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

LMAO

Yes they will (I have already brought one in). They will export to NZ, Australia and Canada. The end cost to me was about $450 NZ$

Interesting, and thanks for this.

I went to the site and found this: "SWFA, Inc. is now authorized to export to the Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom only. International customers should contact InternationalSWFA.com for all inquiries and special order instructions".

So I might be able to do a comparison with the Tract Topic under our NZ conditions.

I'm tempted to give the Toric 4-20X50 a try on my AR .308. I'm torn between the 3-15 and this for hunting and targets. Curious to see how it would do against my Kahles K624I. The Outdoor Life Optics Test seems to indicate it has fantastic glass even compared to Swarovski and Zeiss.
https://www.outdoorlife.com/sites/o...mport/2016/riflescopes.png?itok=NEbbvG8T

How interesting that these are the Five Eyes countries that share intelligence.

Scotty, Kahles is probably one of the best tactical scopes out there. I was checking out the new 3-18x compact at SHOT. Even though the Tract has excellent glass it just doesn't compare to a 3k scope. I loved the Kahles turrets. Might be a purchase down the road for me. Tract 30mm scope is a great mid level scope for long range shooting. Its not extremely heavy and has excellent glass. You just don't have reticle choices or other features the high end companies offer.

Bhoges,
Probably a stupid question, but what is your background/qualifications that makes you uniquely qualified to represent/test/review rifle optics.
If this has been covered or is a known quantity, please forgive me for asking. Just want to know who's advice I'm considering.

Jackmountain what are your qualifications for asking a stupid fffucking question like that?

The absolute most important feature of any scope used for tactical or long range applications is reliable, accurate, and durable mechanics. What has been your experience with the mechanics of the Kahles and 30mm Toric that make you say that they are great in those roles?

One test by anyone does not give an absolute indicator of reliability. Funny that you praise John’s test of one scope, and with the next sentence denigrate Form’s test of one scope.

Having said that, a single test that reveals a failure is far more telling than a single test that shows no failure. Here’s why: if it were possible to thoroughly test every scope of a given model, we may notice a trend of one failure in 100 scopes, for example. If we test one scope from this batch we expect to see no failure, as the probability of the scope passing the test is 99 in 100. Another model of scope may have a failure rate of 1 in 10. If we put all the scopes of both models in a pile and randomly test two scopes, with neither showing a failure, we don’t know whether we are testing the scope with one failure in 10, or one in 100. But if our random two tests both show scope failures, it becomes much more likely that we are testing a scope with a high failure rate, due to the likelihood of randomly getting a failure. A scope test that leads to failure says a lot more about the scope then a test showing a scope working the way it supposed to.

I am watching from a distance. But so far I have seen nothing in the line I would be interested in.

For my own use (and many clients I know, who have hunted with me and talked over the issue) I am waiting on a bomb-proof fixed 4X with a 4 MOA set of hash marks, 30MM tube, 40-46MM Objective lens and NOTHING else.

That one should be followed with a 2.5X and then a 6X One the 2.5 please keep the 30MM tube and at least a 36MM lens.
Just a set of hunters scopes.

The industry seems to be oblivious to this fact, but there is a large section of shooters out here that don't want any widgets and gizmos, and do not drink the cool aid.

Basically we want an up-grade on a Weaver K4, a K2.5 and and K6, but made tough enough to pound nails, and with the light transmission we can get with the 30MMM tube and large objective.

A scope is a sight. It's something to aim with. Many of the new ones seem to be designed to entertain tecno-nerds and that's absolutely ok and it's good for them. Many are very good marksmen too and are being catered to quite well by you and everyone else in the industry.

But there are many who want a simple sight that we can aim with, that's 100% dependable, and has just a simple set of marks to do ranging with.

All good and dedicated rifleman will learn their trajectory and wind drifts pretty fast, and don't need the gizmos to calculate all the things groups and target shooters like.

There are still a few million hunters out here that don't want those kind of do-dads..

Any chance your company would pay attention to us?

In the mean time my 24 year old old Vari-X3 on an even older 30-06 FN Mauser delivered a few weeks ago.

Some around here might credit the tape on the barrel before the Leupold.

so kahles is the gold standard? umm watch otherwise.



another model with tracking error

He didn't denigrate forms test! He said, "One test by Form should not be any picture of reliability" Do you really disagree with that statement?

Concerning Johns statements in his post I believe farmboy1 was most likely referring to the part where John had tested the Toric but also several others John knows have tested the Toric with the same results. Likewise a number of others have tested Tract scopes who are posting on this very thread and have experienced the same sort of results as John. Admittedly non of them were doing drop tests so I can see that being a valid argument.

It would sure be nice to get to the bottom of the SWFA logistics that enabled the company to have scopes built for $300. My guess is taxpayers dollars due to government involvement and likely a few strings pulled by someone who knows someone. I highly doubt Tract nor anyone else for that matter is going to compete with SWFA unless somehow the federal government gets involved and they get $800 for a hammer and $1200 for a toilet seat!

I've personally worked for the federal government and the stuff that goes on behind closed doors would make your head spin....or maybe not.
The fact that the feds were involved with the SS scope certainly opens possibilities and in a big way IME




Trystan

To state a statistical probability, first, you must randomly select a test group. Randomly means each scope in the total number of scopes has an equal chance of being chosen for the test group. These tests that involve only one scope and that scope fails tells us one thing - that scope failed. You can't validly generalize to the rest of those same model scopes, and especially not to the entire line of scopes and infer they have a higher failure rate than other scopes based on a single scope test. If a random selection was made then you have an equal chance of grabbing a "bad" scope on your first grab as you would on your 30th pick if your n = 30.

You are randomly selecting a scope every time you buy one and the retailer randomly picks one off the shelf. Not sure what point you’re trying to make. If a model of scope has a failure rate of 1 in 1000 over the entire population, and you randomly select a sample of 30 test scopes, chances are high that you will see zero failures in those tests.

I know a guy who took a company public that offered a line of consumer products. 500 million IPO. He told me that you need a 6:1 or greater cost to retail value to make it. so a $600 scope would cost $100. I personally don't think there is that much mark up in these scopes, but I do bet its 4:1 or greater. so SWFA selling a $300 scope means, there is no money that a retailer needs to make because SWFA is the retailer. automatically between marketing and lack of retail spread. They can sell a scope that would retail for $600 for half the price. The price isn't a huge deal here. I think there are lots of people that would pay $1k for a scope with bomb proof tracking, with more features that the swfa SS line

WOW I'm surprised but I guess there are duds in eery batch. Many PRS shooters are using them. I wonder if he leveled the target and the scope on the first test. The second video with the parallax issue is pretty wild. It goes to show even a 3k scope can be defective. I know friends with S&B scopes that have issues. [bleep] happens.