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

I actually have a Tract Toric 3-15 and it doesn't just sit on a pretty rifle and get used during a limited hunting season or comfy visits to the range- its out hunting and being banged around almost every week of the year. If its not hunting its on the range. So far this year I have harvested 13 deer in very harsh and challenging conditions. Its about 8 months old and its introduction to life was enduring a 9000 mile journey to get here, and since has travelled many miles uncovered on the front of my Quade and in my ute. Not to mention my falls and tumbles.

The 'scope has a ballistic turret on it which works well and always returns to zero. Its been dialled countless times. I checked the zero for the first time in several months last week and it was absolutely spot on. It is on a reasonably high recoiling 300saum.

As I have said in another thread I rate the glass about the same as my Zeiss HD5.

The things I don't like is the fiddly push/pull parallax adjustment stop - I would prefer more tension and no stop. The field of view is slightly less than other comparable scopes I have (VX6 and HD5) but its minimal and not an issue.

Development wise, I don't think Tract have hit the sweet spot between their biggest tactical scope and the 3-15 Toric. I would like to see a 3-15 with a more rugged 30mm tube and more reticle adjustment, and coming in under 23 oz. Illumination would be a nice option too.

In regards to tracking, here's a precautionary tale; I recommended Tract to a hunting friend so he bought a Toric 3-15. He put it onto his 300WM and it wouldn't track - he kept getting extreme fliers - so back it went to Tract. They did a tracking test and sent him photos - perfect. It has turned out that his 300WSM wasn't stabilising the 110 Barnes that he thought that he had sorted using a previous 'scope.

Having said all of this I do think that Tract over pump their 'scopes (especially the lower end ones) and that their marketing is too slick and too commercial. Less slick and yap, and letting their products speak for themselves is an approach I would prefer, and it might have attracted less criticism. Let the customers speak more - that's what Athlon have done and its worked well for them...and they are mostly made in China.

In case anyone missed it here was my test. Its an honest test and the scope worked flawlessly. I started with a brand new rifle built by Kampfeld. I take credit for the paint. Its tough to argue with the results but there will be someone who does. I'm not about to waste time of gear that doesn't work. This rifle is a solid build and its a great platform for testing. Good components make all the difference. Ive seen many a rifle shoot poorly due to bad rings, mounts and ammunition. I've done my share of 3 position small bore, F class, 3 gun, and various other shoots to know what works. If someone has an issue we would be happy to help. Guys I'm here to help you. If you have concerns lets see your testing and equipment and we will go on from there.
https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/12650788/1

My 3-15x Toric continues to perform perfectly, sitting on top of my son's .260 CTR. About 400 rds so far. Lots to like about it.

When I sought a scope with a little more magnification than the 6x42, which really meets my needs for most shooting, at my club's 300 yard range, I really wanted a 10x42 with a 1" tube with about 4" of eye relief, a plex or No. 4 and a fast focus eyepiece. No one made such a creature and would not start producing it for the very limited market, probably just me (At one time you could buy the Leupold Mk. IV M3 10x40 with a duplex in a 30mm tube, but that option soon disappeared). So I started out with the SS 10x42 and mounted it on a 700 VLS in .308. The SS in 10x42 had adequate glass and excellent eye relief, about 3.9" and a good eyebox. It had parallax adjustment which I would never use, excellent turrets which I would never touch after sight-in and a mil-dot reticle which I would use as a duplex. I shot a few rounds through the rifle and then adjusted the Butler Creek objective cover. When I did so, the sunshade hood started to unscrew. As it unscrewed, I realized that it was not a hood, it was part of the main tube on which the seal was now broken. It seemed to be designed so that the objective lens was part of the sunshade and not part of the main tube. How odd! All the other qualities just don't matter if the scope comes apart when you had no intention of it doing so. When you tell me this is "military grade", you have zero credibility, I will no longer believe a thing you say.

I had shot enough rounds through the VLS to realize it was shooting no more accurately than my other .308's and the rifle with scope attached was something you would emplace rather than carry. I sold the factory stock and barrel, put a standard contour barrel on the action and had them bedded into a McMillan Remington Compact stock, which is the same pattern but a little heavier than the Edge stocks on my other rifles. I fooled around with short throats for a while only encountering frustration and then decided to get a really good barrel for it. Recently, a forum thread convinced me that my really good barrel should be chambered in 6.5 Creedmoor rather than the .308 if I wanted the ultimate .308.

I still needed a scope with a little more magnification than the 6X42 and wanted to go to 10X. Another SS 10x42 was out of the question. (Fooled me once, shame on you! Fooled me twice, shame on me!) I realized that I would have to go to a variable, probably on the order of 2.5-10X42. I wanted 4" of eye relief, a large eyepiece with fast focus adjustments, a more compact scope with a 1" tube, a plex or No. 4 reticle and windage/elevation adjustments reliable enough to hold zero after being sighted in. I was concerned about a 1" variable even though my old Zeiss Conquests worked fine because a well regarded authority has stated that all 1" tube variable scopes fail sooner or later, because there is not enough room for the most rugged internal mechanicals.

About this time Tract appeared and I looked at the Toric 2-10X42. I liked the model of taking money normally spent on distribution and using to invest in better glass and better mechanicals. I read some of the early reviews of it as a hunting scope and bought first one, then two. I got to shoot one a little, but I have to wait on my 6.5 Creedmoor barrel for more time with it. The Toric and the SS 10x42 have about the same eye relief. The Toric is more compact, has better glass and image and an excellent hunting reticle in the T-Plex. I have no idea how the adjustment tracking compares to the SS 10x42 (nor does any one else for that matter), but I am sure they will suffice for my needs. As to ruggedness, the main tube of the Toric has survived adjusting the Butler Creek objective cover, where the SS 10x42 did not, making the Toric much more rugged than the SS 10x42 in a very limited sample.

There has been a suggestion that Tract send another scope to Form for an extensive test. His testing is really useful for someone who is headed downrange. I am not and never will be headed downrange. It is also useful for those who shoot at long range but not under conditions of military usage. I will never shoot over 300 yards. I am lucky to have a 300 yard range. So for me and perhaps me alone, his testing is for different requirements than mine.

As this thread shows, the “fire” can be brutal.....but also a source of great information. When Tract’s original spokesmen made some stupid comments, he was appropriately called out. I bluntly challenged one of his silly comments. Nonetheless, based on the reviews of glass quality by MD and others, I took a chance and ordered some 8x42 binos. I’ve been very happy and believe one would have to spend close to double to improve upon them. I truly hope the business model works and they force the industry to push quality products at reasonable prices. I also echo the hope they’ll build a 30mm scope with an illuminated hunting reticle.

Why would you need 4 inches of eye relief on a creed? Hell, why would you need it on a 308?

There is such a thing as scope eyebrow. There is also a phenomena where the impact on the eyebrow is from your eyeglasses frame as the scope impacts on the polycarbonate lenses less than an inch from your eye. That gets your attention. I got used to over 4 inches when I used Leupold 6x36 and 6x42, was very comfortable with 3.9 to 4 inches with Zeiss Conquest and am comfortable with 3.75" in Meopta 6x42. The Swarovski's I had years ago had less eye relief and a rebounding eyepiece that did rebound.

I'm stuck entering cartridge casings into a ballistic computer today. I'd almost rather be getting beat up on the forum. This is so boring. A large eye relief is critical when shooting prone. You tend to creep up on the rifle alot more. Getting scoped sucks. [url=http://http://imgur.com/gallery/qcN0DSV][/url]

I like long eye relief, even on a 223. Short eye relief just bugs me.

I'm with you guys. I like 4 or more if I can get it. Two of the closeout Hawkes I bought from Doug have 4 1/2" and make mounting on a couple of problem childs easier. There's probably a small trade-off in field, but I've not noticed it. A Trophy XLT 3-9 I just bought claims 4", but I have my doubts, and it goes way down when zoomed.

So you watched the video a couple of idiots in Alaska created a few years back? I am in total agreement with you BTW.

I'm having an opposite issue where i have trouble getting the hawke far enough forward on my 700 long action. It's almost too much of a good thing. I ended up taking the rear weaver base and mounting it with just 1 screw so it over hangs the breech by a half inch.

Wow

How is it that you can make such a sweeping conclusion as to what other people don't know?

Everybody knows the SS scopes track like a champ.... I can only think of a couple reports where they didn’t... and SWFA replaces them post haste. I’ve had over a dozen of them in the past 15 years.... and they’ve always tracked, returned to zero, and stayed sighted in for me.

Have only seen a couple of reports on the Tracts... and they seem good for the most part. Though.... they’ve got a loooooong way to go before they can even begin to compare to the SWFA. No f’n way am I buying one to find out for myself.... but I still may give the Toric Binocular a run.

That's easy. I haven't seen results on this forum from a test comparing them both under the same conditions. I have seen results from rigorous testing of the SS 10x42 adjustments under conditions that could reasonably be called "military use.". I have seen laboratory tests and field test results on the Tract Toric, mostly good, under conditions that could reasonably called "hunting use". I have seen a lot of opinion about the Toric, mostly bad, based on an extensive test under conditions that could reasonably be called "military use" of a scope that wasn't a Toric and wasn't built in the same facility or country as the Toric.


I see a lot of opinion on scopes from persons who have never owned, tried or tested that scope. I see opinions from people who would never buy or try a scope that they have never owned because it's so bad or its too new. That's not knowledge.

The absence of results posted on this forum does not mean that there’s an absence of results...

I've run the 2-10x42 Toric against the 6x42 MOA-QUAD SWFA on tracking with a simple 15 MOA up/down tracking test. Both tracked and returned to 0 perfectly.

I've spent more time dialing with the 2-10x42 Toric over the past several months than any other scope. It hasn't faltered yet. I should note that I'm only dialing a max of 18 MOA which for some folks might be shorter than they need...for me it gets me out to 700 yards even with a 100 yard 0. At any rate, it has returned to 0 every time, even trying to tune in Tokyo by dialing up/down in between shots.

I've got some more testing I'm waiting to do with it comparing to a couple of other scopes. I'll go ahead and say, for my use and preferences, it's the top of the heap right now for how I use a hunting scope. I keep waiting to find something where it doesn't adjust or return to 0 perfectly but I haven't. If I find a fault with it I'll post but so far it's been perfect.

Show me the test results and I will edit my statement accordingly.

Examples of one or two mean exactly nothing.....

Years of abuse and unfaltering performance speaks volumes.

No one needs to run a test on the SS.... they’ve been performing for 20+ years, and have passed nearly every test throw at them. The Tract kicked ass in an Outdoor Life “shoot-out”... and there are Kardashian marriages that have been around longer than Tract.

Most guys I know, who hunt hard in hard terrain.... are pretty hard on rigs. Their “hunting conditions” are much closer to “military conditions”... though the consequences of their gear not working are far less severe. If your “hunting conditions” involve a short ride in the Gator to your box blind or tree stand.... then I’m sure that Tract has a scope just for you.

If your “hunting conditions” involve marathon length hikes up and down mountainous landscapes, with a rifle that gets strapped to a pack, stuffed in a scabbard, sling across your back, dropped, frozen, soaked, used as a hiking pole, and eventually needs the turret spun to make a shot.... then, at least for now, anything Tract is outta the question.