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

You never seem to like the answers you get to any of your questions, so why don't you pick up the phone and call Tract yourself. They are very willing to help. Then you can report back on what you find out.

I fail to see why the same review that I think isn't fair is always brought up. I'm trying to find the location of that optic and I want to retest it myself. No other company would reveal their engineering or testing methods. I myself have never heard or seen Nightforce , Vortex or Leupold answer this. Again if you don't like or plan on purchasing a Tract I feel your only hear to stir the pot. You may not like me or Tract and thats fine. Bring up valid points and we can talk.

FWIW Brian, I think you've already established that you're a decided improvement over the late, unlamented Trevor, who was clearly in over his head. You're spot on about all the speculative naysaying being done.

As far as the infamous Response is concerned, maybe one of the Jons will pony a new one up for you to test, minus the tossing. Form did a good job and knows his stuff, but maybe his (used?) example was just a fluke, or maybe not. I'd actually like to see one of their rimfire models tested myself, maybe against one of the similar Hawke models or a Nikon. Another good one would be the Tekoa 2-10x42, as that power range seems to be somewhat in vogue.

I don’t read this as pot stirring.

I’m a Tract owner. I’m also a Bushnell, Swarovski, S&B, Zeiss, Kahles, Leupold, Sig, Meopta, Minox, Leica, Sightron, Burris and Steiner owner.

What? no Tasco?

Thanks for the kind words. Yup I concur I don't believe Trevors heart was in it. Also the fact he just moved. I used to break his balls I call him a non shooter. But I say that about most all of my friends. I shoot alot! I spoke to Jon and when he goes to the warehouse he will track down the scope in question. I'll test it on my rifle and see if it's the optic or maybe the mount that failed.

Must be one of them Optics Aficionados.

I’ve said it before, given the level of good natured rancor around here, I think Trevor did a great job. He was always personable and good natured. He wasn’t an optics engineer and he never pretended to be one.


Sending out a Ford Fiesta ST instead of a Shelby GT350R to represent the company didn’t make a whole lotta sense, but I’ve got no idea whose call that was.

Quite a few of us feel that FormD's test was perfectly valid.

I would argue that any test done on a Tract scope by an employee of Tract is a flawed test, and independent testing is necessary to be valid. I'd say send FormD another (new) scope.

If the first test in my opinion was flawed why send another scope to be ruined? The scope in question was a $400 scope and I'd never throw one of my rifles to test it. If you want to buy a scope and test it be my guest. We will never be on the same page with this so the point to moot.

And some of us feel differently, so be it.

Your opinion...

I don’t recall the rifle being thrown.

I’m not terribly compelled to wade through another sea of sentence fragments regaling the latest 25 yard rifle scope test. If that’s the plan, good luck.

Your opinion is not that of many potential consumers, and Form's tests carry a lot of weight around here, whether or not you think they're valid.

What's hilarious is somehow a Nightforce survived those same tests without being "ruined". By the way, the rifle wasn't being thrown around, it was initially dropped 12" onto a padded mat, and the Tract failed that test. If you're worried about a scope being ruined by being dropped from a foot off the ground, then I don't have a lot of confidence in your interpretation of what constitutes a stoutly constructed scope. Hard use rifles see those sorts of impacts regularly.

That's an excellent point. Go with one of the good ones.

I've long been leery of the notion of a company putting out product lines that span too many market segments. I like the old GM model of at least separating the quality (or feature) layers with different brands, like B&L/Bushnell was briefly. Might not be a good model anymore.

Another thing I don't care for is a company selling refurbs. Even if they fix one problem, who knows what else is lurking in there. I guess it depends on how thoroughly they check them out and warranty them.

[quote=bhoges]I fail to see why the same review that I think isn't fair is always brought up. I'm trying to find the location of that optic and I want to retest it myself. No other company would reveal their engineering or testing methods. I myself have never heard or seen Nightforce , Vortex or Leupold answer this. Again if you don't like or plan on purchasing a Tract I feel your only hear to stir the pot. You may not like me or Tract and thats fine. Bring up valid points and we can talk.]

I think this is an excellent summary. The hunters that use Tract Torics are pleased with them and rely on them. The negative comments come from those who are not using them and would not use them. I don't see the need for another test to military conditions of a hunting scope. Please spare me a discussion of random vibrations or impact loads.

As far as the need for unbiased independent testing, in my world of defense electronics the production engineers certainly regard the quality control tests as unbiased and independent. No production facility can consistently turn out quality product if the quality tests are not unbiased and independent. The production facility in Japan that builds scopes for Tract and others has an excellent reputation for quality which they could not do without quality control and quality testing.

As I've mentioned a time or two, or maybe three, that scope was a dud before the first drop, as it simply wouldn't let the rifle group to its potential. The problem I have with the drop test is that it's not consistent or repeatable, so the "geometry" of the impacts can't really be compared directly. Even in a test fixture designed to deliver such impacts different scopes would undergo different levels of stress by virtue of length, bell diameter, etc. I would expect a true tactical or military grade optic to survive a good bit, but would be surprised at a "toy tactical" like the Response taking much of a beating, aside from recoil in the expected direction like any scope should endure. Comparing a Nightforce to a Response is like pitting a Subaru Brat against a (true) Humvee. Hell, lots of so-called high-end scopes would go tits-up after a brief stint on a powerful springer airgun, yet there are scads of cheap aigun scopes that hold up just fine because they spend a couple bucks building that capability into them.

The scope reviewed and tested by Formidilous was a Tract “Response” not a Tract “Toric”.

His testing could hardly be described as represented military conditions.

The Tract Response was built at a factory in the Philippines.


The following is a link to the test/review.

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbt...ange-tracking-rtz-zero-retention-results

+1

Hence why a test with another Response would be prudent.

The test is valid. It might not be entirely scientific, but it's valid. It's much like how rifle accuracy testing isn't entirely scientific - there are variables such as being shot outside in changing environmental conditions, with a human controlling the rifle. Those factors don't necessarily make the accuracy testing invalid, the test simply needs to be repeated enough times to get a decent sample size. In other words, more scope drop tests should take place to see whether the first was an anomaly, or the norm.

As has been mentioned a bunch of times, SWFAs in the 300 dollar price range stand up to these sorts of tests, so there's no reason a Tract Response, which the manufacturer specifically said was tested to the same impact levels as their more expensive models, shouldn't stand up to the test.

Not to get too far off topic, but a HMMWV isn't anything special. It's like the variable powered Leupold of the off-road world. Both the HMMWV and the Leupold have a good reputation from those who don't actually use them, and they both break down quite often when used hard.