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

I’m ordering. 3-15X50 topic UHD

I don’t need any experience with their scopes.... to know I don’t believe a word that comes out of their collective mouths....

It doesn't surprise me at all. I've come to expect this gang mentality of aggression from the self appointed "Hero Crowd" that is pushed toward any who might disagree or refuse to answer what amounts to ignorant lines of reasoning. What does surprise me is that not one of these "self appointed" Heroes and Leaders of the feeble minded will step up and test a Toric scope so that the masses of us lowly peasants have an example to follow.

Thankfully a few real Men have not only tested the Tract Toric for those of us who are interested but they have also been kind enough to post there results that are based on experience. These Men are real leaders and they haven't even self appointed one another. Instead they just go forth and lead by actually doing something! Imagine that!!!




Trystan

You just can't help yourself can you? I the south that means you have to keep on and on and on and on.

Speaking of not believing a word out of their mouth....

If I'm bhoges, or tract I'm pming, thrystan and Rick, and Sysops, and Ingwe and Deflave begging someone to get him to stop promoting my product.

More 25yd scope tests please..

John, I have a lot of respect for you, your posts, and writings. However, your post above is inconsistent with my typical view. You seem to have a dog in this fight as you defend the "illogical" statements by Tract,that all their scopes are built to the same standard. Why would you go out on a limb to defend the company? This seems like a bad position to take. You're basically saying that Tract is wrong in their statements, yet you jump in to support them. Weird thing to do for Joe-Average, but a conflict of interest when you're a journalist, don't you think?

Also, I think you're getting confused and pointing fingers at people, "who've never even seen any model of Tract scope, much less mounted one on a rifle". I don't think anyone who's complaining about Tract's online behavior has stated that they have ANY experience with Tract scopes. We are discussing the inconsistent information and behavior of Tract. This has, and should, cause some people to be suspicious of the company. But what you are saying is that we need to buy a Tract before we are allowed to have an opinion. I don't think this holds water.

I encourage all the Tract defenders to reread the thread. I don't think any one of the people painted as "anit-Tract" made any claims as outlined by the Tract defenders.

And I standby my statement. Tract has a captive audience. It's a great opportunity, if they seize it. Trevor and bhoges have folded.

John,

I'm respectfully asking for links or references to your claim. I want to see the results of a "bunch" of tests of the Toric.

Thanks,

Jason

And for reference, the post below sums it up really well, for me and some others.

But yeah, I've not owned or mounted a Tract Toric, so I guess I'm not allowed to have an opinion. And neither is anyone else. But if you've tested or owned one or two Tract scopes, this increases the statistical confidence level enough

I did a drop test on the Toric 3-15, testing it alongside an 6x42 and an SWFA 3-9. They all stayed in line, and the Tract tract fine afterwards (bad pun, but it did track fine afterwards).

That being said, I thought the Tract was just ok. Field of view was somewhat lacking, and the eyepiece was really large and could interfere with bolt handles, plus the scope in general is yuge. If it was a 300-400 dollar scope I'd think it would be alright, but for the asking price I'd probably look towards an Nighforce SHV, or hit the easy button and buy another SWFA 3-9.

Thanks prairie_goat.

Jason

Jason,

I'm simply pointing out that people on BOTH sides in this are illogical. Tract is illogical in their statement that all their scopes are built to the same standard, when some are built in one of the top optics factories in Japan (where a bunch of other reliable "dialing" scopes are built}, and others are built elsewhere in Asia.

Many Campfire members are illogical in their belief that because ONE Tract scope failed in Form's test, then ALL Tract scopes will fail--even if they've never seen a Tract scope, whether made in Japan or elsewhere.

Yes, a bunch of people have bought and used Tract Torics and report excellent results with them, over several hundred rounds. Did every one of them do "drop tests"? No, but then most Campfire members don't do drop tests.

I don't when testing scopes, but I do put them on hard-kicking rifles and shoot them a bunch while running the adjustments around considerably. Which is what I did with a 3-15x42 Toric sent for me to test a year and a half ago. The first test rifle was a super-accurate .300 Winchester Magnum, the load 210-grain Berger VLD's at 2950 fps. According to Sierra's Infinity computer, program, the rifle's recoil energy with this load is just under 40 foot-pounds, and a LOT of scopes have broken/failed on my other rifles at 30 foot-pounds.

I started by zeroing dead-on at 100 yards, easy to do when a rifle/load will average 3 shots under 1/2", then performed a tall-target test to see if the clicks were accurate. They checked out, and I used the info to calculate how much to crank the scope at longer ranges.

Then I went to the local range, which goes out to over 1000 yards, on a relatively calm morning so I'd be primarily testing the scope and not my wind-judging ability. I shot it at gongs out to 1000, then cranked it up and down and shot some more at various gongs down to 300 yards. Finally, when the 50 rounds I'd loaded were almost gone. I cranked the scope down to 100, and the rifle shot its typical 1/2" group at 100, dead-center.

Next I put it on my NULA .30-06, another very accurate rifle that's broken several scopes. With the Toric it weighed an ounce over 7 pounds, and I did the same basic routine with 185 Berger VLD's at 2800 fps. This load doesn't develop the same foot-pounds as the 210's in the .300, but due to the light rifle, the recoil velocity is just about exactly the same. The Toric worked the same way it had on the .300.

Then I used it on various other rifles for various tasks from long-range prairie dog shooting to testing new handloads at longer ranges, because by then I really trusted it.

I do this sort of stuff all the time with various new scopes sent by manufacturers. If the scope acts screwy, I ask for another sample, then do the same tests--and if the second scope works I publish the results.

If the second scope doesn't work, I USUALLY don't publish anything about them--though not because advertisers might pull their ads, because 90- of the time the scope company doesn't advertise in the magazine.

Instead, most magazines don't generally run bad product reviews because most readers aren't interested in them. Instead they want to hear about stuff that works. That said, there are exceptions. A couple of magazines have published my negative reviews of scopes, one because the scope was so bad that I turned my review into a running joke.

Only after my review of the Toric appeared in GUNS magazine did this stuff hit the fan on the Campfire. I couldn't believe either Trevor's statements, or how many people assumed that ONE Tract scope (costing half as much as the Toric I tested) failing miserably was "proof" that all Tract scopes were mechanical junk.

Finally I sent my test Toric to prairie_goat so he could perform drop tests, partly because I know enough to trust his testing. He doesn't like the scope much in other ways, but he did the same basic drop-test as Form and the scope stayed zeroed, and the adjustments worked fine, after all the previous testing I'd done.

This coincides not only with my results, but those of several Toric buyers I've been in contact with, partly because some bought Torics after reading my GUNS review. I asked them to lot me know how their scopes worked, and so far they all have, and one has been fired around 900 times on another NULA. (As I recall it's another .30-06, but might be wrong.)

My connection with Tract is they sent me a scope to test--just like a bunch of other companies have been doing, several times a year, for many years. I'm not going to start doing drop tests, but if another Campfire thread like this starts up over some other brand, might send another scope to PG to drop some more--if he's willing.

Against my better judgement, I'm going to wade in here...

I don't understand all the hoopla about a $300 scope failing. Frankly, I wouldn't trust any $300.00 scope to track perfect, whether dropped or not. It's 2018, $300 bucks barely gets you and the Mrs. a nice dinner out.

Manufacturers in this day and age use an acronym, "MVP," which stands for "Minimum Viable Product." In other words, at what price point can I add this product in the market to meet the minimum customer expectations, while selling enough to keep the lights on and at the same time seeing a return on my investment.

I don't know anything about the scope and optics business, but I'm pretty sure no one expects a $300 scope to hold up and track as well as a $3k scope - nor should we expect it to.

This is the optics forum, there'll be no logic in the optics forum!

Funny you mention $300 scope tracking.....because the $300 SWFAs hold up and track as well as $3000 scopes.

Folks have seen that $300 scopes will work well, so they expect comparably priced scopes to work just as well. But that sure didn't happen with the Response. Plus the Response goes for around $400, so if anything it should work better than a $300 SWFA!

You beat me to it,Billy....

The $300 SWFA, the 6x, may track well, but the glass is pretty underwhelming. Hard to get excited looking through that scope. But, if I had to choose, I’d prefer tracking over clarity, thus I keep that scope around.

John,

Thanks for the detailed reply. I think we're on the same page regarding the illogical part. And I agree, Billy's reviews are spot on.

Jason

Only if you're Ringman looking at his deer antlers...


For killing stuff, the glass is just fine....

That’s why he carries his Nikon 7-15x35 zoom binos.....