Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Introduction, the new voice of Tract optics here on the Campfire

This thread started on 6/11. Today is 7/13. Personally, I'm moved by Tract's commitment to finding the scope. Most companies would've given up looking for it weeks ago. I made these flyers for you to hang up in your warehouse. I hope they help.

...By the way, if anyone from Tract is listening, let’s see a 30mm hunting scope with hunter friendly turrets, and a hunter friendly illuminated reticle. Less than 25oz weight is ok if the internals are tough and repeatable and glass is stellar. .

You don't want much from a scope that sells for less than $750.00 do you? Man, I'm glad that you guys who are constantly raking Tract and their representatives over the coals are, in part, doing so to save poor fools like me from purchasing one of their scopes just because it isn't equal to a Nightforce Mil-Spec scope's ($3K+) internals and Tangent Theta's optics ($4.5K).

ppppfffffffttttttt.

Just SWFA Fixed internals ($299) with SS 3-9x optics or better ($599) would be great! Add some great reticle options and well-designed turret options (hunting and target), and maybe a few luxuries like ZS and illum, for under $1k, and they’d be right there with the LRHS, which is pretty tall cotton.

The 3-9x HD is optically what I would call “very good”, and to my eye is about Conquest level, slightly better than VX3. The resolution of SWFA scopes is likely their optical strong point in my mind.

I wouldn’t say SWFA is as reliable or durable as Nightforce- no one can make that claim//...//The 3-9x42mm SWFA is equel/better than Leupold VX3. The 5-20x50mm is Swarovski Z5 level.

I have not posted in this thread as it has (had) nothing to do with me and much prior experience has shown me that critical discussions do not go well with company reps. However as it seems there is confusion and or inference of what happened or did not happen with the Tract scope I was sent- so here we go.


First a bit of background-

Anyone can think anything they want about testing, repeatability, legitimacy, or relevance of how to evaluate a scope. The reality is I evaluate them as needed for field use. Will a 12” drop on a padded mat pass strict peer review in a controlled study? No. But it is absolutely a legitimate test to tell if a scope will hold zero: if the mounts and gun are beyond reproach. I was the lead on the most intensive and largest scope evaluation/test that has ever been conducted within the DOD- 18 months, 200,000 rounds with every single legitimate scope in that category being tested. For the first time scopes were tested for absolute function with no bias whatsoever by knowledgeable end users- not engineers that have no idea what we do with aiming devices. Tracking, adjustment error, zero retention, return to zero, side and top impacts, longevity under recoil, SFP vs FFP, mil vs MOA, and operational performance. Scopes were zeroed on guns with brand new barrels with a certain lot on ammunition and checked for zero retention constantly with only that lot.

Only two scopes came out of that not having failure- Nightforce and SWFA. The results of that project is being used by two major entities of the DOD to shape what and how they test optics.







Now for the Tract-

I did not ask for the Tract in any way. I said no when I was contacted about it being sent to me as I knew what the fallout would be from the “rep” and the company if it did poorly. It was stated by both the person that had it and the “rep” that they wanted it sent to me. I plainly stated how it would be tested, what I was looking for, and that if it failed it would probably be non-functional when Tract got it back. I also reiterated that I did not think they would like what the results would be, and that they should probably send it to someone else. That if it was “good” everyone would know it, and if it failed everyone would know. It was insisted that I test it. I also asked if they wanted me to replace the mount with another, I was told “nope” it’s good. Ok.

Well guess what? When mounted to a rifle of absolute consistency it produced 10 round groups of two-times the normal. It failed the most basic task a scope has- zeroing, holding POI during recoil, and zero retention. There was no malice, no bias, no subjective feelings, no “beliefs”, no “I wish”, no nonsense. It was tested exactly like every other scope I test/eval right up until the point it failed. That scope was sent back to Tract.





I did not ask for, and advised against it being sent to me because it was, and is, plainly obvious that Tract and their reps like almost every other company will try to hem and haw their way out of the results when it goes against their beliefs instead of owning it and improving the product. EVERY company, rep, engineer, and person will claim all day long how they want real results, and honest feedback.... right up until it goes against their product, their most recent purchase, or their favorite. People do not want truth- they want bliss. I’m happy to work with any company that actually desires to produce solid products, but I have no time for marketing, “features”, or salesman.


There has been calls to send me another Tract- DO NOT send me one. You won’t own the results.

The SS 3-9 is probably the best all-around optic for under $1000. It covers a lot of the bases for sure. I could do without the windage turret, and I’d love to see a zero stop.... ala LRHS. But as-is, I still think it’s the best option for a Western style big game rifle, that needs to be LR capable.

SS 5-20 is a tank, but it’s also incredible for the money. It’s a great optic for a belly-gun.

Does it really matter? No matter how I tested it you'll say I was flawed or have a vested interest.
I've tested the Toric and Tekoa out to 700 yards and the 22 out to 50 yards. I myself haven't tested the new 30mm model as of yet. I'd say I've run about 6 scopes on my rifles.

Yup that was all before my time. Im still trying to find the location of the one scope that came back. Im waiting for Jon to go to the warehouse. I wish things moved faster.