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

The forceplex has no hash marks or mildots. The SWFA doesn't have caps on the turret, which zero stop or not is a requirement for me on a serious rifle. My SWFAs are relegated to range toys for that reason. I had high hopes of Tract. I guess I will take some time wringing my Torics out and see if they perform any better than your Response.

Thank you for the tests and posts.

Re: Why people won't hunt with $300 SWFAs and eliminate scope problems, I think SWFA could dramatically increase their market if they'd add a 'hunting' line. Perhaps the SWFA SH (Super Hunter)? Same designs and mechanisms, but with low-profile adjustment knobs. I think they'll also have to use a different reticle to capture that market. Perhaps something conceptually similar to flipping the mil-quad upside-down so that it's more like a German #4(?). I think that's the way to get into that market and significantly help move the _whole_ market towards durable products.

+1 on a SWFA with a simple reticle. I'd buy 2-3.

I love the SS 6x reticles, both MOA and MIL quad....for targets. Just stepped outside to look at them again to confirm it. The center is lost in a thick/dark background. Did it at ~50 yards against heavy brush and ~120 yard against shadowed cattails on a pond. Plain t-plex reticle Tract uses is clearly visible against both of those as I just did a side by side on 6x. SS reticle also turns a gold color depending on the angle of light, but I can live with that as long as I can see it.

The ability to hold zero is most important. The ability to see what you're aiming at.....most importantly where the point of impact is going to be, is right there with it. I'm in the thicker/plainer reticle camp.

Thanks for the extensive review Form. Hoping to see more of these going forward.

Yeah. Hopefully they go back to the drawing board.

The SWFA mil-quad reticle on the 6X is pretty good against tough backgrounds. The three main bars are very thick and get you centered on target. Not ideal as a woods rifle, but very workable.

A Mil Quad with a FireDot would be Uber.

Hi Formid,
You had mentioned that the older Leupold fixed powers seems to hold zero better than the newer ones. Is there a specific time frame with respect manufacture date or a gap between various models that would separate the older potentially more reliable models versus the models which don't seem to hold zero as well? Thanks!

M8's before they transitioned to the FX moniker. They weren't perfect, but as a general hunting scope they did ok.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This

Go on the NF site and check the Forceplex. They did that one right; 5moa from the tip of one bar to the other. The bars on the SS are too far apart to suit me. Might work for pachyderms, but nothing smaller, at least not in dim light, like right at sunset.

I just saw the Forceplex earlier today. I agree it looks ‘right’. In fact, when I bought my SS a couple months ago the reason I passed on the NF was the reticle. Had the Forceplex been available I likely would have picked one up.
As for the SS, I have watched some deer in thick stuff with it and it works. Again, not ideal, but proving to be adequate.

Well schitt, I better get better "aiming devices".... Haha WOW+P

It was a detailed report though. Thanks

Forcepex on a 2.5-10 NSX would be excellent. The illuminated IHR might work....I dislike a reticle that isn't continuous and bold in a thick/cluttered background....at longer ranges and open areas it's good, better even.

Is there something in the mechanism of the SWFA SS knobs that requires them to be taller, or is it just to make them easier to grab with gloves? I would definitely prefer a lower profile.

Form,

Seems like a well planned out and executed test. I would like to ask for this scope to be sent back to us, we'll send a call tag, as this was the "test" scope we sent out. We would like to see this scope to see where potential issues are stemming from. The response line certainly is not what the Turion, Tekoa, or Toric are, and designed for more of the shooter and then hunter, as the Turion, Tekoa, and Topric are designed truly for the hunter.. Do we want them at the same level, sure, but the reality is you cant get the same out of a ~350 scope as you can a ~$500-$700 in terms of manufacturing.

No caveats to your test other than we don't know what was done to it from the members before. But as I mentioned before, I'll send you a PM so we can get your information to issue a call tag so we can get that scope back and have is comb thru to see where these potential issue may reside.

I said when we first started posting here, and why this scope was sent out...this forum has unique knowledge and capabilities and we at TRACT know that it can be useful and will certainly take advantage of any circumstances where information here can advance aspects of some products.

I read through all of this again, and I'm fairly impressed that the Response tracked this well on 25 MOA adjustments as shown above. The larger original group size (we should be safe assuming that it wasn't going to get smaller) was reflected here but the consistency of 25 up/down seemed pretty good to me. Again, if the initial group size was larger this one is going to be as well. The tracking seemed much better than I would have expected based on the original group and the .5 which resulted in 1 MOA adjustment.

The following is my biggest concern. No getting around this and Sam confirmed it with a Toric model that I'm using as well. I've got to confirm 0 after a drop this past weekend....if I'm taking to time to confirm, I should go ahead and double up on the drop test as well.

Again, thanks Formidilosus for the detailed post/test!

certainly some good from this test as well. Keeping in mind this scope has been sent around to a few members and shot, just want to point out a few things.

The as arrived photo is what the scope and box look like after being sent around a few times, just want viewers to know that's not how the box should arrive.

I am happy that on the 25 moa stringer, the Response did hit both marks well with only a 1.5x larger group than a Nightforce

Having a 1.5x larger group size with a $350 scope compared to a $1500 scope isn't that alarming to me. Can there be an issue with the scope, possibly, but it leaves some room for improvement.



I am curious is you left the magnification on the NF as the same as the Response being the NF has more magnification.

But once again, we are here on the forums to read and respond to any inquires, questions, comments or reviews about TRACT products. We'll keep working on bring out new, better, and improved products as we want and need your support. Thanks again Form for taking the time to perform and write this review.

The problem is, that whether $350 or $1500, that result indicates that the scope isn't mechanically working correctly. Optical quality and features take second fiddle compared to mechanical integrity.