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

That's OK, JG. I'm correct in stating the probabilities. Some people will never abandon unsupportable positions.

Where is this list of significantly meaningful "duds"? From what I've read here the only tested Tract scope was a dud. One. Not 50%, not 30%...one. It was a randomly chosen scope which means the probability of it being a good example was as great as it being a dud.

I just looked at Tracts website and nothing jumps out at me as “man, I really gotta have one of those.” I do want to try one of their scopes and if I do it will probably be a 3-9 with a t-plex reticle.

It's nothing personal, nor specific to Tract. It takes a lot of positive, credible reports, and a long time-tested track record (tract record?) to establish the mechanical reliability and integrity of any new line of scopes. I'm certainly not going to make a mass migration to a new brand of scope based on a couple of guys saying that they happened to get a single scope that hasn't failed yet. IMO bhoges has done insufficient testing and is somewhat biased, MD has freely admitted that his report is based on a very limited sample, and Tract is also obviously very biased. So what are we left with, other than a few casual reports of "the glass is great and the scope seems to work properly...maybe"?

Well said, Jordan.

The math was simply used to illustrate a statistical point. I was not attempting to accurately model the failure rate of Toric scopes, since that is largely unknown still. You still don't seem to understand that I never said that Form's test is definitive or conclusive. In fact, I never said much at all about his test. Not sure what you're ranting about. To be honest, the scope he tested most likely had seen normal use before he got it. It's very unlikely that the few people who used it before he did attempted to destroy or abuse it. You're being ridiculous by implying that the good CF members here who used that scope before Form would throw it at a freight train or anything remotely close to that. They simply wanted to try it out, and Tract obliged. You have no clue what the history of that scope was, so stop pretending that you do. All we know is that a few other guys tried it out before Form got his hands on it. Period. While not definitive, Form's test is just as valuable as any other Tract mechanical test I've seen, and probably much more than most, due to methodology.

Show me where Form said that "his test had no validity whatsoever". You're making up BS, as per usual. I wasn't going to address your ridiculous claims, but then you made it personal. I'm not sure who, or what, you're talking about with your comments about my supposed "associations". I'm here to talk about guns, hunting, scopes, and related things. If somebody is discussing a topic I'm interested in, I may add my comments and experience to the discussion, regardless of who else is participating. I try to leave personal things out of these online discussions, as you may have noticed. I know a handful of the people on this forum personally, and that's about as far as it goes, despite your fantasized assumptions.

You're not getting it. The Toric has a certain failure rate, even though that rate is currently unknown until a much larger sample of the scopes is properly tested. Just because we don't know what the rate is, does not mean that it doesn't exist.

So far I know of 2 Tract failures, and slightly more positive reviews. Certainly not a confidence-inspiring ratio at this point. Every time a valid test surfaces, it's statistically meaningful. You need to re-visit your statistics if you think that random selection automatically equals a 50% probability of a particular outcome. Even though the true number is currently unknown, let's pretend that the Toric has a population rate of 1 in 30 failures within 1000 rounds fired or 50 miles carried while hunting. If you select a Toric scope at random for comprehensive testing, it has exactly a 1 in 30 chance of failing the test, and a 29 in 30 chance of passing. That is NOT the same as a 50:50 chance of that single scope, selected randomly, being a dud.

Since some of you don't like my reviews how about bashing my paint work. This was probably the uglyist Mcmillan Edge stock I've ever seen. I picked up an Anschutz used a few years back for dad. At the time he was 87 and holding a rifle offhand was getting tough. I got screwed and purchased a lemon off the web. Bad bedding, ruined barrel, and pretty much a half ass 22 benchers rifle. It went off to Mark Penrod for a new barrel and bedding. Now she shot great but was still ugly. My father loved the gun but I never had a chance to do the stock for him. He passed over a year ago and I wanted to finish it for him. It took a few days to fix all the pin holes and seams. I primed and blocked it 4x. I just applied the base coat and have to clear it still. Ill post pictures when its complete. I can't wait to see the finished project. My father would have loved it. If anyone has questions on refinishing wood, metal, or fiberglass I'm pretty good. My old life from 1990-1997 I was an automotive painter.

https://i.imgur.com/t9BftYP.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/OX18iL7.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/nf54LTP.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/4qpAzuj.jpg

It's looking great. I'm sure your dad will be proud of the finished product. Great way to honour him.

Your battle-worn rifle looks great, as well. The skull isn't my style, but the workmanship looks first class.

Someone let bhoges know DIYGuy hacked his account.

This thread has been very informative. Its rare that Ive seen such a lopsided thread with one side bashing or driving all the negative they can. I wonder if the Tract brand will ever be able to hold its face up against the level of negativity here.

JS , thank you for your condescension, my gut does fairly well at times. Oh when you have a chance could you delineate where in your statistical analysis we can find the horse or the cart.

No condescension intended, but take it as you will. There's nothing wrong with stating your experiences, but from what I can see they have limited value in assessing the mechanical integrity of your scope. That's all I meant to say, nothing more and nothing less.

Nobody is criticizing Tract's optical quality. Nobody is criticizing its willingness to attempt to listen to shooters. What you may have noticed is that we want to hear more about how the scopes compare mechanically against scopes such as the SWFA line, NF, Bushnell LRHS/DMR, etc, and we're not seeing it. I think there are lots of guys that are not about to buy a scope that is a big unknown in the mechanical department for $750-1000, when other options on the market, that are known quantities, exist in that price range. What we're really trying to say, is that if Tract wants to get an "in" with target shooters (who buy a lot more scopes than hunters), they should put a couple of their best scopes in the hands of testers we thoroughly trust based on a proven track record, and let the scopes prove themselves. I have a lot of faith in Form's opinion of how scopes do mechanically, as do a lot of other shooters here on 24HCF. If he tested the Toric and said it was mechanically good to go, I'd be a lot more inclined to try one out.

For the record, I would like Tract to succeed. I want their scopes to be as durable and integral as NF or SWFA SS. I want the company to listen to shooters and offer every feature we want. If my comments seem critical, they are intended to serve as constructive criticism. As happens on rare occasion, I agree with cumminscowboy in that if Tract wants to become established as a viable option for target shooters and hunters, they need to get the word out there that their scopes are reliable, accurate, and tough, since that is what currently matters most to many serious shooters. Leupold, for example, didn't establish their name as a leading scope manufacturer because the scopes wouldn't hold zero. They became mainstream because a lot of shooters and hunters felt that the scopes were plenty clear and bright, and held zero through hell or high water. Sadly, that is no longer the case for Leupold. Hopefully Tract is different.

Sorry guys, I don't know what else to tell you. I don't any information more then I've stated. I'd love to test some more scopes myself but I only have the one model currently. Tract needs a bigger budget to get more product out there for testing. My hands are tied.

Once again, it doesn't matter what you say or do. I believe your intentions are good and your reports are worth reading. Just be prepared to get schitttt slung your way any time you report anything is good and worthy other than SWFA, LRHS, NF.

You’re assuming again. You might as well say “let’s pretend”. You don’ t know the failure rate and neither do I. In selecting your sample each scope in the population to be tested has to have an equal chance of selection. Other than maybe the Tract founders, no one has a clue what the Tract failure rate will be. I don’t even believe one sample analyzed with an inferential statistical tool is enough. I think a track record of a lot of testing over a period of years would be more accurate. Until then, anyone claiming they know the failure rate of Tract Optic’s scopes is mistaken.

Ummmm, exactly?

Yes, I concur.

Particularly regarding Tract’s LOW produced optics, I can’t imagine LOW wouldn’t have mountains of data representing a swath of production and function metrics relevant to this discussion.

I wonder if they’ll share?

I’d think this sort of data would be used by their sales and business development folks as they seek to pen production deals with half of the industry.