Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Zeiss V4 compared to Tract Toric

Thanks, JCM.

Due to the difficulty in exporting Tract riflescopes from the US to Canada, I haven't yet tried a Tract scope (I have one of their 15x binos, though). Given that I have no experience with Tract riflescopes, I'm not making a claim one way or the other about mechanics and durability, but given the track record, build quality, and QC process of the NF NXS, as well as its ubiquitous reputation as the most reliable scope made, it would take a lot of samples of the Toric and a lot of thorough testing to equal the established results of the NXS.

Again, I'm not claiming the Toric is or isn't as mechanically reliable as the NXS, as I would need to thoroughly test at least a dozen samples before making any sort of claim, but I would expect that the Toric is likely on the same playing field as other mechanically top-tier scopes coming out of Japan like the the SWFA SS line, the Bushnell Elite Tactical line, the NF SHV line, etc. But even if those scope lines are 95% as reliable as the NXS, the build qualities you mentioned and the stringent QC process make the NXS tough to match for reliability.

I'm not saying that we all need the reliability of the NXS. Personally, I'm pretty happy with the SWFA SS, Bushnell LRHS/LRTS/DMRII Pro/XRSII, Trijicon Accupower, etc., but when I see people making claims that the Toric is as mechanically reliable as the NXS, that's hard for me to believe in the absence of extensive evidence.

Apparently the Tract guy can read sign!

You know what go phhhuck yourself, John. [/quote]

MEEEEEEOOOOWWWW!

I sent the NXS to Nightforce for not staying zeroed, the Nightforce report said they found 1/2 MOA error

Never had another issue

Formidilosus Tract Response Range Tracking/RTZ/zero retention results


Wasn't a Toric.

I'm not familiar with the company and their wares.
I assume the Toric is built in Japan (LOW)?

And their other riflescopes?

Yes, the Toric line is built by LOW.

Also might add that after Formid's report appeared, a friend of mine saw it and we started PM'ing back and forth. He's a former Army sniper who hunts a lot, and I eventually volunteered to send him my Toric to run through the same sort of tests. He did, and the scope never bobbled even after the rifle being deliberately dropped on the scope, and dialed precisely and consistently the entire time. It's still working fine, after being on a bunch more of my rifles, or rifles sent by manufacturers for testing.

Now, my friend criticized some other facets of the scope, but could not find any fault in its mechanics.

All brands have issues, some more so than others but none are perfect

Thanks, jwp.

Merry Christmas everyone!

Well, this discussion motivated me to take advantage of the Tract 10% off sale and purchase a Toric 2-10x42. I look forward to trying it out.

I think you will be pleased

.Because of the playground??

LOW made the NXS and the Tract and I'll make the claim that the Tract doesn't tale a back seat to the NXS

[/quote]
You know what go phhhuck yourself, John. When you come up with your own way of testing a scope and can tell me the tracking error to within 1% get back to me. Until then keep bloviating your bull$hit.[/quote]

And season's greetings to you too!

We have gone over this before, but apparently you believe your method is the best ever invented. However, I have had serious discussions with scope designers over the past 30 years (including show-and-tells of interior construction) and toured several scope factories around the world, and so far none of them have started using your method.

One of the things I mentioned before in these threads is that one thing I "discovered" long ago (admittedly not nearly as revolutionary as your test-method) was that when scopes are mounted on rifles actually fired between adjustments, the adjustment value or consistency may not match the adjustments in "static" tests. Which is why long ago I started to test scopes initially by static means, and if they didn't measure up didn't bother mounting them on a rifle. If they passed the static test, I then gave them a thorough shooting test, which has been described before in many articles. ,
But I sincerely hope you continue to enjoy your play-time.

Happy Holidays,
John

So, if I tell MD to go F himself....I will get a Christmas greetings in return?

That is the epitome of Holiday Spirit.

😬🦫

Lot better than getting a dreaded link or text from Kingston.

That’s a fact !

Have a Merry Christmas 🎄

🦫

You too!!

And season's greetings to you too!

We have gone over this before, but apparently you believe your method is the best ever invented. However, I have had serious discussions with scope designers over the past 30 years (including show-and-tells of interior construction) and toured several scope factories around the world, and so far none of them have started using your method.

One of the things I mentioned before in these threads is that one thing I "discovered" long ago (admittedly not nearly as revolutionary as your test-method) was that when scopes are mounted on rifles actually fired between adjustments, the adjustment value or consistency may not match the adjustments in "static" tests. Which is why long ago I started to test scopes initially by static means, and if they didn't measure up didn't bother mounting them on a rifle. If they passed the static test, I then gave them a thorough shooting test, which has been described before in many articles. ,
But I sincerely hope you continue to enjoy your play-time.

Happy Holidays,
John
[/quote]


I have a whole collection of devices that I use to test scopes. They're designed by the manufacturer to have a scope mounted right on top of them. These devices work by precisely making holes appear in far off pieces of paper; once set up, the holes appear exactly where you have the scope aimed at. Nice thing, too, is that when I activate a switch, there's a burst of recoil to test a scope's ability to handle that force, which is pretty important when you think of what scopes need to do in order to be effective in their purpose. I take these devices to the range with scopes attached, and then I measure the correlation between how much I twist on the turrets and the distance between where the holes appear.

The nice thing about these devices is that they can also be taken on hunts.

IMO, static testing is of dubious value, and it's nothing you can't measure a number of ways with the scope attached to your rifle. Recoil and external forces of being dropped and or bounced around rough roads seem to be the largest influences on a scope's ability to track, hold zero and return to zero.

That doesn’t make them equivalent.