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

If by that you mean a test of optics and tracking, okay, if they want to do that. None of their competitors (Nightforce isn't one of them) does drop testing so far as I know, for public consumption anyway, so why bother? At that price level, having a good warranty and honoring it is sufficient for the intended market. I'd prefer a SWFA myself (did, in fact), but mostly for its reliable adjustments and focus range, not so I could drop it. If I were expecting to bang one around, I'd pony up for an NF (probably used).

I already did that in August of 2017. This is what Jon LaCorte stated, last year:

"We had a custom gun builder out of Louisiana run 500 rounds of 458 LOTT through the TORIC scope with not point of impact change and the scope was still tracking perfectly"

"The scopes go through a drop type test that simulates recoil, the recoil is similar to the same level of recoil generated by the extreme large caliber rifles like the 458 Lott and 458 Win Mag. Our scopes are made in the same factories as many of the other big name scopes, so they all have very similar recoil ratings."

"All of our scopes are designed for the same level of recoil resistance, durability as well as the mechanical construction such as tracking and return to zero"


I'd like clarification on the "1000G force testing." If they can't or won't elaborate, then simply say so. And why should I pick up the phone again, when we have a spokesman here on our forum representing Tract? In fact, he claims, "Well guys you finally have someone to help field your Tract questions. My name is Brian and I'll be taking over for Trevor."

Why can't I simply ask their spokesman to clarify the claims for the company that he represents?

I have no dog in this fight. I don't care if Tract fails or is a huge success. But the company has made claims, and so have their reps. So I'd like to see some proof, or at least some shred of evidence that they know what they are talking about. So far, I haven't see it. All I have read are claims and fan boys like yourself running to their defense.

Jason

I have perhaps a little different perspective on all this. First, I trust Form implicitly. He's the real deal. There just aren't many people that shoot that could match his skill level. I believe his test was valid. If I did a drop test (which I won't), and it caused an apparent failure of the scope I would tend to suspect my mount, my rings even my bedding before I would say the scope failed. But, the other side of the coin is if Form said the scope failed after the drop test I have 100% confidence that his mounting system and mechanical condition of his rifle and stock are 100% and not the problem. I would say it's fair to guess that Form has put more than a million rounds down range in his career - maybe even 2 million.
He is a recognized expert in everything "The Rifle" to borrow a phrase from Stick. Everyone, even Nightforce and SWFA can let a lemon slip past QC. I haven't heard on this board of any Nightforce failures; I have heard a couple of people claim their SWFA scope failed. I would really be surprised if someone had a Nightforce ATACR or NXS fail. The way Form describes Nightforce construction of the turret assembly, the materials they use in the turret assembly and the in house testing of each scope before it is released for sale, really instills confidence in a Nightforce ATACR or NXS scope.

Brian, I would like to hear the results of a test you conduct on a Tract riflescope. I would also like to hear FORM do another test on a Tract riflescope that is the same level as the one he tested before. If both Brian and Form don't reveal any failures of the scope I'd call that a major feather in the cap of Tract. If either Brian or Form find the Tract scope failed, well, Tract has a problem. That would be 2 out of 3 randomly picked scopes of the same price point/level failed testing.

I've been reading this whole thread without comment. First, I think bhodges is a better spokesman for Tract. I've seen his reviews/posts before and he seems to know of what he speaks. Second, I'm one of those Tract customers who was spooked by FormD's testing of the Tract. I actually had one and returned it before mounting it.

I have a slightly different view of the drop test - within reason I like them. My Burris E1 hit the pavement last year after my buddy accidentally kicked it over. I've fallen and dropped my rifle, I've knocked them over leaning against a tree, I've had them thrown inside a gun case (airline) - in short a hunting rifle is going to incur significant impact from directions other than recoil. Throwing tests aren't overly repeatable but are better than simply hoping they don't move when the inevitable impact happens. I'm not a Stick fan but his throwing test was a bit extreme - but proved a point. I think its reasonable to do a 'drop test' like FormD did regardless of the exact impact direction/angle/velocity can't be exactly repeated.

An idea: a bunch of us could buy a Toric, send it to FormD to test, then sell it afterward and recover whatever money we can. I'd be in for $40. In my mind this is cheap R&D for all of us on the 'Fire. It would also be worth spending $40 to settle the 'debate'. Right now all we have is a couple of drop tests (FormD and JCMCubic) and 2 scopes that moved upon impact.........

What Im trying to state about the test is the fact that two different mounts were used in the test. When the rifle was dropped or thrown it land on different spots each time which can't be duplicated. Whose to say the scope didn't move in the mounts. I bet you can remove the glass from a rifle and drop it several times and if you reinstall the optic it could be off too. The test isn't valid. Too many variables come into play. We have a difference of opinion on this. I recently witnessed an expert witness conduct a test on a perps revolver. When it came time for him to testify they pulled him. I could have contradicted everything he did in his b.s. test. Without proper equipment and valid tests everything he did wouldn't hold up. Its like running two cars in a race with different tires and drivers.

BUSHNELL ELITE scopes use to have a try it for one year and if you don’t like it send it back for a full refund. I know it sounds a little crazy but being a new company trying to get off the ground with optics that aren’t cheap you may have to offer a similar warranty to let people decide for themselves.

I just ask to be given a fair chance. Since Tract is new it takes time to get up to speed.

Burris and STeiner ???????????????????????????

Need to state that on my test it could just have likely been the mounts or action seating, etc. SWFA 6x failed the same test....and again, it's just as likely it was another link in the rings/base/action chain. Both the Toric and the SWFA were rezero'd and all was well. The "test" I did isn't a fair test as it doesn't effect only the scope. Even if it was only the scope....it was an ~5' drop directly on the scope 3 times in a row....it's pretty harsh.

Same rifle with same Tract Toric scope took a long tumble down a steep hillside while hunting when a sling swivel stripped and was still zero'd when I checked it. It's adjusted perfectly with a lot of dialing and returned to 0 perfectly.

The only way I see to settle this is to do as bwinters suggests and have Tract send a Toric to Form to test (if he has the time and inclination....he may not want to mess with the drama). He tests in a standardized and repeatable manner. It could make or break Tract's reputation.

I’m not impressed by anyone that claims they’d take a bushnell over a S&B if their life was on the line.

for some, their life IS their wallet..

I think everyone knows the test was on the Response and that it was built in the Philippines although the test on the Response is used to denigrate the Toric, which wasn't tested and was built in Japan. (I explicitly stated this in an earlier post.) I have no need for a similar test on the Toric. I understood that Formidilous's testing methodology was for military purposes from his replies to me a couple of years ago. If I misunderstood his comments which included his photographs, I apologize.

I'm not sure I'm following you John. I certainly never said any such thing. Heck, I can't even afford a Bent Fender <G>

No you.

Form never “dropped” this scope.... hell, it barely made it to the tracking phase. If you go back and look, the scope wouldn’t even stay sighted in, and caused group size to double.

Top that off with Trevor’s BS about all the scopes being held to the same standard...and you can see when/why/how Tract went off the rails here on the fire.

This test wasn’t “military” style.... it wasn’t even “hunting abuse”. The scope flat out wouldn’t work under the most simple and mundane of all practices.... bench shooting groups. It didn’t hold zero, it didn’t return to zero, and it didn't track. End of story.

Why the hell would anyone ponytail up $40 on a Toric for Form to test. Tract oughta be sending him the best that they got, then thanking him afterwards. If it passes Form’s gauntlet, they’ll sell a few here..... if not, you can tell us we were right, and go back to the drawing board.

Disclaimer: Based on numerous recs here, and a few elsewhere, I'm very happy with the LRHS's I have bought. LIke them lots and lots. Liked the SWFA as well.

I think someone, anyone here on the 'fire who is emphatic about retesting should reach out to all of the scope sellers and try to get samples from each sent to Form so he can conduct the same tests. It would be interesting to see who responds. I'm betting very few, if any.

We don’t need to.... he’s already run most of them... and posted the results.

Tract started this whole thing, by planting Trevor, and subjecting their scope to Form for the first test, then dodging the results.

Hodges is doing damage control now, and failing to address the aforementioned test. There was no dropping or abuse of any sort.... they’re stuff just failed to perform. Tract should pony up and see if their scope, any of them, can pass the Pepsi Challenge.... like they attempted to do originally.

Gotcha. Good point that Formid has tested most of them.

I met the co founder of tract, I think his name is Jon at a local trade show a few months back. Nice guy who talked to me at length about optics. this can't be restated the scope formadillo tested was I think their cheapest line that is built in the Philippines. Probably the same factory that build nikon's stuff and likely vortex stuff too. The Toric line is built but LOW in japan. Please understand there is a huge gap in quality in a LOW japan scope and one built in china or the phillipines, let me say again HUGE gap. IMO LOW japan is involved is one of only a couple factories in the world capable of building scopes that track like we want. Heck its very possible they also build the SWFA SS scopes as well.

The way it works is optics companies spec what they want to these factories. These optics makers offer various standards that adhere to a price point. Want better tracking? spend more at LOW for a higher tracking spec. Same for glass quality. As time has went by all but a couple of my optics are LOW built or in the case of nightforce from my understanding LOW builds the parts and NF assembles it in the US. unless its some high end euro scope, LOW is the factory you want making your long range scope. with all that said formadillo needs to test a LOW built toric scope. I would be very very interested to see what he comes up with. The drop test he did IMO is extremely valid. While I don't agree with everything form spouts. I thought his testing was vary thorough and very interesting.

Lastly I told Jon, at tract what I thought. Frankly why buy a tract optic? its a boutique brand that in the past these companies have come and gone and you end up with an optic that has no resale and no support if it breaks. I told him they should focus on mechanical tracking. Frankly there are tons of other optics out there that IMO make a lot more sense to buy than a tract. However our options are limited on scopes that track mechanically. I think they should make this their trait rather than glass or anything else. put up some videos of the scopes being tested mechanically. Provide a guarantee the optic will function mechanically. basically sell us this over just another scope in a highly competitive market.

That makes a lot of sense. Just curious, how did he respond?