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
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.
so kahles is the gold standard? umm watch otherwise.
another model with tracking error
Where does a guy get a few of these targets?
“Live free or die. Death is not the worst of evils.” - General John Stark.
NRA LIfe Member, Colt, Sig, Smith & Wesson, Springfield Armorer, NYBIN , NYPD Firearms Examiner, Serial Number Restoration, Cerakote, Gunkote, and Duracoat finishes
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
so kahles is the gold standard? umm watch otherwise.
another model with tracking error
Where does a guy get a few of these targets?
make your own. I used a large political campaign sign.
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
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.
My Kahles has CA under certain lighting conditions which is annoying because it creates a sensation of blurriness to my eyes. Does the Toric have any CA?
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.
Yup. Kinda amazing the amount of hard data wanted for a $700 purchase. Wonder if they insisted on that much info on their wives before they married them. Maybe Form would be willing to put prospective brides through their paces too.
Reading through all this, and I don't have a dog in the fight, Jordan remains one of the people I listen to when he speaks/types. Not because I agree with every word (most of them I do btw) but he stays on point, doesn't get in the mud, and can convey his thoughts accurately and precisely. And without throwing rocks......
I understand his statistical argument and agree. Odds are odds and the odds of 'coincidentally' acquiring a bad sample on yout first go-round are A. Telling, B. Pretty slim if a product does indeed have a low error rate.
Reading through all this, and I don't have a dog in the fight, Jordan remains one of the people I listen to when he speaks/types. Not because I agree with every word (most of them I do btw) but he stays on point, doesn't get in the mud, and can convey his thoughts accurately and precisely. And without throwing rocks......
I understand his statistical argument and agree. Odds are odds and the odds of 'coincidentally' acquiring a bad sample on yout first go-round are A. Telling, B. Pretty slim if a product does indeed have a low error rate.
Keep in mind the ones bashing the product have never tried a Track optic and ones that do own the Tract optics like them. Mule Deer’s review was favorable. I’m thinking of purchasing one.
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
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.
Yup. Kinda amazing the amount of hard data wanted for a $700 purchase. Wonder if they insisted on that much info on their wives before they married them. Maybe Form would be willing to put prospective brides through their paces too.
Tract's business model of marketing directly to consumers, especially by trying to sell on 24hourcampfire, means they are going to have some unique issues.
With an employee readily available online at a site where consumers hang out, Tract saved a step and cut out the middle-man. Several "downsides" to this model exist, as I see it. One is that they need a factory rep on the forum who really knows his product inside and out, and is actually able to hang with the forum crowd. So far, we haven't seen that from Tract. Another downside is that any problems with their product will be quickly aired on the forum, and brought back up every time the company brings out a new product. This can be seen with other examples, for instance when someone buys a new Kimber rifle, there's invariably a bunch of guys who comment about how previous rifles would only shoot 3 MOA or not feed or whatever.
Tract also should expect to receive some good old fashioned internet trolling when they have factory reps on an internet forum. Wouldn't matter the company or product, getting a tough time is just a fact of internet forum life.
Combine all that with an arrogant salesman (Trevor), followed by a failed scope test from a tester that people actually trust (Form), and they should expect to be raked through the coals.
The requests for better testing are a natural outgrowth of the direct to consumer sales model that Tract chooses to employ. Potential buyers have wanted this sort of testing for years, and their only recourse with other companies was to go through customer service, or they just complained to middle men about the issue and it was never sent up the chain. Here we are able to request it directly with Tract's rep.
If scope companies are testing to address tracking and zero retention issues, let the consumers know about it....and not some marketing BS about 10,000 Gs, let us know how the tests work - we're on internet forums to begin with because we're a bunch of nerds who want to know the ins and outs and technical side of our junk.
As far as asking for testing, we see the most talk about it here on the Tract threads, because the factory rep is here, but that doesn't mean folks aren't pushing for the same thing with other companies - I've sent emails to Leupold about their issues, for example. But this is all stuff that could be addressed by a thick-skinned, technically proficient factory rep.
I certainly see the positives of the direct to consumer model, such as eliminating all the associated costs of a middle-man. But a downside is that if you choose to market on internet forums, your salesmen better have their big boy panties on, because internet forums are a tough arena.
Another potential downside of Tract's model is that their forum representative's behaviors reflect directly on the company. If I buy a Leupold at Sportsman's Whorehouse, and the obnoxious counter guy screws around for twenty minutes bringing the scope out of the back, and then shows up with the wrong scope, I don't blame Leupold for the poor service, the blame is laid at the foot of Sportsman's. With the direct to consumer model, any poor interactions with the salesman results in blame placed on the company...cough...cough.....Trevor.
So a factory rep has to navigate the nuances of internet land, trying not to fall in the myriad minefields, while maintaining good rapport. Doug from Cameraland should teach classes on internet sales, as he's the master of navigating internet forum sales. And Tract should send all their internet guys, whether "testers" or whatever they choose to be labeled, to Doug's class.
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.
Yup. Kinda amazing the amount of hard data wanted for a $700 purchase. Wonder if they insisted on that much info on their wives before they married them. Maybe Form would be willing to put prospective brides through their paces too.
You bring up a good point. I assume you met you wife and had a shotgun wedding the next day? Some guys, like myself, are sticklers and wanted to get some “hard data” by dating their prospective wives for 6, 12, or even 24 whole months before committing.
ctsmith was absolutely right when he said, essentially, that guys who havent’t experienced many scope failures may not worry about the track record of their chosen scope models so much. I’ve personally lost enough hair, and spend enough time, frustration, and money diagnosing and dealing with scope failures, that these days I stick with using scopes that I know are going to work properly and keep on ticking, based on their historical mechanical integrity and failure rate. It’s not just the $700 that I’m gambling, it’s also the cost of ammo and the time invested that I lose when working with faulty gear. It’s the same reason that I have a used car thoroughly inspected before buying- I want to do my due diligence before buying, to make sure I’m not getting into something that will only cause me headaches down the road. When Daewoo came out with their line of cars, some people looked at the spec sheet and jumped on board, while others waited for the Consumer Reports and reliability feedback to come out before taking a gamble. This is no different.
Reading through all this, and I don't have a dog in the fight, Jordan remains one of the people I listen to when he speaks/types. Not because I agree with every word (most of them I do btw) but he stays on point, doesn't get in the mud, and can convey his thoughts accurately and precisely. And without throwing rocks......
I understand his statistical argument and agree. Odds are odds and the odds of 'coincidentally' acquiring a bad sample on yout first go-round are A. Telling, B. Pretty slim if a product does indeed have a low error rate.
Keep in mind the ones bashing the product have never tried a Track optic and ones that do own the Tract optics like them. Mule Deer’s review was favorable. I’m thinking of purchasing one.
John,
If you give one a try, please use the crap out of it and report back. I’m sure there are several people here that would appreciate another reliable data point.
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.
Yup. Kinda amazing the amount of hard data wanted for a $700 purchase. Wonder if they insisted on that much info on their wives before they married them. Maybe Form would be willing to put prospective brides through their paces too.
Tract's business model of marketing directly to consumers, especially by trying to sell on 24hourcampfire, means they are going to have some unique issues.
With an employee readily available online at a site where consumers hang out, Tract saved a step and cut out the middle-man. Several "downsides" to this model exist, as I see it. One is that they need a factory rep on the forum who really knows his product inside and out, and is actually able to hang with the forum crowd. So far, we haven't seen that from Tract. Another downside is that any problems with their product will be quickly aired on the forum, and brought back up every time the company brings out a new product. This can be seen with other examples, for instance when someone buys a new Kimber rifle, there's invariably a bunch of guys who comment about how previous rifles would only shoot 3 MOA or not feed or whatever.
Tract also should expect to receive some good old fashioned internet trolling when they have factory reps on an internet forum. Wouldn't matter the company or product, getting a tough time is just a fact of internet forum life.
Combine all that with an arrogant salesman (Trevor), followed by a failed scope test from a tester that people actually trust (Form), and they should expect to be raked through the coals.
The requests for better testing are a natural outgrowth of the direct to consumer sales model that Tract chooses to employ. Potential buyers have wanted this sort of testing for years, and their only recourse with other companies was to go through customer service, or they just complained to middle men about the issue and it was never sent up the chain. Here we are able to request it directly with Tract's rep.
If scope companies are testing to address tracking and zero retention issues, let the consumers know about it....and not some marketing BS about 10,000 Gs, let us know how the tests work - we're on internet forums to begin with because we're a bunch of nerds who want to know the ins and outs and technical side of our junk.
As far as asking for testing, we see the most talk about it here on the Tract threads, because the factory rep is here, but that doesn't mean folks aren't pushing for the same thing with other companies - I've sent emails to Leupold about their issues, for example. But this is all stuff that could be addressed by a thick-skinned, technically proficient factory rep.
I certainly see the positives of the direct to consumer model, such as eliminating all the associated costs of a middle-man. But a downside is that if you choose to market on internet forums, your salesmen better have their big boy panties on, because internet forums are a tough arena.
Very well said. Completely agree with your assessment of the business side of things.
My testing involves, first of all, me personally purchasing the scope. Yes, I run a box/tracking test, then proceed to load workup, and verifying stuff out to 600 yds (far as my range goes). Then I proceed to kill the ever lovin' schittt outa hogs....hundreds of them per year with said scope and various bullets. Throw in about 20 cull whitetail does a year, a whitetail and muley buck or two, another 5-10 aoudad culls, and that would be the extent of my scope testing. I'd guess (and it's purely a guess) that only 10% of this shooting required dialing.
In 46 years of doing this, I've had only one scope, a Swaro A 3-10x42 go tits up while actually shooting at an animal, which happened to be a big 190" mule deer buck. Shot the poor thing to pieces. I had one other scope, a leupy VX3 that quit tracking so I sent it back, they fixed it and installed a B&C reticle, and all is well again after a couple of years of "testing". Swaro fixed that scope and I sold it.
I don't give a flying crap about probabilities, forumulas, extrapolating failures, or any other crap like that. I test gear like I test gear, described above. Once again, the Toric is performing very well.
Feel free to tell me what's wrong with my testing procedure.
It is irrelevant what you think. What matters is the TRUTH.
If you give one a try, please use the crap out of it and report back. I’m sure there are several people here that would appreciate another reliable data point.
I'm doubtful that many would take note if it was a positive report. If it was a negative report I'm quite certain that all would consider it gospel.
My testing involves, first of all, me personally purchasing the scope. Yes, I run a box/tracking test, then proceed to load workup, and verifying stuff out to 600 yds (far as my range goes). Then I proceed to kill the ever lovin' schittt outa hogs....hundreds of them per year with said scope and various bullets. Throw in about 20 cull whitetail does a year, a whitetail and muley buck or two, another 5-10 aoudad culls, and that would be the extent of my scope testing. I'd guess (and it's purely a guess) that only 10% of this shooting required dialing.
In 46 years of doing this, I've had only one scope, a Swaro A 3-10x42 go tits up while actually shooting at an animal, which happened to be a big 190" mule deer buck. Shot the poor thing to pieces. I had one other scope, a leupy VX3 that quit tracking so I sent it back, they fixed it and installed a B&C reticle, and all is well again after a couple of years of "testing". Swaro fixed that scope and I sold it.
I don't give a flying crap about probabilities, forumulas, extrapolating failures, or any other crap like that. I test gear like I test gear, described above. Once again, the Toric is performing very well.
Feel free to tell me what's wrong with my testing procedure.
I actually rely on your testing procedure and experience, JGRaider, as well as some other hunters that I read on the forum and on this topic..
