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

Just go with the MOA quad on the SWFA 6x. MOA adjustments, MOA based reticle, and the parallax is in yards.

I just peddled a MIL quad to pick up a MOA quad, the only reason was to compare adjustments between it and another MOA adjusting scope....

I'm getting the idea you're thinking in inches per hundred yards ratios rather than minutes of angle which, as the name suggests, are angular measurements just like milliradians.

Haha, this is the funniest post I have seen by any official company rep. Trevor is basically telling us that his scopes are not sub MOA capable and that most shooters don't need that kind of accuracy so its OK to produce junk because most people cant tell the difference and won't need anything better.

Just Priceless ...

Never seen someone that wouldn't take more accuracy over less accuracy. Yet.

All he is saying is that it's adjustments are good enough for most hunters. It's exactly what Leupold has been peddling for years,and hunters couldn't shoot well enough to tell it. Tract is just being honest about it.

Guess I just saw my first one!

I'm glad most people will understand the basis of that, though not literal.

In that case, since they are that honest, they should print it on the box. "Not suited for serious shooters and hunters"

Well, I get it, two guys running a business out of their garage trying to convince the world that somehow they were able to source the best optics and cheap labor to give us German quality products for the price of no-brand Chinese glass.

Hey, junk is a junk no matter what fancy name or paper you wrap it in.

I don't have a dog in this fight and I just feel sorry for all those suckers that believed their marketing BS and wasted their money on this junk.

I respect you guys for staying on here and taking criticism.Seriously,if you guys can design and build a scope with NF or SWFA reliability with hunter type turrets or exchangeable turrets like some of your scopes now, that have more hunter friendly reticles,you guys will have a market all your own.

It may take some growing pains to get there. It may just be a matter of higher QC on parts and assembly. It may require some design tweeks. I don't know,but I do hope you guys get there. I would love to buy such a scope.

Wait I will get out my crying towel.... Keep up the good work, as you seem to want to enabling scope manufacturers to market crap mechanics.

Wait send me a Toric and I will put into an LT-104 zero, shoot a 10 shot group with 1MOA ammunition for 10 rounds, toss it on the ground 5 times from waist high and shoot it again! If it holds zero then no more whining for me and I will publicly apologize for all my evil comments!!!

I own several brands of scopes, as well as a Tract Toric.

Tell you what jimmyp, I will make a bet with you so you can put your money where your loud mouth is. I go mule deer hunting every year here in W TX. No high fences, no agriculture, feeders, etc. A genuine fair chase hunt. I'll bet you $5000 I can kill a buck with this Toric, complete with it's "crap mechanics". We got a deal?

It would be a better test if they left the rifle under it and then dropped it(so it landed on the scope...). The scope itself is light enough that I doubt tossing it alone would really do much.

That video would have had a completely different outcome had there been a Labrador in it.

I've shot at public ranges over the years. The vast majority of shooters don't put in the time or bother to gain the skills to determine if the issue is them, the gun or the scope. It's pretty disheartening to know what most currently produced bolt actions are capable of accuracy wise, and then seeing what most shooters are capable of.

For me the biggest thing I cannot wrap my brain around is that most hunters, me included and anally at that, spend the off-season fine tuning gear, glass, loads, etc., to try to eliminate as many variables that either deter from success or plays a role in being unsuccessful.

We debate bullets,energy calculations, scope clarity, cotton vs. down, 700's, Montana's or Barrett's, .270 vs. 7-08. But the one single little thing that could screw all this up at the last possible instant is an aiming device that is unreliable.

I've been a Leupold user for a long time amongst others, but for me, the chance at the very end of the rope from killing something isn't worth the risk of something that isn't 100% reliable or near to it. I

I say this understanding that most of you are not hard on your gear and that's fine from ATV to deer stand. But ATVs still wreck a lot of scopes. This is simply my mind set and how and where I hunt.

Formidilosus,
Thank you for an honest test of whats important in a scope, it is very much appreciated.

Milliradians will let you work exactly as you’re used to with that tape measure. You _really_ should stop thinking in linear units when measuring angles, and it’s much, much easier to do that than you might think. Easier than switching from halves of an inch (1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, etc.) to tenths on your tape measure, I think.

That said, if you like degrees-minutes-seconds or are more comfortable with halves than tenths; no problem. The MOA-quad is your huckleberry.

I don't think most guys involved in this thread really want to hear excuses for the product, it didn't pass the test period, now we need to simply focus on the fix .....to make them NF dependable even if they weigh and cost more!

X1000
I would much rather pay for dependability and repeatability before any "features" and if it has to weigh XXX to be dependable and repeatable then so be it.

I got a great idea for Tract--really low cost way to compete with NF.

Buy a good used NF. Reverse engineer it precisely.

Copy it's design exactly at a lower production cost. Done.

At this point, all else is re-inventing the wheel, and then finding out that your wheel isn't round.