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

Yup that was all before my time. Im still trying to find the location of the one scope that came back. Im waiting for Jon to go to the warehouse. I wish things moved faster.

What do you mean by this? Go over with Jon, or with the viewers here?

Since a very vocal minority have been clamoring to have Tract send more scopes to various Campfire members for independent testing, the logical conclusion would be that he meant he didn't know how releasing more scopes for "Campfire" testing would go over with Jon.

If I were a manufacturer I’d be very reluctant to send product such as a scope to internet experts to conduct “testing”. I’d want to see some level of credibility and know it was unbiased, relevant and repeatable testing methods.

Maybe we need a standardized ‘Campfire’ testing procedure. A set of steps to measure low light, clarity, dialing, zero retention and so on.

Yeah.

I thought Form's was pretty rigorous and still repeatable. Muledeer's was as well. ....other azzhat's might do something like dropping them...

Where is Form’s, or do you recall what it was?

I'm not a business man, but I'm failing to see the logic in having someone on here to represent the brand again. All it seems to have done is rip the scab off.

There’s a link in this thread somewhere....

Form didn’t even get to test the scope... it went tits-up before any testing could begin.

It was Tract’s idea to send out the scopes.... not forum members.

Tract wanted Campfire feedback.... until the feedback was poor.

Tract then made some bold statements about all their products being built and tested to the same standard, and vowed to investigate the “bad” scope and report back.

Tract then disappeared for a while, until they thought their failure had blown over.

Now Tract is back, with a “spokesman” who doesn’t seem interested in any of the above, and wants a clean slate.... but doesn’t want to finish what Tract started here.

The campfire provided a service to Tract..... not the other way around.

Most of the time, when bad stuff happens.... it’s not about what happened... it’s what you do about what happened.

The only way to regain full credibility here.... after you schitt the bed.... is to sleep in it. Send out another scope for testing. If it passes well with one or two guys.... then you’ll gain a lot of favor. If it bombs again... they can bail outta the campfire and keep on marketing via Outdoor Life.

Oh, I'm sure someone "got really busy" or "didn't know what to do with it or who to send it to"....

Well put!

If you read my post I'm very interested in getting those scopes back and see what went wrong. I'd like to shoot them myself. Sorry guys, I'm here to help to a point but its not in my power to send out scopes.

I am going to say this, and it not meant to be contrary in any way. I respect what you are trying to do here. As I mentioned earlier, it's almost a no-win situation for a manufacturer's rep to be an active participant in a forum. Even when things are perfect you'll find blowhards who want nothing more than to run you or your product down. Then when things don't go perfect, you'll have a big bullseye placed squarely on your forehead.

Your product has a reputation here. You know what it is. It is not going to change unless YOU (meaning you and Tract) do something to change it. So Tract has a decision to make. Maintain the status quo or take a bold step to change forum perception. From a cost/benefit risk/gain standpoint, here's the way I see it. Find a way to get several scopes out to the folks the forum trusts the most. You know who they are. Let them run them through the paces. If the scopes perform the way they should then you have made great strides in restoring or building credibility. If they fail under heavy testing, then your reputation remains as it is. But you can get those scopes back and figure out what went wrong and how you can fix it. You would really like to know wouldn't you? Your actual cost in getting out 4-6 scopes would be nominal in the grand scheme of marketing costs, and frankly, I don't see that you have a whole lot to lose. Oh, and it is unlikely you are going to get the previous scopes back, so I'd abandon that hope.

So that's my sideline evaluation of the situation. I really would like to see Tract succeed. I appreciate any company that has the balls to step into a forum and participate.

I have not posted in this thread as it has (had) nothing to do with me and much prior experience has shown me that critical discussions do not go well with company reps. However as it seems there is confusion and or inference of what happened or did not happen with the Tract scope I was sent- so here we go.


First a bit of background-

Anyone can think anything they want about testing, repeatability, legitimacy, or relevance of how to evaluate a scope. The reality is I evaluate them as needed for field use. Will a 12” drop on a padded mat pass strict peer review in a controlled study? No. But it is absolutely a legitimate test to tell if a scope will hold zero: if the mounts and gun are beyond reproach. I was the lead on the most intensive and largest scope evaluation/test that has ever been conducted within the DOD- 18 months, 200,000 rounds with every single legitimate scope in that category being tested. For the first time scopes were tested for absolute function with no bias whatsoever by knowledgeable end users- not engineers that have no idea what we do with aiming devices. Tracking, adjustment error, zero retention, return to zero, side and top impacts, longevity under recoil, SFP vs FFP, mil vs MOA, and operational performance. Scopes were zeroed on guns with brand new barrels with a certain lot on ammunition and checked for zero retention constantly with only that lot.

Only two scopes came out of that not having failure- Nightforce and SWFA. The results of that project is being used by two major entities of the DOD to shape what and how they test optics.







Now for the Tract-

I did not ask for the Tract in any way. I said no when I was contacted about it being sent to me as I knew what the fallout would be from the “rep” and the company if it did poorly. It was stated by both the person that had it and the “rep” that they wanted it sent to me. I plainly stated how it would be tested, what I was looking for, and that if it failed it would probably be non-functional when Tract got it back. I also reiterated that I did not think they would like what the results would be, and that they should probably send it to someone else. That if it was “good” everyone would know it, and if it failed everyone would know. It was insisted that I test it. I also asked if they wanted me to replace the mount with another, I was told “nope” it’s good. Ok.

Well guess what? When mounted to a rifle of absolute consistency it produced 10 round groups of two-times the normal. It failed the most basic task a scope has- zeroing, holding POI during recoil, and zero retention. There was no malice, no bias, no subjective feelings, no “beliefs”, no “I wish”, no nonsense. It was tested exactly like every other scope I test/eval right up until the point it failed. That scope was sent back to Tract.





I did not ask for, and advised against it being sent to me because it was, and is, plainly obvious that Tract and their reps like almost every other company will try to hem and haw their way out of the results when it goes against their beliefs instead of owning it and improving the product. EVERY company, rep, engineer, and person will claim all day long how they want real results, and honest feedback.... right up until it goes against their product, their most recent purchase, or their favorite. People do not want truth- they want bliss. I’m happy to work with any company that actually desires to produce solid products, but I have no time for marketing, “features”, or salesman.


There has been calls to send me another Tract- DO NOT send me one. You won’t own the results.

That's about a wrap folks..

I love the sound of a good Mic drop...

Thanks for the clarification.

That was pretty good wasn't it?

I agree what else can I say. Failures can and do happen. That's why I'd love to see what failed on that scope. It would be great to send it back to the factory and have it diagnosed.

That scope is on a shelf somewhere.... right next to Tom Brady’s cell phone and Hillary’s emails......

Funny how damning evidence seems to disappear.

This is very interesting to me.

Are the testing and results something that can be made public? It would be very interesting to see which scopes failed and in which area(s) they failed.