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

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

Simply wondering bhoges background, my apologies If the question came off as facetious. Don't keep up with PRS or any of the other shooting sports, don't attend SHOT or have any industry connections etc...Was simply wondering if he is a competitor in the shooting sports, industry insider, LEO/mil, marketing executive..... Nice to know someone's background when reading reviews and opinions on a farly new product line

People have to realize there is a big difference between military grade optics and hunting grades.

We know that a bomb proof and accurately tracking "military grade" scope does not just happen, it is developed, manufactured, and tested with such as a priority. It comes at a cost; weight and $$$$. And even so, some still do no make the grade.

One of the interesting things that Form has mentioned is NF's testing. If I understand correctly, EVERY NF scope (non-SHV?) is tested before it leaves, which is where the NF sticker comes in. The number of "problem" scopes that get to the public may be reduced by this testing. Even over-building the scopes for ruggedness, I'm curious how many issues they catch doing this?

Failure rate would be good info.

John (Hondo64D) called NF last week and talked to them at length. They subject the SHV's to the same testing, which led to his purchase of a big SHV.

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.

The point I'm trying to make is just because the first scope you pick is a dud doesn't mean you can infer that that scope and/or scope manufacturer is going to have a higher failure rate on their scopes than a manufacturer that did not yield a dud on the first scope you grab. As you note, they are all random picks, and as such each scope, dud or not, has an equal chance of being selected. If you get a dud on the first pick, it is more than likely bad luck rather than the manufacturer's bad product. Now, if a lot of people are getting duds (which according to folks who are running the Tract Optics, is not the case) on the first random selection then you have an argument for poor manufacturing/quality and poor QC.

I wanteda barn gun, so I got an especially cheap Rem 783 in 223 for less than 300$ with a toy scope on it. Discarded it and put one of the utterly useless "Response" 2.5-10 scopes on it. This was done just to see if the scope was worth the bucks, and the rifle as one i didnt care about scratching it. It gets tossed in the truck, dogs have knocked it down and it has been handled with little respect since I got it last year. Sighting in was done without any special effort, the optics are quite respectable even compared with Meostars, dialing seems to follow the designated specs and it has held zero. Any dialing on turrets seems to be spot on. The vermin zapper will pop a 4" steel plate virtually 100% at 300M.
I find the styling a bit clunky, but the glass is all I could ask for compared to some more pricey scopes. The mechanics to date have been reliable as far as i have used them. I have not run the little thing thru any scientifically valid testing but the seat of my pants says it was money reasonably spent. So here we have one scope selected at random that performs as advertised that is counterpoised against one that has failed miserably. My only conclusion is that mine was truly random and paid for by me alone and as such I am satisfied.
My qualifications are nebulous. I have been a BR shooter for over 30 years, successful at times. I have broken a handful of scopes a few respected names and Iv probably fired well over 100K rounds from 22rf to 375 family.

Prs shooters are sponsored. They also have specific shooting needs that don't fit very close to hunting. Many prs would probably use something else. If they were choosing. I bet a lot less vortex would be used

This is my point. Every single “dud” you test is statistically meaningful, and the more duds you have, the more statistically meaningful they become. Not enough legitimate, 3rd-party testing of Tract scopes has taken place yet to have any statistically meaningful information about their correct functioning and longevity.

I’d disagree about a single dud being more likely bad luck than indicative of the failure rate of the product. That depends on the failure rate of the population of the product. If the failure rate is 50%, then you getting a single failure is not just a case of bad luck, but is indicative of the probability of getting a dud. In that case, you are as likely to get a dud as a good scope. But if the failure rate is 1 in 1,000,000, then getting a dud is indeed a case of very bad luck.

It is quite obvious that no matter what bhoges, MD, anyone who has experience (actual use), or evenTract themselves says or could say about this new line of scopes (and binos) will be half way satisfied with anything posted. It will be picked, nitpicked, and raked over the coals to death, quite obviously. We'll keep using the one I have to smack steel, hogs, and mule deer.