Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Tract and Leupold drop test

Regards "fact" we just had two men test two scopes and posted the results, we also has a thread not too long ago regards SWFA problems, but I digress. You "know" of two people that had problems would be what they refer to in court as hearsay, while the two tests we just saw would be what they call "evidence". Please post any evidence of SWFA failures I am truthfully interested. Hopefully this will not be taken in the spirit of an insult.

[quote

my cousins wifes brothers son had a friend who also had the same problem. Bobby come on now...what is your agenda here? [/quote]

Jimmy, having known Bobby for quite a few years, I can tell you there no one less likely to have an "agenda" than Bobby Tomek. He has had and hunted just about every scope you can imagine and calls them as he sees them.

I just sent a 3x9 SS in a month ago. Wouldn’t return to zero. Folks in Texas said it was just a bad erector. It happens but I still use them. The 6’s have been flawless so far. I’m trying the new 3x9 on a less important rifle for the moment just to make sure it works as it’s supposed to.

First of all thanks for the replies.


Secondly I want to be clear that this post was not intended as a bash against either Tract or Leupold. Just a report of a very crude and highly unscientific 'test'.

The reason for repeated drops was that I wanted to make sure that each scope received a satisfactory thump. I could tell when they really did hit the ground directly. Yeah sure there were leaves, grass, etc., but IMHO they both took a decent hit or two.

The 6x36LR Leupold is my favorite all around hunting scope and I plan to continue using them.

The Tract obviously doesn't have the track record but I will continue to use it as well.

I bought the Tract to be used as an open country mule deer scope. The BDC matches up almost perfectly with the 140 Accubond so I thought why not?


Reticles are a very subjective matter but I happened to like it for how I use that particular rifle. I hunt with Swaro 8x42 SLC's and while the Torics glass isn't quite that good it is pretty damn close. People say scope glass is overrated but why not have really nice glass in a hunting scope? Evenings coming on and you have a nice buck at 400-500 yards why not have good 10x glass at your disposal? Of course if the scope isn't capable of 'steering' the bullet the best glass in the world is worthless.


Back to the 'test'.



Both rifles have the lug/tang bedded and both generally shoot very well. I use a torque wrench, degrease, etc., and try to eliminate as many variables at possible but am certainly not confident enough to claim that the scopes are 100% to blame.

We're any beers harmed during these "tests"?

A drop test, Heineken vs Bud light is in order. The people want...no, DEMAND, to know!

No beers were harmed in this production!


(cue Mathman to state that neither Heineken or Bud Light is beer...)

How many beers did it take to play lawn darts with your rifles?

That was a semi early morning affair so zero booze involved.


Stella skunk right now though!

Jimmy, having known Bobby for quite a few years, I can tell you there no one less likely to have an "agenda" than Bobby Tomek. He has had and hunted just about every scope you can imagine and calls them as he sees them.
[/quote]

I respect Bobby's opinion and I apologize for any offense if any were taken.

Wow! For such an awesome outdoors guy and savvy gunman, you seem to be quite sloppy.

Yup, everything produced by man (nature for that matter) no matter how well designed, how well manufactured and how well tested is going to have a percentage of those items fail at some point. Between manufacturing defects, damage in transit, damage in installation, damage in use, failure is guaranteed to crop up once in awhile.

I appreciate the research done by high volume shooters that has led me to switching to SWFA SS 6x and 10x scopes, but I'd not be the least bit surprised to find out I happened to be that guy that got a dud.

While the results were unnerving, it was a great test. I'd encourage you to do more.

I know I've said it before, but a detailed look at the variety of mechanical strategies and mechanisms used by all the major players is long overdue. Optical sights are vastly more complex than they were even 25 years ago. Modern scopes are more refined and robust than ever. They commonly incorporate a parallax adjustment mechanism with a variable power zoom up to 5x, 6x, ,8x with a fast focus diopter adjustment with an illuminated reticle with broadly adjustable systems for elevation and windage correction. You get the picture. The price of combining all these features with increasing robustness is complexity. Generally speaking, complexity is the enemy of reliability.

At first glance, why wouldn't everyone want to have it all, especially when manufacturers lead them to believe that can have it all and at a reasonable price. What we're seeing is that in very few cases can we have it all at any price. For me, I'd like to understand what the tradeoffs are and this will only be possible with much better understandings of what's inside.

What's exactly happening when Sam drops his scoped rifles? What isn't happening when JimmyP's buddies play catch and pound on RxR ties with theirs?

Kingston, bro, I want to test the rest of my small sample of scopes(mostly all Leupolds) but am too chicken.


Better wait until after hunting season...grin

I've been tempted to start taking mine apart.

Maybe the chamois hunters in Europe have the right idea. Climb the mountain and spot your critter, take your scope out of your pack and snap it on your rifle, and blammo, dead lttle goat.

Exactly. The difference between scope brands and models isn't that some fail and others never, ever do. It's that some fail at a much higher rate than others.

For example, Leupold's failure rate over the lifetime of a scope is 40%, while the failure rate for NF is 1%, and SWFA SS is 1.5%



Of course those numbers are completely fabricated, but I'd bet they're not too terribly far off...

I agree, Sam. I'll always take superior glass to mediocre glass, but only AFTER mechanical robustness is established. Once mechanics are where they should be, then we can start talking about tiny improvements in glass, but not before. IMO, anyway.

Just have her douche twice next time before you [bleep] her, maybe you won't notice the sloppy stuff.

I have dropped one, I was shooting 'roos and managed to let go of a 14 1/2 lbs rifle with a 2 oz Jewell I just stuck out the window of the Landcruiser, you will not believe how quick I made it to the other side of the vehicle to get that damned gearbox between me and the muzzle, I made it before the rifle hit the ground.

The 24 brd did not need adjusting...I did pull a projectile, drop half the powder and fire what was left into the air to clear the dirt obstruction though...rifle never missed a beat and I kept shooting for the rest of the night.

Scared the living [bleep] out of me at the time.