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

I think this may be in the wheelhouse of many scratching for a new scope they might not entirely need.

My oldest scope is a 6x40 Philippine Burris #4. Been Great - still is. I haven't bought anything in a long while and last range trip thought a little extra power might be nice for load development (getting older) and a few less X" when I take to the field is proving something I have come to love.

Like many - I do not want to buy Chinese but after looking am finding it harder and harder to pull off without breaking the bank.

I am a fan of every Burris I have owned but the FullField IV is Chinese. Other wise cost and feature the 2.5-10 is spot on in every way with seemingly more positive clicks than some of my Burris (or Leupold).

Looked at an E1 -some made in Philippines but not crazy on reticle. Thought there was another thing about them I wasn't big on ....so I looked elsewhere.

Can't see me buying a Leupold Freedom. May seem silly but being truthful just feel I am past buying entry tier - no matter how good. I have a VX -3 but new ones have gotten pricy enough for me to look elsewhere. I don't think I am alone in this.

Considered a Swarovski 3-9x36 but they get a bad rap here and again....pricey.

After sighing and nearly pulling the trigger on a Burris I looked at Tract again and saw their Response line. Its lightweight which was another tick mark -and a huge bonus of a #4 reticle. Under $400.....Thinking hard about it.

Everything you mentioned leaves a lot to be desired. Keep shopping for a good scope.

The NIB Bushnell 3500 in the classifieds world be my first choice if I needed a new scope

So ....why not the Tract???

Take a look at the Sightron S1 Gen 2 scopes.

I would not buy a china made Burris. That is where I draw the line with them. Why not a Philipine or American made FFII 3-9x40 with ballistic plex? Sounds like you like Burris and are looking for something "lightweight". The 3-9x40 checks a lot of boxes and it weighs 13 oz's, so it's not heavy by any means. With the ballistic plex reticle, it easily gets you out past 400 yards. Excellent for hunting applications and also messing around at the range. I use mine out to 400 yards, all the time. I've had the E1's and hate the reticle that does not extend out to the edge of the glass. Not my cup of tea. Never have been disappointed with a regular ol FFII though. I've also had the Swaro you ask about and after it failed to adjust, I had to send it down the road. Reminded me of Leupold. Its' your money to spend, but that's how I'd roll.

I bought the Response. As soon. As it’s intended rifle is ready, I will take it to the range.

The Weavers that Natchez has are made in Korea and are developing a good reputation.

And yet I'd wager that 95% of all game taken in this country is taken with scopes that you believe lack a lot to be desired. But rail on, rail on!

I had an S2 Sightron. I liked most things about. It was a 3-12x42 which sounds perfect but had awful eye relief which was a shame. Getting an S1 now would seem like a step back.....maybe not in real world terms but in a silly part of my brain.
I have been a big fan of Fullfields and turned many here on to a smoking deal on a 3-9x40 #4 with illuminated center dot. Favorite hunting reticle and when I tested in low light against my Vx3- was every bit as good. Dot is a little large for load development. What I would like is something with more positive feeling click adjustments. Sightron had that and it was accurate but just not great in the field. The Leupold adjustments feel mushy and identical to the Burris I own. Minor beef I know and a FF2 does tick many boxes and sell for less than they are worth for sure. Maybe just looking for another option here.

Paul _ I helped a few buy some of those Natchezss Slams. Wish I would have grabbed one for my self when they were so cheap - I am a fan.

Looking forward to a review of the Tract .

Good luck Ken. One thing I will add is guys should have bought some of the now discontinued FFII 3-9X40's with ballistic plex reticles while the prices were right. When they are no longer offered, prices are going to go over $200 for them. Just something to think about there. Good luck with the Tract, if you decide to go that route.

If the scope will be used for big game, then reliability is paramount, too much time and money goes into hunting these days for equipment failure to ruin a hunt. For punching paper or ringing steel, the less expensive options have merit if price is a determining factor.

Thanks guys, I found an article in Rifle-scopereview .com about the Weavers updated Classic line and the arrangement with Natchezss.

Gotta thank Paul on this after seeing this particular line item:

• "The optical quality of the newer Classic scopes seems better than the optical quality of the original Weaver Classic scopes. I’d say that these newer Classic scopes offer glass quality that is about on par with the older Weaver Grand Slam series of riflescopes:

Happy with that! These have tougher, improved, lens coatings as well. Made in Korea- which I can certainly live with.

A ballistic reticle option (ok I may 'prefer' other ones) but practical looking power and focus rings, easily managed non-tactical turret caps and and I am sure the great Weaver adjustments I have liked so well in the past. 1" tube, 3-9x40...$130 or so which to me puts them in realm of smoking deal on Philippine Fullfield II ...only maybe even nicer a tick nicer assuming the brightness and view is close enough to call a wash.

I couldn't find weight or dimensions but imagine I can make this work on my short action Rem 700 6mm. Thinking....why not? If it sucks....I can give it to someone in need or keep as a backup.

Still want to her about that Tract first but promising.

Just think of all the unreliable POS Leupolds, guys have used over the years. They don't track well and don't adjust properly, but they hold zero most times. I'll give them that. The term "set and forget" was invented just for those scopes. With that being said, I'd trust my FFII's anywhere any time and on any hunt. YMMV. So when you say "less expensive", they should not all be put in the same category. I've had Swaro's that I would not trust as much as a much "less expensive" FFII's. IF you have not tried one, maybe you should.

I have several of the Tract toric scopes......made in Japan. fantastic scopes IMO
But had a rifle I did not want to spend that kind of money on so I tried one of the response scopes....and have been very satisfied

Made in the Phillipines but still a quality product

Have owned and hunted big game with a LOT of scopes over the decades--and have had far more "field failures" with more than one brand of pretty expensive scopes than Burris Fullfield IIs.

Because 95% of hunters in this country don’t even know what they don’t know.

95% of hunters kill stuff within 250 yards.

I could write volumes about the veracity of Mule Deer but most of it would fall on deaf ears. With respect to hunting, shooting and outdoor pursuits Mule Deer has "been there", "done that" and could clothe most of North America with the t-shirts he earned that testify his having "been there" and "done that" over and over and over again.

Absolutely- thanks for chiming in JB.

I still have two aging Fullfields on rifles. Any time I thought to 'upgrade' I would pull out my rifle an look through them....and change my mind.
Yes turrets could be crisper (same can be said of Big 'L") but they still work fine.
Update is probably more for change sake than real "need". I been moving away from fixed 6x's as newer scopes offer brighter views and I found I prefer heading in to the field at low magnification.

Over the many years here I have recommended Weaver K series then Burris FFII's to many folks and never felt I steered anyone wrong.

I am curious about the newer Weaver Classics (not a Simmons rebrand) and am guessing it won't give up anything to a newer Fullfield E1. Anyone compare the two and have an opinion ?

At these prices there is really no risk and ticks several checkboxes:
*Non Chinese
*Fully multicoated (yes I am old enough to remember when that was a thing)
*Finger - Click adjustments (insert above parenthetical here)
* Lightweight
* No major mounting or eye relief concern (still want to see measurement specs though)
* A BARGAIN.

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.

Sometimes the used market is the only place to find satisfaction. I am lucky that some of the newer stuff doesn't bother me so much as to be a deal breaker, but then again Sometimes I just can't get past certain things like excessively tall turrets, reticles that clutter and distract, and stuff that makes profit for CCP. Gunbroker and fleabay have offered some relief but sometimes it takes a while to find what I want.

Saga continues. Took another look at the Sightron S1. They have a nice number 4 and I know it will track great- about $250. I could still find the Burris FF2 BP for a lot less and I saw one illuminated Bushnell 4500 for about the same price. as the S1 but it is gone now. Eyes are getting older and a lit center dot may be go to i a few years. I kow I was against the S1 but this is a newer model. Wondering what anyone can tell me abuot turrets and low light etc...

Some of you may be following another similar thread about the new Weaver v. Burris. I responded there and have enjoyed talking your heads off on this as I feel many can relate.

After looking at both including a FF2 BP and the E1's, the Tract, Meopta, Bushnell and other more expensive jobs and an email or two back from folks I found something that checked every single box. Weight, looks, able to mount in ow rings. nice clicking easy to read turrets, good eye relief and a reticle I actually found desirable rather than one I would settle for.

You won't like it.......

I went with a....gulp..... Leupold Freedom Hunting Flex reticle. THERE , I said it..... I was not aware they offered that reticle or had seen the turrets up until yesterday. There is just nothing not to like about it so I do not mind paying another $100 to get exactly what I want. It still is not what one should call an expensive scope. I have a VX3 that, while more expensive than my Burris or other choices, has given me years of excellent service. I think the Freedom will be bright enough. Earlier doubts came from an older VX-1, my first 'real' riflescope purchase many years ago, that I found lacked in low ight -and lead me to my first excellent bargain performer, a Weaver K6, that was noticeably brighter. I went full on 6x for many years after. I started thinking how I made sure every scope after that Vx1 was fully multicoated(the Vx-1 was not) and was never let down or had to hold off any shot during or past legal hunting hours for that reason. Almost all scopes are now FMC. It was not always the case. I love the reticle, no tax or shipping charges from Doug and happy to support his business. If it does have an issue I feel more covered and confident it will be dealt with to satisfaction than with anything I can imagine buying at this point no matter what type of product may be.

Looking forward to it I will see if I can take out all my rifles and give you an honest review against my 6x and 3-9 FF2, and VX-3- and will try to keep it short.


Flame on ....

I hate that reticle.

I do not plan on ranging with his reticle, I have a B and C if long shots are in the making but that is very rare for me these days. I am more interesting in low power and fast acquisition.

It would still be much better if the thick parts came in to about 3 moa from the center, not 10 moa out in space.

mathman I had Premier ( remember them? ) put one like that on an old M8 6x42 I had. Get what you are saying.
EFW has that scope of mine now. I am still stoked to get this new one. Have not bought ANY hardware of any sort in years adn really not a pressing need but... what the heck. The 6x40 Burris it is replacing has #4. My other non-Leupold is another Burris with a #4 lit dot. Love it for hunting but dot is a bit thick for load development.

I bought two, or maybe three, scopes from Premier when they were getting out of the Leupold business. I wish I'd been more into it when they were still doing those mods. I would have had them put some custom ballistic reticles in several of my 6x Leupolds.

Okay going to be painfully honest...Got the new Leupold. Initial impression was ....good. Maybe I was hoping for something more but has a little different feel as my VX3. I looked at my more recent FF2 with the larger (than original FF2) turrets and found them about the same to this Leupold. Reassessing the whole turret thing I think I telegraphed a bigger thing than it is . The Leupolds I have and one of the Fullfields have decent enough turrets. The original FF 6x40 is smaller and hard to read but seems to track okay. Some are easier to read and spin. I will give a slight edge to the new Leupold. The caps are easy to get on and off as well. The power ring is also easy to read and has just right amount of stiffness to it. I had to back the eyepiece way off to focus for my eyes but ...been there and done that before.
I have not gotten them side by side in field conditions. Not sure the Leupold is quite as bright but will compare and get back. In suburbia it is hard to judge. I was going to replace the 6x40 FF2 with the Leupold but am still load building and want a known good load for zeroing in. I am trying to get Speers to shoot with Accurate 4350 and it is not as easy as Sierra's with IMR or Hodgdon. Still have some Hodgdon and Prohunters so may throw a batch together to zero, then swap scopes.

If being truthful, after shooting the Burris again yesterday I wonder why I thought to change it. Thing is still stellar. Looked at my new Leupold #4 reticle and really liked it. Then went to my old Burris #4 and was like......umm.....this still looks great too. Full disclosure and I know I am not alone in this but I invented a reason for the scope and justified it because I haven't bought anything new in a long while. Sure being variable will be put to use but...the fixed has not failed me ever.

So bottom line on all. If doing over think I would be okay with a new FF2 with the original Burris BDC which I rather like. Half the price and has quality feel to it. If it were priced as much as Leupold.....still might get it if reticle was not part of equation. To be fair I have yet to 'use' the Leupold but....those Fullfields continue to shine.