Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Contemplating new scope- normal dilemma and ....along comes Tract Response

I don't think I can agree with that. I found the new 6-24x to be slightly less in optical quality than the Bushnell Nitro series. It IS a less expensive scope, so it's not like you're getting cheated but they're NOwhere near the Grand Slams. JMHO.

I thought I had a "field failure" with my Leupy last fall...turns out I just missed!

River Rider I am wondering if 6-24 glass is harder to pull of in a 'budget' scope than a 3-9? I do appreciate the feedback and it is something to ponder. Hard to find much on the newer Weavers.
The Fullfield glass is definitely nice. I did a side by side against my vx-3 and sort of wanted the Leupold to outperform or show the cost diff but it didn't.

If I 'do' have to go to a Tract, where I could get a #4 reticle and everything I want...which always seems impossible in these situations ....I can save up for a bit.

I couldn't say for sure, Ken but it does seem that way. I've wandered far off the Leupold reservation the last five years or so but I have not seen or tried everything out there. It does seem to me that once you get beyond about 12x or so lower quality glass begins to reveal itself more readily to the unpracticed eye. For higher magnification (like 18x-24x) on a budget I like the Optika5 line (I have several 4-20Xs and a 3-15x) which I believe is still readily available and with good reticle choices. They seem to be very good scopes even if they may be a little less than aesthetically pleasing. The old Super Slams and redesigned Grand Slams are very nice, too but are very hard to find.

I have a Tract Response, the 4-16x with .223 BDC reticle. It has very good glass and seems to track quite well...I just don't care for the reticle all that much and the knobs are much larger than they need to be IMO. If I could have that one with a simpler varmint-style reticle or just a plain duplex reticle I'd be more apt to hang onto it. I likely will not.

I'm not too sure what you're looking for but you did say "a little extra power might be nice for load development (getting older)..." so I would assume you're looking at the Tract 2-10x. Both of the reticles look useable to me but I hate the dots on the holdovers just as I hate the Weaver EB-X, and as far as I am concerned the T-Plex is like so many others having the lower segment thick when it should be the upper segment thick, and the lower segment thin. YMMV. I do think you'd be very satisfied with the optical quality either way based on my casual evaluation of the Response 4-16x.

RiverRider- thanks man - much similar experience here. I owned a Meopta 6x42 Artemis (late 90's or early oo's) when no one ever heard of them. Was great and had a nice #4 - I am a fan of those reticles and partly why I have kept my 6x40 FF2 so long. Adjustments on the Meopta were stellar. Since then have done Leupolds, Weavers, one Sightron II, Bushnell 4500 and a few Burris so it bugs me when some otherwise great scopes have mushy turrets while some cheap ones, like a Hawke I put on my 10/22 ( yeah it s Chinese) have nice clicks.
I do not understand the huge turret trend these days either and it is a definite turn off. I don't want to mess with parallax or larger objectives so 42mm is max for me and maybe 12x. The 2-10 range is nice but all magnification is not the same or so it seems when comparing but will work no matter.
I found more on the new Weaver Classic and while they are improved being owned by Vista I am not sure they aren't some Bushnell model rebranded although I have not found a model that looks identical in a Bushnell.

From what I've read, it seems the Natchez Weavers are substantially the same as the latest iteration of non tactical Bushnell elites. Both are made in Korea and seem to be of equal quality.

I mounted a new 2.5-10 Bushnell Elite up for a co worker's son last fall. Went on a RAR 7mm-08. Adjusted exactly as it should when static testing and getting sighted in. Shot some great groups with it. View was very good, as was ER and EB. They used it to take a couple of deer. Reported it held zero through a couple of accidental falls and drops.

If I were in the market for a duplex, set it abd forget it scope, I'd give one a look. Seems the Korean Bushies have held up pretty well for lower tier scopes over the years.

That Meopta Artemis was a fantastic scope! Wish they’d bring those back.

Thanks guys. I know we all go through this waffling on options and cost v benefit. Wish it was more cut and dry. Cheaper scopes offer so much more these days.

I compare two different priced scopes often and I have to say it is hard to justify the cost- other than to 'feel' like I paid more for quality of the more expensive. It just isn't working out that way for me. I don't hunt rugged terrain or via horseback or even much four wheeling with my rifles. So I should buy for my needs.

I have been looking at an E1 and comparing to the Weaver and like the looks of the Weaver better and trust the turrets will be good. Burris has too much labeling on it. Just bugs me. Have a little sentimental part of me wanting a Weaver again. Silly stuff but....sharing thoughts.

I actually reached out to Tract when they were new (good folks) and helped introduce them here but I have yet to own one. Glad they are successful and part of me wants one of their scopes just cuz.. Could be a little lighter but otherwise terrific specs and warranty and I know I would be happy. But I could buy 3 Weavers for the one Tract and in truth do not think going less expensive would cause me any game animal or load development.
So right now I think it is down to those two. I looked again and the turret on the response didn't look any taller than the Weaver.

Guess I can sell my Philippine 6x40 #4 to make up some of the cost. Feels like an old friend though.....betting some can relate.

I certainly can. I have a pair of Grand Slam 2-8x36s in the Classifieds as of last night. They're such sweet little scopes, but I've had to come to terms with the fact that I'll never likely use them for their highest purposes. I'm gonna hate to box em up and drop em down the mail chute.

And just because something works doesn’t mean it’s good. Most of us probably don’t need 95% of what we have but we sure like it. You can hunt and kill big game with knives guns boots binoculars scopes clothing etc all bought at Walmart. To keep with the theme …….grin 95% of of us on this forum don’t do that either.

Great choice

Folks here don't like the Swarovski 3-9x36?

I see nothing wrong with the Z3 line of Swaro scopes, including the 3-9x36.

When all that chatter was going on about the FFII 3-9X40 with ballistic plex reticles, everybody seemed to be so enthusiastic about them that I figured, "Why not, for $150? So I got one. It's still NIB and sitting right here on my desk (next to a Nikon Monarch 3.3-10 UCC that I don't currently have a use for either. At least if I find some rifle I just have to have I'll have a scope (or two) for it.

But they sure seem to know how to kill game with what they have.

The lunatic fringe of car enthusiasts, fishermen, golfers & more appropriately bird watchers along every other hobby under the sun obsess about the quality of their gear & drive constant improvements by gear makers. Stopped in Sportsman’s warehouse at lunch today 80% Vortex scopes on display. Most I wouldn’t use on a hunt & the ones I’d like pushing $1000. So along with inflation driven cost increases making mediocre scopes costly advertising seems to be the driving force in sales - not performance.

I mounted a couple of Burris FF2 4.5-14x42 scopes on a friend’s & his daughter’s rifles. The cheap Vortex & cloudy fuzzy old Leupold they replaced were awful to look through. Got them sighted in at 225 yards with some marksmanship tips for her. Gave him an image of just where the Ballistic Plex hash marks should be and he made a nice 1 shot kill at 360 yards while she got her 1st ever Bull elk. They were so happy it’s quite nice to be able to help. I’ve got one sitting in a safe gr some future rifle maybe for a grandson.

You can still find these around if you look, $200ish used to $300ish nib

Specneeds - I hear that, Burris is the perfect example of getting so much for so little and really marking a diminishing returns point of reference. Am currently running two. I paid much more for Sightron and Meopta and Leupold - which I still felt were 'worth' it but the older I get and the better entry level scopes get things get harder to justify. I will pay extra for say, a perfect reticle or some feature. I would pay a bit more for made in America- if it was in any way practical these days- so the best I can do is avoid Chinese.

If were in the this market I would skip the response and just buy the Tekoa it's a much better scope. Or like mentioned above look for a used Turion it's a great 3-9 better than the meopta version and I own multiple of both.

Thanks azelkhuntr - and that is seeming to be the contention from what I am gathering about the Response. See what I mean though. If the Response isn't all that great at say $400....... and I know a Fullfield which has a solid erector setup and bright glass going for it .will do the job nicely ...hard to justify more to get maybe..... better turrets or preferred reticle with a Tekoa but then be limited to a 4-16x44 and patying about $500 . A Toric- sure, I would love one- is about $600. Which then is creeping up to Swarovski prices so.... Ya know what I mean?

I can get a Burris signature HD for cost of a Response And I figure with a great reticle and turrets and I figure ' Hey now" .- but reviews are less than expected and then I find....Chinese. Ugh.

I know this is mental tail chasing but glad I am sharing because it appears you all can relate.

I took another look at Meopta after having been a fan so long but again 400 and not a reticle I am fond of and that horid blue ring and funky knobs and .....man they uglied up that line.