Tracking/RTZ/zero retention results

Below are the results of testing the Tract Optics Response 2-10x42mm for correct functioning and zero retention.


First- I do not work for, have ties to, or have any monetary or business connections to any scope manufacturer. I have no loyalty with scopes- only that they work correctly. Among other things I am paid to shoot, teach, and test equipment- that includes optics. I see over half a million rounds fired a year from a relatively small number of people/guns. It would be hard to name a scope that is marketed or suitable for use beyond MPBR that I have not used, tested, and seen fail.



With that out of the way....


I was contacted a few weeks ago about using/testing the Tract Response by a member here. It has been "tested" by a couple of members before me. Before I accepted it, I asked that it be cleared with whoever owns it as I would actually use it and it would either pass, or break/fail. I also wanted them to understand that I would relay the results exactly as they were, and give my honest thoughts and feedback- there would be no BS. I was given the go ahead and he shipped it to me.



I care about, in order-

1. Zero retention
2. Return to zero
3. Consistent adjustments
4. Correct adjustments and tracking
5. "Features"

As such, it was going to be tested for those things.




As it arrived-



It looked to be brand new and unused. No scratches, no marks, no wear. Immediate thoughts are that it's a Nikon. The turrets are spring loaded reset to zero by pulling up, spinning and then releasing. There is no locking mechanism. Other than the novelty of it- poor design for actual use as just picking the scope up unlocks the turret.

The turrets are marked- "1 click= 1/4" @100yd". The product description on the website says the adjustments are ".25 MOA" per click. Which one is it? Do they understand that there is a difference?



As well, while it may be minor the power ring has quite a bit of play fore and aft. It's also something that I noticed the first time I handled a Vortex Viper PST... not one to really catenary about "fit and finish"... just noticed.

Pushed back with light pressure-


Pulled forward with light pressure-





Cont....

First thing I did is take everything apart and remount correctly.

Lots of oil on screws-



Degreased everything, applied Loctite, and torqued correctly-




Mounted it to a known 18" SPR and 77gr match ammo. It did not do well. Adjustments were finicky and the groups were nearly 1.5x the size as normal. Tried calibrating the adjustments, but the groups were large enough to be nearly useless- 2+/- MOA.

Took it off, and remounted it on a known 14.5" M4A1 with 77gr ammo. Experienced the exact same issues as above.

At this point I stopped shooting it and remounted the former optics on both rifles. Not surprisingly they both shot as expected. There was no point in continuing to shoot the optic with those guns.




Today, to eliminate all potential questions it was mounted to a competition rifle.



This is what the gun does day in, day out-

100yds



320 yards.



It is a legitimate 1 MOA for 10 round group gun. For the Internet "experts"- it's average 3 shot "group" is way sub .5 MOA.


This is the "zero check" today with the NF ATACR F1 that is mounted on it as a baseline-



Con't....

Next is the tracking/adjustment calibration. Two dots placed 25 MOA/7.2 something mils apart.

Aim at the bottom dot for all shots. One shot at zero, then dial 25moa/7.2 mils and one shot, down to zero one shot, up 25moa/7.2 mils one shot, etc, etc. so that you end up with 5 shots at the "zero" target and 5 shots at the 25moa target.


First up the Nightforce.

Perfect or as close as you can get with shooting-






Then mounted the Tract on it. Zeroing immediately showed the sporadic adjustments. The group was almost double the size of normal. I also Made a .5 MOA adjustment down, which resulted in a full MOA down movement during the adjustment calibration-


"Zero" on the right, calibration "zero" on the left. Only .5 MOAwas adjusted amd notice group size-




Shot the exact same test as with the Nightforce.

Tract Response results-



Sporadic and inconsistent adjustments. Inconsistent return to zero, nearly double the group size.

Next was zero retention. Five rounds were fired at the bottom dot as a baseline. Then five rounds were fired at the top dot where the rifle was dropped from 12 inches onto a padded mat alternating sides before each shot. I.e.- drop, shoot, alternate side, drop, shoot, etc, etc. Five times each shot.


Tract Response. Complete loss of zero. Shots are numbered. Shots 4 and 5 off the paper.




Took the Tract off, remounted the NF, and fired five rounds like the test above. The NF is a known commodity. A 12" drop isn't going to do anything to them. .

Adjusted left .2 mils and then repeated the drop test except the first drop was from 24 inches, then the rest were from waist height. The drops were directly on each side, as well as directly on the top of the scope/turret and done as fast as I could.

Results of Nightforce zero retention-






Con't.....

OBJECTIVE PERFORMANCE-


This Tract Response 2-10x42mm failed at-

1. Zero retention
2. Return to zero
3. Consistent adjustments

Due to group size with three different known rifles, I was unable to calibrate the turret adjustments to an acceptable level.

Also, while I could care less about "glass" pass acceptable- the people that claim the "glass" is as good as Nightforce, Leupold VX6, etc. are high as a kite. I let several shooters that understand scopes who hadn't heard of Tract focus it and evaluate the "glass". I initially told them that it was a new scope line from a very well known company. The feelings ranged from "ehh" to "how much does this scope cost". When I told them "$1,000" the replay was "looks more like $2-300" or my eyes are screwed up". While the brightness and color saturation are decent, the resolution and clarity are about what I would expect for a $300 scope. Completely adequate, but not great.







SUBJECTIVE PERFORMANCE:




Thoughts on "FEATURES" and overall design:


Spring loaded turrets:

Awesome idea... for a play toy. Terrible idea for a scope that is going to be used away from a bench. Hitting targets/game is about consistency. Turrets that reset themselves if I grab them do not help with consistency. This "feature" probably more so than any other tells me that whoever is designing these scopes is not a field shooter. I handed the scope to my significant other and asked what she thought. The first thing she said when she found out how the turrets reset was "that's neat". The very next thing she said was- "it slips the turret if you GRAB IT!?". 30 seconds in, a relatively inexperienced shooter understood the issue. Turrets should only reset themselves when you MAKE them do so.




Miss matched reticle and turrets:

Any scope designed for shooting past MPBR (I would state any scope at all) that has a reticle with holdover and windage marks, should have a reticle that matches the adjustments. It is sub par that in 2017 companies and shooters believe it is an advantage to have a "long range" scope with random hashes and marks. Due to both zero shift and incorrect tracking, combined with no reference in the reticle, it took five times as many rounds to zero as with scopes that function correctly and have the turrets and reticle matching.

As an example- The 14.5" M4A1 that was used above, never got a true zero with the Tract due to group size and shifts, yet was zeroed with one round with a correct functioning mil/mil scope. It was bore sighted, one round fired, the correction needed "read" with the reticle, the adjustment applied to the scope, and the next 10 rounds landed inside of a 1.5 MOA dot.




BDC Reticle:

BDC reticles are a hamstring from all angles to begin with. They are sold to and used by people who are looking for a "shortcut" to medium- long range shooting who do not know that they can do the exact same thing with a mil based reticle and do it much better.

Having said that, the marks were laid out correctly as far as I could tell according to specs (to be expected), yet it is one of the most un-intuitive BDC reticles on the market.

For a BDC reticle to "work" it needs to have BOLD aiming points at 200, 300, 400, etc. There are multiple hashes, it's not visually clear which are the primary hashes, and which are the secondary hashes. I.e.- Primary are 200/300/400. Secondary are 250/350/450/etc.

Putting the data in the ballistic program got a somewhat workable "solution" with the hashes, but it was NOT even numbers. All the nonsense about it lines up at "328, 452, 586" is garbage. That takes WAY more computing power under stress and time constraints than- "up 2.1" or "up 7moa".

As for the windage holds... No. No one with any experience wants a "10mph windage correction" mark. Especially one that is calibrated for a "55 grain polymer tipped bullet with a muzzle velocity of 3240fp". What "55gr polymer tipped bullet"? What are they when I use a 35gr Sierra Biltzking? Or a 60gr Nosler BT? Or an actual bullet designed for wind?



Second Focal Plane with a BDC reticle:

Most people prefer SFP scopes. However, it is a compromise for shooting distance with the reticle. I want to be able to use the reticle at any power for drop and drift. I do not want to have to be on 10x for it to be correct. The whole point for most people of having a BDC reticle is for "speed" (and not having to learn how to shoot LR). With a FFP one can leave the scope on 4-6x and take a shot using the reticle without touching the scope. With a SFP you have to turn up the power. Zero doubt which one is faster.






Final thoughts-

THIS IS NOT A HIT PIECE. I would have liked nothing more than for it to be a great scope that worked correctly- then all that would be needed was to fix some features and the reticle. Unfortunately the scope is exactly what it is on the surface- a Nikon'esqe design for range blasters.

Everything about it is tailored to the clueless person buying something based on "neat features" that have no merit. "Great" glass- check. MOA turrets- check. BDC reticle with random hashes everywhere- check. Calibrated windage marks- check. Spring loaded turrets- check. Greatest warranty in the business- check.

A scope should do one thing- steer bullets. Anytime someone talks "glass" and "features" two things are a given- one- the person has no idea what they are talking about, and two- the scope is going to suck at steering bullets. This scope does not do that correctly, and even if it did the design works against actually hitting targets.


I am quite sure that this will make quite a few people upset, that's fine. Reality isn't for everyone. I have no interest in bad mouthing any product, or hurting a company. I gave fair warning that if it was sent to me, that I would test it and report the results regardless of the outcome. The blunt fact of the matter is this scope failed.

Was playing with another NIB rifle(Fieldcraft),NIB scope(6x MQ),NIB mounting system(20 MOA 1913 rail and 40MOA 'Horn's) yesterday,with NIB Alpha Virgins in Kreedmire,with 147's and '17. Kissed,found pressure and rocked on the day prior,as I was chasing chronograph light and did load development,without even mounting said glass. 2600fps,positive headspaced,so loaded 200rds prior to even mounting said glass,that evening. Chased a coupla Manufacturing glitches,if only to start at The Fhuqking Start.

Rear piller was cricked and catching threads. No thang and both an easy catch and an easy fix.




Trigger needed love and glue.(grin)



Mag box leading edge was serrated.



Only shot (3) pokes at 100yd paper,bumped 2/10's f a Mil left and pulled windage turret and zero'd ele,with 33.5 Mils remaining upon the erector,after it's 200yd zero. Went right to the 900yd line and whirled the erector a smidge,dumping a CH better than 275 Mils in the system,prior to the first poke at said distance. Have more than (1) rifle so chambered,am a touch familiar with the come-ups and have faith in both the mounting system an said glass....so simply hung fire and was farrrrrrrrrrrrrr from "surprised",that POA/POI melded,despite the tough conditions.




1000 [bleep] Words On Tracking RINK

Rattled 100rds through it yesterday,a like number again today and was rather warm and fuzzy,right from the get go and that momentum ain't waned. next time I clang steel,I'llmake a point to whistle 1000 Mils on the erector,prior to doing same,if only because rugged reliable results tend to interest me.

Nice to FINALLY see someone with a fhuqking clue and a sound rifle,gun The Counter Jockey's bullschit...as Reality reliably collides with her Fantasy. What were the "odds"?!?

Be a KILLER glass for a Fence Hoppin' Texan though.(grin)

Back to the Loadin' Bench.

Have a coupla more new barrels to shake out,as time permits...though glass will remain knowed quantities,as I've only so much time.....................

Formi,

Thanks for the report. I appreciate your willingness to perform the test, document with images, and then write the report. It's a good deal of work.

Makes me wonder how many people chase their tale with equipment that doesn't work properly.

Jason

Great review. What was the reason behind telling them $1000?

That is going to leave a mark...

Form,

Great review, I love the detail and I can promise you some of my scopes would fail!!!! The "response" is their lower end right like a $300 scope? Its a tough comparison to hold it up next to a Nightforce ATACR which can run up to 3K depending on the model.

But, if something is claimed to be "as good as" then it needs to be put to that same test. Not a "proportionally for the money as good as" test...soooo, in short good work, the comparison is apples to oranges, but if an apple calls itself an orange, it should be tested as such.

Stick,

If I am reading you right, your Barrett Fieldcraft is needing the same kind of love that Kimber Montanas do? Mag box, rear pillar alignment, etc. Who would have thunk it?!?!?!

I can't wait for all the kimber haters who think that an $1100 rifle with manufacturing sub-perfection is unacceptable to see this same stuff from at $1700 rifle...

Both of you prepare to get your flame suits on =]

Thank God someone is putting the truth out there, I sold a couple of good guns in the past before I realised that the so called bulletproof Leupold I was testing them with was the problem.

Formidilosus thank you for the detailed examination and study of the tract response. Maybe many of us are getting past wanting to argue objective size, resolution, chromatic aberration, FOV, "brightness", and eye relief. Awareness is when you reach the realization that a $2400 alfa scope may track no better nor hold zero no better than a $50 blister pack scope you find at Walmart. I am past all the BS. Just build a reliable rugged aiming device that I can hunt with until 30 minutes after sunset, and when I shoot the rifle it hits the same place every time every day every week every month every year year after year unless I change it.

Stick, damn it now I "need" a Barret Fieldcraft in 6.5CM, thanks for the repair pictures for future reference. I got to get off the couch and go hunting this week, could not go this weekend due to a funeral.

Well, that's disappointing, especially that the groups were larger than with other scopes on the same rifle. I'm not any kind of optics expert, but that alone indicates to me that all the other tests weren't going to go well. Looks like I'm going to have to mount my SS on a couple more rifles to verify how they really shoot.

I had never looked at this line of Tracts, but after reading this went to their site and checked it out. The Response scopes are made in the Philippines as are their .22 scopes, not Japan like the Toric and Tekoa. At $374, considering all the "features", it's not all that surprising that it didn't measure up even given the direct sales model that's supposed to deliver more value per dollar. If you're going cheaper, then it makes sense to go simpler as well.

Since my hunting rifles are operated in set and forget mode, I'm crossing my fingers that the Tekoa 3-12 on my Grendel will hold its zero. If it goes down, at least I got it on sale! But it looks like the search for a reliable hunting scope with a proper reticle for the purpose, covered low-profile turrets, and hopefully weight of maybe a pound or less (fixed 6x) will continue.

Nice work, Form. Thanks.

sure would like to see a similar test on the toric, a light 12 inch drop is a hell of a lot less than my scopes get from time to time.

Nobody's stopping you. Go for it. The reason we know what we know about stuff like the SWFAs and NFs is because someone took a chance on them.

The next chance I take is going to be a SB or Trijicon, would love to chance a toric but the vendor publishes nothing that convinces me they would be better than a Leupold.

Formi, much thanks. Great test and report.

Jay, I'm thinking the reason he said it was a $1000 scope was to remove pre-conceived thoughts of cheap glass.

Form. Good test and write up.

Thanks for posting.

Good review.

Scopes really are becoming much more niche oriented. A set and forget hunting scope for shooting out to 200 yds doesn't require the same characteristics as a long range 'dialing' scope. My Leupold FX-II 4x has stayed zeroed for years for my needs and I don't mess with it. My hunts also are public land where my average shot <100 yds. The dialing/long range phenomenon sudden has many inexperienced folks thinking they have to have a target scope to hunt where the vast majority of shots are under 150 yds.

I guess the consumer needs to make an honest assessment of what equipment requirements they have and buy accordingly. If they think they are going to shoot game at 500 yds, with a 'tactical' scope, and it has to be less than 12 oz, AND cost <$300 they are going to be disappointing.