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

Thanks for clarifying and explaining your testing Mule Deer. That was helpful. I suppose that If there was a scope that I wasn't comfortable with or didn't like for any other reason, I would likely refrain from buying it and wouldn't be asking anyone to send me one so I can see if I can make it fail but that's just me.

[


its not "abuse" its simply testing the scope. did you watch the video I showed of NF testing procedures? They have a fixture that checks the scopes zero retention. They also check erector travel with some sort of machine. The point isn't to video abuse, but rather show the scope passing a factory test that includes simulated recoil and accuracy of adjustment. I have my own testing I conduct on every scope I mount now. I would video the view through the scope but I am not sure what people are using to do that. Here is some testing I would like to see as part of what I am talking about. this is similiar to the setup I do, I just don't know how this guy videos it.

When you are not a turret twister, other factors have more priority. I looked at the SHV 3-10 for my needs. It looks like a nice compact hunting scope without some of the features I don't need. I can't get it with the No. 4 reticle NF offers in other markets. It's eye relief is a stated 3.5" which is about 0.25" too short for me. I would have to try one or at least look through one on a rifle to be sure I could use it, but I have not kept any of the scopes I have tried with a 3.5" eye relief after shooting with them.

If I could get the SHV with a tad more eye relief and the No. 4 reticle, I probably would have taken a plunge on an SHV. The Toric meets most of my expectations and exceeds my expectations for the image. It's advantage is in value for the money. I did look at the choices for 10x magnification, 4' eye relief, fast focus eyepiece, no parallax adjustment and a hunting reticle. It seems to me there was more choice for this simple a scope a few years ago. (Zeiss V4 goes from a 1-4x to a 3-12x56 or 4-16X44, both with 3.5" eye relief, and long range reticles.) The scope that meets my needs perfectly on paper is the Schmidt & Bender Summit 2.5-10x40 with a No. 4 reticle. I don't know if they are still being manufactured. If you do find one, they cost around $2K. The Toric 2-10X42 with its glass, the T-Plex reticle and a cost of $725 is great value compared to that.

Cowboy, start a new thread on your favorite.

The top brands don't do this, so think about that.

Targetsusa.com sells something called a scope tool on their sight. You mount a scope on it and with a reference target you move the turret through its adjustments and it'll show if the adjustments are repeatable. You could set it up and dial a scope daily for a few weeks and get a feeling on its ability. Not explaining myself very well but check it out. 250 bucks. And you could do a mechanical tracking test.

Seems someone here used to espouse Leupold beating the Hell out of every scope to test it...

are you needing this for a magnum rifle? there is a downside to extra eye relief. there is not cheating or avoiding the optical triangle. more eye relief less FOV. Also the image is further from your eyes which makes the scope power setting appear less, I mount my scopes so that I have to slightly move forward a touch. basically pull the gun into my shoulder pocket just a bit for the best view at the highest power. Lower powers eye relief is less critical which is most of my shooting off hand. most of the other times I am shooting on high power maybe I am prone. in this case I am not having to snug the gun to my shoulder rather I am more over it. I think careful mounting can really help. I never have a problem personally, but I don't shoot magnum boomers either. my hardest recoil is probably 280 ackley loading full house.

leupold and many of the euro stuff has more eye relief. I don't really like it. I prefer the way japanese optics typcially are. which is to say shorter eye relief generally.

Thanks for a courteous and civil reply on this particular series of posts.

I became accustomed to more than 4" of eye relief with Leupold 6x36's and 6x42's for most of my life. I mostly shoot .308 Winchester although I have added 7.62x39 and will add 6.5 Creedmoor later this year.

Others have mentioned the need for longer eye relief when shooting prone or uphill but that does not apply to me, so I can't comment. Eye relief does vary with position. I notice the difference in shooting from the bench and from offhand.

Eyeglasses affect the usable eye relief and the effect on the optic triangle varies with the prescription. Its the scope hitting the polycarbonate lens in my eyeglasses less than an inch away from my eye that gets my attention. The Swarovski PH 1-6x42's and 2.5-1042's that I used for a couple of years had 3.5" of eye relief and spring mounted eye pieces that gave and rebounded if they hit your eyebrow or glasses. In my case, they did hit and rebound. I was never comfortable with that.

I am quite willing to trade FOV for eye relief in scopes. In binoculars, FOV is more important to me but I still look for 18-20mm of eye relief. I find that the larger eyepieces common on scopes these days take care of image size issues even if you have to mount the scope a bit higher to clear the bolt. I was worried about the Meopta MeoPro 6x42 with its 3.75" of eye relief after using the Leupolds and Zeiss Conquests with 4 inches of relief, but the Meopta is very accommodating to varying vision needs. The Toric in my limited use so far accommodates vision issues well.

How to void the warranty on your ATV...

That video actually had me laughing!

I have a Kimber 84M in 338 Federal that seems to have taken on the hobby of ruining scopes. The last two anyway. Maybe I'll try one of these next.

I bring up SWFA, because they work. I've paid for all of my SWFAs.

Also, I would possibly purchase a Tract if they had a scope I wanted, which would stay sighted in. The subject was broached to Trevor about making something along the lines of an SWFA 3-9, with a low profile, covered windage turret, zero stop, and ~3.75" of eye relief.

You're the tester, yet you don't seem willing to perform the tests that guys want to see. Knowing that a scope might actually stay in line during everyday bangs and bumps is an important test, and if you feel that other tester's methods are off, then make a test you'd find to be valid. Otherwise, without further testing (since we've already seen the scopes to be knocked out of line - more testing could sway the results the other direction) there's just a big unanswered question looming over Tract, which many of us aren't going to pay to find out the answer to with our own money.

I’ve been playing air guitar all morning.

Yes, this! A scope made for hunting. All I want is a low profile, covered turret scope with good eye relief that dependably holds zero during a challenging hunt. A fixed 6 power (or no more than a 3-9 variable) with less than a 40mm objective, weighing less than 16-17 ounces or so. Preferably with a simple duplex/plex or LR duplex/ballistic plex reticle.

Mule Deer,

Thank you for the clarification




Trystan

Tract Toric 2-10x42. Comes with a covered (or can be left exposed) zero-stopped elevation turret (max 18 MOA with zero stop). Capped windage. Simple T-plex (great hunting reticle). 4" eye relief. 18.6 oz

I've had there 3-9x40 turion on my .50 cal muzzle loader since last year. With more than a hundred rounds fired with a 150 gr. charge and 250 gr. bullets . It's has stayed spot on the best groups my muzzleloader has shot. It went on my sons hunt in arizona unit 12b bumped around in the back of a 2 seater ranger and gun scabbard for 5 days before making a 150 yard shot dead on with drop provided by the reticle and there ballistic calculator. So far a much better muzzleloader scope than the nikon that went tits up twice and the leupold it replaced. I also have a 3-15 Toric that has been spot on on my winchester feather weight 270 wsm. Bumped around in a honda pioneer for three days before Making a 350 yard shot on a mexico couse buck last year with distance dialed in. These are the real tests of a true hunting scope in my opinion. So far they have done well. Granted I will be buying a NF for my semi custom build for a long range couse rifle.

Ha, I have one, and so far have nothing but good things to say about it with limited use. But it's not what I consider low profile with the large turrets. Perhaps I should have said smaller profile turrets rather than low profile.

Needs to be mil/mil.

That is SO fuggin fake!! If the scope was functioning correctly that Kimber would be shooting 3 MOA..