Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Tract Toric drop test part deux

Sam inspired me. Same scope, Tract Toric 2-10x42. Rings are Seekins 1", base is a talley (flat). Rifle and scope took a tumble last Saturday so I had to check zero. Zero was good at 100 so the drop this past week didn't hurt it. Backed up to 200 and dialed elevation and shot a quick group for reference. Circled the group and took a pic of it for reference....the original pic wasn't needed. I dropped it from chest height 3 times (directly on the scope) then fired 3 shots from 200 yards. .....I should have used a bigger target post drop. May be a lot to ask of a scope....I'm not sure what's fair to ask of one. Plan to mount a SWFA 6x42 on it in a couple of days and do the same test.

Chest height, directly on the scope:




Results:

Thanks for doing that test. A simple drop ain't looking good for the Toric.

It made it through a sling swivel popping and it dropping from my back down a pretty good slope last weekend. It held 0 through that...but not to good on this. It was a good 5' drop, 3 times, directly on the scope where the scope took the majority of the impact. I don't know if that's fair to ask of a scope or not.

This particular impact must have something to do with these radical shifts in zero. Hopefully this will lead to more transparency regarding internal mechanical schemes and their various strengths and weaknesses.

Those were some solid knocks. Not surprised it shifted POI.

It really would be nice if you could count on a scope to hold zero after a few blows like that. I’d love to see more of the internals on the known commodities like NF/SWFA SS/LRHS compared to most others that seemingly have issues with accurate and repeatable adjustments and zero retention.

Everybody who expects a rifle scope--any rifle scope-- and the mounts/rings to perform flawlessly after being dropped directly on the ground three times please raise their hand...............

Please stop. It hurts to watch. I would expect any scoped rifle to lose zero if you dropped it three times. I would check the zero, action screws and mounts of any rifle if it just fell over. This is a test for which you could write the report before you did the test.

The military does drop tests but it is for equipment in their packaging if the packaged equipment is dropped during transport.

What bothers me is that there are no standards in all this testing. Pick a scope that is regarded as good, compare other scopes of varying price ranges and roles to that one and pronounce it a success or failure.

I am from an industry that delivers defense communications that absolutely have to work under military usage. They are designed and built to a specification, including an environmental specification, usually the latest variation of MIL-STD-810. This specifies required performance under environmental conditions of shock and vibration in a temperature range of subzero to intense heat. The radios are designed and tested to this standard, then qualified for production. Part of the production run is a burn-in test after they are built, where they are operated in a continuous duty cycle in an environmental test chamber, called a "shake and bake". For some radios build for fast mover fighter aircraft, the second most severe standard after space, the burn-in lasts seven days. You get a yield of radios for delivery after completion of the burn-in and the failed radios are scrapped. The tests identify all the latent defects, electronic and mechanical. before delivery. The radios that pass come with a two year warranty (you can buy more but at some point the cost of the warranty matches the price of a new radio.) The ability to ramp up production is limited by the number of shake and bake chambers you have as capital equipment.

Specs for the ground environment aren't as severe in many ways but have their own challenges. Vehicle mounted communications are often required to pass a "Munson road" test during development. If you ever had a Munson last in a boot, same officer.

I don't see any of that here. You are pretty haphazardly conducting impromptu tests to unspecified standards of which the manufacturers had no knowledge of when they developed the scopes of varying price ranges and capabilities.

I could not find a MIL-Spec for scopes. Except for the Unertl 10x built for the Marines, most military scopes are commercial-off-the-shelf and the ones I looked up (Nightforce, Schmidt & Bender) don't discuss performance under shock and vibration other than the act of firing a cartridge.

If you want the same level of required performance as mil-spec electronics, you will first need a military specification, including specifying such things as shock and impact from the side and drop against earth, rocks or concrete from a specified height in measurable terms (metrics). Vendors that wanted to meet this standard would develop scopes to it and qualify them. For best performance, you would run the finished scopes through a shake-and-bake and deliver the ones that passed. Let me make a prediction. You are now no longer talking a $300 scope, a $1000 scope or even a $2000 scope. I think you are talking about a $10,000 scope. If you think this is outlandish, look at the AN/PSQ-23A STORM-PI. Small Tactical Optical Rifle Mounted-Product Improved (STORM-PI) which is a weapon mounted laser designator. The improved version in lots of 1000 runs about $9700 each. Compare that to a COTS laser range finder.

I'm thinking that's a bit much to expect of anything short of mil-spec, and maybe even of that. If the impacts were from the side, the four dinky mount scews might easily have failed.

I'm waiting for somebody to try running over one with a Monster Truck, or maybe just shoot it.

Hurry up with the SS test!

For that matter, I had a SS 10x42. I was removing the Butler Creek on the objective, when I noticed the lens shade rotating with the cover, coming loose as the cover was removed. I decided to remove it to see what the scope looked like without the lens shade. It wasn't the lens shade. It was the entire objective lens assembly. This scope had a design that allowed the objective lens to loosen after which you could disassemble the scope with much less pressure than you mount an action screw or scope ring. That's not very much mechanical integrity. I threw it away as so much junk.

I don't care what the adjustments do as you twist turrets which I will never do, I will take a scope with a one piece tube or even a two piece tube joined at the turret any day over that design.

Its been done, this one was supposedly from a 7.62x39 from the sandbox...

The solidger used that scope for several days after being shot and it still worked. I’ve looked through that scope b

Thanks for sharing Cubic.

For the record, I don't think those impacts are that severe. Myself and others that hunt the PNW coast, Cascades, and even eastern regions have numerous stories of scopes/rifles hitting the ground harder. Sometimes on rocks and logs. In fact, a good buddy went down face first with the rifle and scope hitting a large rock this past Saturday. The scope and DNZ mount have marks to prove it. He went to the range on Sunday to check zero. All was well.

Jason

Jason, what scope was it wearing?

kingston,

The scope that my buddy smacked on a rock was a Viper 3-9x, on a T3 Tikkler in 7mm Rem Mag. Scope has survived hundreds and hundreds of rounds. I've seen the shooter/rifle/load/scope consistently shoot well out to 600 yards using the dotz/lines, for the past several years. To be honest, I thought the scope would have died a long time ago but it keeps on chugging along.

Previous scope was a 3-9x VXII that wouldn't hold zero. It went back to Leupo, but they never fixed it. Sent it back again, and asked a contact to make sure it was mounted on a rifle and shot. They confirmed that it wouldn't hold zero and sent a new one. Buddy gave up on Leupold, sold the new scope ASAP, and bought the Viper from Doug/Neil for a great price.

I've got a theory about some of those old Viper designs and why they hold zero, but don't know if it holds water.

Jason

Yep, it's not specific or measurable...but I think it's applicable. I don't know what's fair to expect of a scope but I'm going to learn. I'm going to test a $300 scope in the same way and see how it does. I think you're incorrect on the scope cost. It appears Nightforce does a pretty good test and can be purchased for less than $2000:

Patience grasshopper... It will be Friday at the earliest, most likely Sunday.

That part of the SS design has always bothered me. Another member posted about unknowingly disassembling it and having to call SWFA. Probably one of the reasons they can be produced at a lower cost....but if it holds up, what can I complain about....

I hear what you guys are saying but comparing any scope to NF isn't fair. Your talking about a $2500 MIL SPEC unit. That's like comparing a 911 to an Escort. I have scopes from NF, Vortex, Zeiss, Swarovski and Steiner all high end units. I bet most of them wouldn't fair that good unless there were MIL SPEC. I'm curious myself now. I know my GEN 2 Razor is tough I've dropped mine a few times but that thing is a tank.

Most Nightforce scopes are a good bit less than $2500, starting at $800ish, and "milspec" is an abused term that has taken on a whole new meaning. Nightforce scopes are just made right and I can't wait to see what they keep bringing to the market.

If Nightforce is out there, (cough, SHV F1 5-20X50 w/ illuminated MIL-C, cough)

forget that, anything over the 5-20 is too dang big and heavy...

I want a SHV 1.5-7x36 (or something similar, the mag numbers are always approximate) with a big fat German #4 in it

Make the X42 NXS in FFP with illumination and I think they'd have a very big winner!

You just wouldn’t be able to see the reticle at low powers.

Quite a few of these reviews popping up lately. I have to admit, I cringe even thinking about dropping a rifle on its scope from 4 feet once, let alone 3 times, and not confirming the zero. I am pleased to hear after the rifle and scope falling during your hunt last week that the rifle and scope did in fact hold zero, so that's the good in this equation in that in an actual field incident, the system would have performed perfectly. Also, I am glad to see in the various tests that even after the drops, a few clicks and the scope returns to and holds zero

We are a little alarmed in the issues with the inducing of failures in these tests. As I stated before, we are hear to listen to these reviews and comments as well as work towards potential solutions. I am also curious to see how other scopes and manufactures would compare in this same case, even with the controls being less constant. I would rather see a variable power scope in lieu of a fixed for the next test as they are much more similar ion construction.

Quite a bit to take away from these inducing tests. Something as simple as the turret height could play a role, as in any turret that may be taller than the objective, or even if the turret hits the ground first with the majority of force there on, could potentially cause an issue. Standard rigors of use are thoroughly tested as in recoil of a that of a 458 for thousands of firings, side to side impact, etc. Certainly there are types of hunts that may be prone to a failure in sling or accident which could cause scope first impacts, and we want to be the go to option.

It appears there is a desire to have an optic that can sustain multiple drops on the scope with full weight without loss of zero, with the quality and features found on our scopes with similar prices. As we've seen with NF, it can be done, and I will take this information back to see if we can offer options that are designed to sustain this type of abuse and still have the key features that hunters want, at the best prices possible.

As always, we're hear to listen and continue striving to meet the changing needs and wants of the hunting/shooting community.

I think it would be interesting if someone, perhaps with QR rings, would remove the scope, drop the rifle, reinstall the scope and see if the POI changes dramatically. Although there is plenty of anecdotal evidence there might indeed be an issue with the scopes being tested in the drop tests, conclusive evidence that the problem is the scope alone doesn't seem to be there.

That said, I'm still not dropping one of my rifles on the ground on purpose. I've dropped a rifle when taking a spill, had it slide of a rock, fallen down on it and had it fall over when leaned on a tree while I was taking a leak. Luckily I've not had one shift point of impact from any of those circumstances. But I'm also not dropping it repeatedly on the scope.

I do find these drop tests interesting, I'm just not 100% convinced the sole problem is the scope. There are other variable here as well as the scope.

YMMV,
Rob

The scope may not be 100% responsible. As Form mentioned, bedding (including screws/mags/etc), bases, and rings are all part of the equation. These have been degreased and blue lock-tite was used, the only difference between Form's method and the mounting of this one was the use of a sealant (fingernail polish) on the screws....which I need to start doing.

Understood. I wish, other than QR rings, there was a way to do this test and simply isolate the scope vs the rifle is all. I do appreciate your willingness to take one for the team and the time taken to do the test.

Rob

While I think a scope should be able to take some amount of shock,it is still a fairly delicate optical instrument. I do think there needs to be a more standardized way of testing.

THIS

Thanks for your contribution JM.

I've always enjoyed this series. It isn't filmed in a way that would be impossible to misrepresent, but I don't think Jered was pulling a fast one.

I guess I've got to find some tannerite.... No, no I'm not.

if there were an mil-spec for scopes, Night Force could probably meet it with no additional costs for the bill of materials and assembly. But meeting a mil-spec means testing, certification and a dedicated quality control process. These would drive up the cost. If you include a shake and bake production test, that would drive it up further. Depending on things like side impact and drop testing, there might be some redesign effort that would need to be recovered.

I wouldn't immediately equate MIL-SPEC with higher performance than COTS. It may, but until you read the spec you can't really know. MIL-SPEC powder temperature tolerance is one area where the spec is far below what anyone would actually expect of a temp resistant powder. Scopes may be better, I don't know.

I do expect my scope to retain zero after minor incidents. Things like me slipping and falling, rifle leaning on tree or against truck and falling over. I won't say they are common occurrences, but they occur enough to justify planning for. I look forward to seeing what happens with an SWFA SS 6x. I'm also interested in the rings. Are Talley Lightweights suitable, or would some other be better?

I think that Tract is being ganged up on and kicked unfairly. I don't drop my rifles, and no one I hunt with does, either. If I did, I would certainly expect the scope to lose zero. The first thing you do upon arriving in camp in Africa is to check the zero on your rifle to see if it has been affected by the trip over while in a quite substantial gun case in the hold of an aircraft. It is EXPECTED that rough handling will affect the performance of a scope. This has been the expectation for as long as I remember. Do a drop test like this on a Swaroviski and see how it turns out.Strange how we will blow off a $350 Toric and not be willing to put a $2500 Swaro through the same wringer.

Yeah, it has been the case for a long time. Technology changes, and products progress. Imagine a world where scopes never shifted zero unintentionally. You’d get to Africa and not have to check your zero. What would you do with all that saved time?

I've had two sets of Talley LW's crack. Both were on rifles that lived in ATV gun boots and were bounced around everyday. I didn't use a torque wrench on them to determine exact torque, but for rings (top to bottom) I just use 2 fingers and my thumb holding the short end of the wrench. I think the heavier the scope, the tougher it is on TLW's. I still have several pair of LW's on rifles that seem fine.

Several years ago, for lightweight, I started using DNZ's as they seem stronger (at least I haven't broken one)...but they limit ring spacing. On everything that comes in now I use a pic rail and Seekins rings.

I was hoping it wouldn't lose zero...but didn't expect it not to. I don't think the test should drive anyone away from Tract unless you're willing to test the scope you're leaving it for to ensure it would keep it's zero.

The Toric isn't a $350 scope. It's Tract's top of the line model....but it's not $2500 either.

The PH's make you check it before they let you hunt, no matter the scope. In my 3 trips taking my VX6 it's never wiggled. It takes all of 15 minutes anyway.

Again, that’s a product of decades of scope history being full of shifting zero problems. If scopes stopped shifting zero, I mean ALL scopes, then PH’s would eventually stop making people check their scopes upon arrival. What I’m envisioning is not a current reality, but we’re working in the right direction so that scope makers start to take the shifting-zero/scope machanics problem a little more seriously.

Tract's representative told me they are contacting the folks producing their scopes concerning this. They are noticing.

What else can they say and maintain any credibility whatsoever??

They could say I'm asking for more than should be expected of a scope. They could say you shouldn't test our scope in that way. They could say you just voided your warranty. ....but they didn't.

Does Leupold do a drop test like that? Do they always pass with flying colors?

Let's just cut to the chase:

Somebody needs to drop test their $2500 Nightforce...............

And the SWFA's and Bushy LRHS.

See this link, looks like Form did that in the thread that started this whole mess.
https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbt...-rtz-zero-retention-results#Post12361426

If a scope is built to handle magnum recoil, it can handle a modest drop. If it can't handle a modest drop, it's not a matter of if but when it will fail.

Given the option between purchasing a scope that is unlikely to survive a drop, and one that is likely to survive a drop, I'll choose the scope more likely to survive the drop.

Similar to my approach when purchasing a vehicle. I don't expect any manufacturer to produce a car that never breaks down. But I will choose a manufacturer that has a proven record of producing cars that are less likely to break down.

The only scopes I've had that without question failed i.e. the guns wouldn't group because the scope couldn't hold a zero were bottom of the line bushnell scopes. I wasn't surprised given how cheap they were, and wouldn't be surprised to currently produced bottom barrel scopes to fail. But a scope in the $500-1000 range, it damn well better hold zero and handle a few bumps.

Given the price of ammo and putting just a modicum of value to my time, chasing a zero at the range on a scope that won't hold zero is a minimum of $100 down the toilet. Looking at the value of my wages taking off a week for a hunt and the cost of accessing a hunting area is in the thousands not to mention I can't just climb out of the tree stand and drive the 4 wheeler to Cabelas for a replacement.

You guys pitch in and buy me NF and I'll beat the sheit out of it for you if I can keep it afterwards!

Form dropped them ~12" onto a padded mat, on the rifle's side. In this test, the scope had 6-7 lbs of rifle inertia piling on top of it as it hit the ground from 3-4 feet. I haven't done the math but that is a HUGE difference in impact force.


I do reliability and HALT testing on a regular basis in a $250,000 environmental chamber on complex electronic devices. EVERY product will fail, just a matter of what their life time is based on the energy it is subjected too.

I guarantee that I can break every scope ever made, but what does that prove?

I originally thought he was dropping them from 12", but you're right he did drop the NF from "waist high" onto a padded mat..

Not really, recoil that a typical scope is designed to endure is on one axis, back and forth along the length of the scope.

A scope is designed to take a certain level of "hits" from being knocked around. Comparing recoil while mounted on a rifle is an entirely different impact than a drop test.

Your truck is designed to absorb impacts from potholes while hauling butt down the road, it is not designed to be turned upside down and dropped in your driveway. There's a difference.

Years ago I was crossing a frozen creek before dawn on an elk hunt and broke thru in knee deep water and slammed my Leupold VX-3 3.5-10 onto the ice pretty hard. Hunted all morning and upon loading the rifle into the pick-up I noticed that the objective bell no longer had the gap between it and the barrel. Checked the zero on the way home and it was reduced to acre of angle. I guess it flunked the drop test.
Asked Leupold if it could be fixed and they told me to buy another one.

The video that was posted was the NXS model which is MIL SPEC. Id love to see someone that their NF and drop it on its turret and see how it does. This drop these intent realistic thats what Im saying.

Rob I like your train of thought. I said the same thing to my buddy. Test a rifle with irons before and after a drop test. Too many variables like the stock, bedding, mount and bases.

Highly Accelerated Life Testing-ah, that brings back memories.

It's happened to me with a 17lb F-Class gun and the rifle didn't move 1/4" from its zero. Landed on its elevation turret.

No, not all NXS scopes are "milspec" as the military doesn't use all NXS scopes. I have several that don't meet military specifications.

I have a March 8-80x56 mounted on a 18lb FTR gun. 3 weeks ago in the Texas Midrange State Match I dropped the gun off a 4 foot high table. It landed scope down on a aluminum gun case and hit so hard one of the turrets knocked a hole in the top of the case, right through the aluminum into the foam on the inside. The scope never moved off its 600 yard zero. Tract aint doing something right.

I’d be curious is anyone makes a 1” tube capable of passing the drop test

Most would pay more for a device that is promised to work as it should work. Further SWFA does it inexpensively. I cannot believe you would pay $700 for a Tract but not $800 for one guaranteed to hold zero once the improved version is released. I have an accupower 1-8 i want to test

So far I have refrained from posting on this thread, but finally can't restrain myself.

So far there hasn't been enough independent testing of the various Tract scopes to come to any firm conclusions, and there also hasn't been any test designed to discover whether the scope or mounts are causing POI shifts. I have seen numerous scoped rifles dropped over the decades, and sometimes they retained zero and sometimes they didn't. Was it the scope or the mounts? Sometimes you could tell, because the scope bent, but sometimes you couldn't.

The other test of a Tract, for tracking, was of a SINGLE sample of their cheapest model. I don't know who at Tract claimed all their scopes are made to the same standard, and nothing resembling that statement appears on their website. But any manufacturer who offers different variations of scopes, at widely different prices, would have to be pretty dull to claim all were the same quality. If that were true, why pay more for one model than another?

There are two truths here. One is that all Tract scopes haven't been tested enough to know how each model works, and the other that there hasn't been enough rigorous testing of Tracts against other brands to make blanket statements about how well they work.

The more expensive Tracts are made in the same Japanese factory as Nightforce and SWFA, so it could reasonably be assumed the factory knows how to make scopes that hold zero and adjust well. That is exactly my experience with the one Tract scope I've tested, a top-of-their-line Toric 3-15x that did extremely well on my standard scope-killer, a superbly accurate Heym .300 Winchester Magnum, shot with its most accurate load, 210-grain Bergers at around 2950 fps. It has killed a number of scopes within 30-40 rounds, and some within 20, but I fired far more to test the Tract out to 1000 yards, and it worked fine. I then mounted the scope on another occasional scope killer, my NULA .30-06, and after getting on paper at 100, sighted it in with two rounds, just like I can with my Nightforce and SWFA scopes.

But that is another "sample of one." We need more samples of ALL Tract scopes before jumping to the sort of conclusions I've been seeing in these threads. It would also help to isolate mounting problems from scope problems, but apparently very few have a clue about how to do that.

You're comparing a $3000 scope to ones that cost 300-700. That's like comparing a Bently to a Yugo.
Directly comparing relatively simple fixed power scopes (SWFA SS) to their more complex cousins is more of the same.

Where did Tract, Leupold, or Zeiss ever claimed that their scopes would retain zero when abused at that level. People need to get their perspectives in order regarding scopes. If you want to throw it against the wall or drop it off a tower and hold zero you are going to have to pay a premium. If you pay $2000-3000 for a scope and it doesn't hold zero when bumped or dropped, you may have a valid complaint.

It is nice to know the capabilities of the various models, but to beat the $hit out of a moderately priced scope with helter-skelter, non-reproducable test methodology and cry and bitch that it didn't hold zero within 1/2 MOA is asinine.

I was a little disappointed that this scope (not a Tract) didn't hold up.

I can't hunt with a scope that can't survive a case full of HS6, or a 7.62x39 round through the eyepiece. Headed out to have a friend drop a scope from his crop duster.

Yep. In this test I can't say for sure the mounts or rifle wasn't effected and the scope perfect.

I can say the Toric tested has been PERFECT in tracking so far, though I'm only running it up/down 18 MOA between shots. It handled a pretty good fall and tumble down a spot last weekend that was steep enough that I was pissed about having to climb back down to get it....perfect 0 the next time it was shot to verify. Lot's of good going for this model...and my uncontrolled test may be highly unfair to it.

I'll reiterate what Mule Deer stated: "The more expensive Tracts are made in the same Japanese factory as Nightforce and SWFA" This was made known to me this past week but wasn't sure if it was something I should share. I found it interesting. Though parts, specs, etc may vary and I'm interested in that. It was something that caught my attention when the factory representative said they would be speaking with manufacturing concerning this.

Jay, drop the SS and we will know more. Hurry up.

I'll come down Jay if I can shoot the SS with an AK.

Clint, I really want a 3-9 SS to drop. Gotta settle for the crappy fixed power. I might have time to drop it this evening....most likely Sunday.

Scott, crop duster or AK? You can't have it all.

MD, I appreciate your weighing in on this and the fair points you’ve brought up. Any thoughts on the Tract rep’s suggestion below:

“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’m frankly stunned at the suggestion that even on a $350 scope, it’s ok for the optics to be so imprecise, and that implicitly, customers should be satisfied with groups 1.5 times the rifle’s potential. It frankly reminds me of the early Tasco days.

I very much want to see Tract’s business model succeed. We all benefit by high quality at more affordable price levels by cutting out distribution channels.

The problem is, that the variable SWFA SS scopes are also extremely tough and durable, it's not just the fixed variations, and the 3-9x42 (very similar mag range to the scope tested in this thread) costs $600. Apples to apples, IMO.

In order to add to the "perspective" regarding riflescopes, you can put a SWFA SS 3-9x42 through a lot of rough handling/use and not lose zero. And they cost $600. No need to spend $2000-3000 to get a durable or well-built scope.

elkaddict,

I thought that was a dumb statement, partly because I've used a bunch of other scopes costing around $500 or less that make shooting tiny groups easy. Some of them have held up for many years, including lots of accurate dialing up and down, though mostly on varmint rifles in relatively light-recoiling chamberings.

I've also tested several of those scopes on my .300 Winchester Magnum, and sometimes on my .30-06 NULA, and they kept functioning. Others in the same price-range haven't done so well, but my main point is that I don't expect a $350 scope to keep a rifle from shooting to its potential.

FINALLY, the voice of reason...

The Tract tested was a used, $300 scope, not $600 like the variable SS.

I agree they should all hold zero though, as long as they're not abused.

The Tract in this thread was the Toric.

I think its totally fair to torture test any scope at any price point. If a $300 scope can withstand a waist high drop onto the turrets and hold zero, that gives me confidence that my scope will hold up in the field when it counts. Doens't happen often but slips and fall occur, rifles can fall off the tailgate, out the side of the gator, kicked over in the blind, etc. If a scope cant hold up, then that informs my decision of how much i need to save to invest in a scope that does or informs my decision on makes of scopes to consider.

None of these tract test have any statistical significance, but they do suggest some significant shortcomings that I'm convinced can be extrapolated to many other traditional hunting scopes (i.e. recent Leupold threads). For years hunters have been drawn towards "low light performance", "glass", "NEW B&C Reticle!" - which is great for mfg's because it takes nearly no additional cost to make these "paradigm shifting improvements!". What I'm seeing is an emerging (renewed?) interest in durability. Glass doesn't mean a damn thing if the scope looses zero during a hunting trip. Nightforce understood that message long ago and if the consumer demands it, others will follow.

I hate to see Tract get a black eye, but I hope this sort of testing continues with other popular scopes. Lets see what you're made of, so to speak. I want to vomit every time i read a so-called review of a new product. Reviewers and manufacturers are in this warm circle-jerk of marketing, sales, and ad dollars. So let the crap-cutting drop tests continue!

wildcat,

The problem with drop tests, aside from separating scope problems from mounting problems, is there's no consistency. What are they dropped on, and what parts hit first? Obviously there's a big difference between being dropped on the big objective end of a scope, which sticks out several inches in front of the front ring, and landing on the portion of the scope between the rings. There's also probably a difference in the hardness of small areas of grass-covered ground.

Years ago, not long before I published my first hunting-optics book, a European company conducted some tests by whacking mounted scopes with a rubber hammer. This still wasn't totally consistent, because they did it by hand, but they tried to whack with some consistency, whether on the objective or ocular bells, or the turrets, including angles from the top or sides. Doing a similar test with a mechanically-powered rubber hammer would probably be most meaningful, but even the hand-test was far more consistent than the drop-tests described here.

John it floors me that Tract and SWFA are made in the same factory and one is so much more robust than the other. Unless Tract announces a major design change I won’t buy one and will advise my friends to not do so either. It’s a damn shame someone won’t make a hunting scope with a hunting reticle that is as durable as the inexpensive SWFA scopes.

"Consistency" sounds like an excuse to me. We can't beat the hell out of it because it's not consistent.

jimmyp,

All Tracts are made not made in the same factory. The one that did so poorly in Formidilosus test was made in another factory, apparently in the Phillipines.

MD,

If we were to design a QC test on the mfg side, your approach is perfectly reasonable. But however they want to test their products in the factory, doesn't really matter to me. I'm interested in the results of real world imperfect abuse on equipment that is subjected to the unpredictability of the real world. In a previous post, the scope was dropped in three directions onto a rubber mat, which IMO is a pretty decent ad-hoc test without undue bias towards ground condition (sharp or hard objects) and directional impacts. Glocks get torture tested all the time and fail - or not, doesn't mean glocks are bad - but it does give one some perspective on what kind of abuse that piece of equipment can take, especially when compared with a competitor.

I think there should be a "Make Field and Stream's Accounting Department Cry" event, where all of these supposedly fantastic new optics from all the leading manufacturers get beat on savagely and see how they stack up. F the "proprietary coatings" and "synergy built" jargon and ring the bell on a celebrity death match. If they all fall apart, so be it, at least then i know i better get a gun sock.

wildcat,

Again, is any POI shift due to a scope problem, or a mount problem? That would one reason for designed a more consistent test.

As I noted earlier, I have seen a bunch of scoped rifles fall in the field (and elsewhere) over the years. Sometimes POI changed and sometimes it didn't--and often the scopes were the same brand. Was one scope tougher than another, even if they were essentially identical? Was the mount the problem, and not the scope? Again, we do not know.

Are we discounting Formidolosus million round per year torture testing and ignoring his claim that SWFA, Bushy LRHS, and NF is the only scopes that stand up to it? I'm not. And I'm proud that finally many are catching on. Without demand there will be no change for the better.

How do we know that the SWFA is more durable?

I'm going to drop test one but it's going to be a fixed power...not a variable. What if the mounts hold on it...what if the mounts were the cause of the change of poi with the Toric....what if the ground is softer when I drop the SWFA (it's been raining today).

Cause Formi has been down this road.

There is that.

I am concerned that I could have painted Tract in a corner because of mounts or testing that another scope might not have passed. It's the reason I'm going to drop the SWFA....although I wish it was a variable. I could use a 1-4 SWFA I have but they are already suspect......

I tried the SWFA 3-9 drop test yesterday.

Dropped three times from shoulder level onto hard packed dirt. Once on the elevation turret, once on the windage, and once on the objective. Mounted on a Tikka T3x Superlite 308, with a DNZ Game Reaper mount.

Point of impact changed .1 mil to the right.

Yikes, 4 - 5 feet on hard pack is quite a lick. Love it. I want the manufacturers nervous when the guys from the Campfire get hold of a scope.

Wildcat,

You bring up some good points. While some members here have asked us to do "torture tests", theres a little more to it than just the test. There isn't one standardized test format to follow, and even if we created one and we stated or showed the scopes passed, there would undoubtedly be naysayers or others claiming results were tainted. We are however, all for posting 3rd party testing, especially in the form of forums and member testing. Its just better all around, ESPECIALLY, if other manufacturers are involved. We'd be all for providing a test scope if someone could gather other manufacturers to do the same.

This is why we sent out the Response scope, and while we are taking some 'flak' for its latest review, it went thru 3 other reviews and tests in regular range and hunting conditions and did very well. However, with Form's test and review, it exposed potential issues and we are very interested in getting that scope back and reviewing it to see what can be done to make improvements to better pass the tests Form, and others, want scopes to.

As for the Toric tests, I heard some good feedback as well as feedback needing attention at the manufacturing level. As Jay stated, in a real world test where the rifle and scope took a good tumble and fell, the scope and rifle held zero. After multiple induced drop tests from 3'-4' in height, there was a need to re check and re adjust to zero. We are absolutely taking note of these tests and observations and looking into them along with the factory to see what can be done to improve our products to be able to take these induced failure tests. As mentioned above, Our Turion, Tekoa, and Toric are made right next to many other brands (mentioned above) by the same technicians, sometimes using same components out of the same factories, but of course, we all do have proprietary parts and glass, coatings, etc, to add to the manufacturing process.The 22Fire and Response scopes are not coming out of that same factory.

I've said it before guys, we are here to show you the optics we are making and listen to what you think, feel, like, hate, and most importantly, what you want to see. There's certainly room to make improvements and combine what we have with some more of what you guys are looking for.

Also, if I would've done this with a less accurate rifle, the difference in zero may not have shown up.

.1 mil is small enough to get "lost in the noise" of varied atmospheric conditions, differences in hold, me having a bad day shooting, etc.

In this case, I shot the rifle for zero, performed the drop test, and shot again, on an almost calm day.

PG, for the reasons you stated, I'd take 0.1 MIL any day.

He doesn't discount the role mounts play in this whole thing either.

I agree!

This is a pretty new rifle, too, which I haven't completely fleshed out as far as accuracy - it has shown itself to shoot a couple 1 MOA 10 shot groups (though I'm by no means saying it will do that every day). So it could've just been how the gun was shooting and not changed zero at all. Anyway, even if it wasn't the most scientific test, I'm happy with my results and it gave me a lot of confidence in this rifle/scope/mount.

lol.... I was doing it on steel at 200 yards. .1 MIL would have gotten lost in the paint chips!

I do like the DNZ mounts.

Whitetail MT, I have confidence that Formi knows how to discern and didn't arbitrarily pick the three.