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

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.