Im looking at picking up the Toric 2-10x42 or the Zeiss 3-12x44. Anyone have experience with both?

I'll sit back and wait for our resident Toric Schill to ring in.

JWP just forms strong opinions and holds them tight. He isn’t a shill - I asked.

I had a Toric 2-10x42 and really enjoyed it. I liked the elevation turret kit supplied that allowed for a capped but repeatable turret with a zero stop. I did some shuffling and ended up parting with my Toric. I will pick another up in the future at some point.

I still have a Tekoa and Turion models though and continue to enjoy them.

I haven't had a chance to pick up a Zeiss V4 but several here talk highly of them. I would like to give one a run at some point.

Which I could find out more about the reticle subtension. If they are similar to the Conquest 20 Z plex I would order tomorrow. Have a small rifle that could use the 2-10.
GreggH

JWP is who convinced me to try a Tract. And I'm glad he did. Because I've been more than pleased with my 2-10 Toric. As has everyone that I've let use it.

Have you asked Jon through their Tract website?

Best place to purchase a tract? Doesnt look like Doug carries these

https://tractoptics.com/
photo uploaded

Glad you like it. When I read what John Barnsness had to say about the one he has, I thought I'd try one. I have 4 S&B PM 2s, 2 2.5X10 Summits and a 1.5X6 S&B as well as a Nightforce to compare with. I found the Tract to hold its own with those scopes.

Since they’re sights, not binos or camera lenses, and good quality ones, image quality is almost certainly good enough for aiming. I base my scope-buying decisions on ER (at both ends of the zoom), power range, precision of the adjustments, the range of adjustment available, and to some extent weight. Durability is also a factor, but that’s mostly based on user feedback. One-inch scopes, especially higher powered ones, tend to have smaller adjustment ranges, so are less satisfactory for really long-range use, but at typical hunting ranges are fine, and usually weigh less. Above 10x, adjustable parallax is nice to have, and it’s also handy if you shoot in close, as with rimfires. Appearance can matter, and so can the size/form factor.

Compare the specs, consider how you’ll use it, and pick. Either may be fine, or one may stand out in some way for you. Someone else’s opinion may be perfectly valid, but not for you. I’ve owned two Tracts, currently a 3-15x44 Toric, and am impressed with the quality. No Zeiss so far.

Trac Toric 2x10x42 is an excellent one. I’m hopeful that Jon and Jon will come out with a 6pwr fixed x42mm soon.

Tract sells only direct to consumers, not to dealers. They are supposed to be coming out in January (?) with two more models with illuminated plex reticles.

They're solid scopes. I'd put the Toric right there with Nightforce as far as quality but with better glass.

Which NF model are you comparing with the Toric? Pretty tough for any scope to keep up with the NXS or ATACR when it comes to build quality, given NF priorities and QC process.

🤪

I have the Toric and V4 Zeiss scopes. Both are excellent. V4 gets the nod if you want illuminated reticles or something a little more exotic than the BDC or T Plex reticle that Tract offers but as far as lens quality, I could use either one without issues.

I talked to one of the owners of tract. Told him the manner in which I wanted to test the tracking. He didn’t seem very confident I would like what I would see.

I'd second his assessment

Maybe he has kids on the playground.

That's probably because that-co owner of Tract couldn't comprehend your "test" method.

I've had a Tract Toric 3-15x42 for five years now, which had been on a BUNCH of rifles, starting with a super-accurate .300 Winchester Magnum, which I've used to cause a lot of scopes to fail. The Tract is still adjusting just as well as a Nightforce.

I've gotten great results from a 3-12x44 Z4--so far. Haven't had it nearly as long as the 3-15x Tract I just mentioned, so don't know about how well it will hold up in the long run.

Based on your assessment I bought a Tract 3X15X50, I found the scope to be outstanding. I now have 3 Tract scopes and 2 pair of Tract binoculars. They are excellent and at the price point the best deal in optics

I recently emailed Tract about illuminated plex reticles and they said they will have two models coming out probably in January with this feature. Some of their current models have this, but I don't want something that looks like a physics equation for a scope reticle. I pretty much just want an illuminated X that marks the aiming point for my old eyes, preferably in the 2-10x range. That's just me.

Thats good news

I can't comment on the ATACR as I haven't used one. I do own an NXS 3-15x50 and an SHV 4-14x50 F1. The SHV 4-15x50F1 isn't even in the same league as the Tract and it's a similar price to the Toric. When I say league, I'm talking 5 mil revolution vs 10 as well as the Tract having superior glass, eyebox and reticle. The SHV is critical on eye relief as well. It's a piss-poor offering from Nightforce. The NXS is a good scope that is repeatable but the glass can't hang with the Tract. Not to hurt feelings...That's my take on it.

I'm not talking about glass or feature set, but build quality/durability/mechanical robustness.

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.

I never said the scope would fail just that the owner of the company didn’t seem like he wanted anyone to know. I did test my Zeiss 3-12 v4 and if I remember right it was about 1%. The 3-12 has capped turrets so it’s not meant to dial. The 4-16 v4’s are zero error on both my samples.

The 3-12 Zeiss is probably bigger and heavier than the tract. Tract is still Japanese. Probably a good scope

Damn...Love the optics forum !

🦫

Maybe someone should have sent the Jons this...

No greater bullshít than you continuing to espouse that your method is capable of determining tracking error to within 1% - despite multiple discussions regarding precision and statistics with people who know same.

Someone is getting into the Christmas spirit.

Posted this before, but it looks well designed and executed. No Tracts as yet, but I may post a request.
Skip to 7:30

I sought advice from a certain writer some time ago concerning scopes, one who has tested many, one whose advice has been gained by experience, over many years, and a Tract Toric was one of the scopes recommended for the hunting I do. I purchased a 2x10 Toric and it’s everything I was told it would be. I now own 5 of there scopes and will likely own more. The optics are superb, the adjustments crisp and sure, and they’re tough. After three years of hunting these scopes in the Rockies and the mountains of WV, I have gained enough confidence in them to know they will “be there” when I pull the trigger. I’m simply a still hunter and don’t twist before I shoot and they work for me. Trust the advice of someone who has put them through their paces and knows, I did, you wont regret it.

I have NXS and the Tract is in every way a quality/durable/mechanical/robustness equal, for less cost as a bonus

Have you disassembled both scopes to look? What tests have you done to determine this? What tests does tract do to check this? Are you aware that nightforce checks every scope with a culminator that includes measuring the tracking and subjecting the scope to impact and rechecking it? Does tract do the same thing?

My comments aren’t a bash tract session. They are Japanese built for the most part. I am a huge advocate and supporter of more Japanese built optics. I don’t expect the 1” models to be as solidly built. Their cheaper scopes look like phillipene made? I think years ago formadillo tested a tract. Someone needs to dig up a link.
Tract has several models to say all of them track legit is making a statement you can’t know for certain of.

It’s so funny I told my wife about this thread when I first posted with exactly what the response would be. Question something a guy spends money on and instead of a debate on the merits. It’s attack the messenger. Again I am not bashing tract. Almost certainly they are lots better than your run of the mill vortex. Likely better than most optics on the market.

The same test I do for any scope I own. I mount the scope on a file and I use it. When sighting in Tracts adjust precisely every time in my experience. I have a 35 Whelen that a hunt with here in Louisiana. My season starts on October 23 and ends January 31. That rifle stays in my truck and travels rough country gathering in hay fields pulling horse/cattle trailers, etc.
Never a hitch with the Tract, in fact I regularly shoot different bullets and record the turret setting from each, I can set with out shooting each time and the Tracting proves to be spot on each time.

I've found many scopes do not stay zeroed bouncing around in a vehicle but the Tract has never bobbled. I've have an NSX develope a 1/2MOA error under those conditions and had to be sent in. So far the Tract hasn't missed a beat.

Optics are better than the NXS and rival my S&B's

I will own my Tracts as time goes on

I zeroed the 220 Hammer Hunter 2911 FPS @200 yards, when I switch to the 225 TSX doing 2850 FPS I have to increase the elevation 1 1/2 MOA for the same 200 yard zero. The Tract never fails with perfect tracking. I go from one to the other regularly

The following is my opinion based on experience with the scopes.

I've been using a Toric 2-10x42 for several years now. I think it may be the best value for the $ of any rifle scope made when glass quality is important to the buyer. It's been extremely dependable in dialing and I love Tract's capped/zero stopped dial....great for a hunting scope. All around great scope for hunting in a 1" package. Great glass, great user characteristics/options, very reliable.

I feel like it's build quality is right there with a NF SHV 3-10. I've been using, and currently use, 2 of the 3-10 SHV's over the past couple of years. The 3-10 may take a bit more physical abuse from external forces since it's 30mm and shorter but that's about it. To my eyes I prefer the glass and user characteristics of the Toric.

I don't feel that the Toric will be able to withstand the same abuse as the 2.5-10 NXS. The bonded lenses, tube thickness, etc of the NXS are made for abuse. To my eyes, I much prefer the glass quality and user characteristics of the Toric to any of the NXS I use (for hunting)...and I'm using 4 of the NXS 2.5-10's right now.

I can't speak to the Zeiss as I don't use one. I don't think you can go wrong with the 2-10x42 Toric, great scope.

jwp,

What was the verdict when you sent in the NXS? A 1/2 MOA shift in zero from bouncing around in a truck could be caused by a shift in mounts, bedding, or scope internals, so I'm curious if the scope was at fault.

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.

From using both I think they are equal in reliability and I'd give the nod to Tract for optical performance.
The fact that both are made by the same company is important, because LOW is proven to make quality scopes

If my understanding is correct, the NXS parts and glass are manufactured by LOW but the scopes are assembled, tested, and packaged in the US. I know this was the case previously. Because of the parts coming from LOW it is marked made in Japan. Things may have changed and they may be assembled in Japan now, I can't say for sure one way or the other.

I believe the Toric is totally made by LOW in Japan, start to finish...I think the same is true for the SHV models. That's not a bad thing, but there is a difference.

If LOW is the standard, I think several Leupold scopes have lenses and other parts made by LOW as well.

What is that difference?

Any insight into which Leupold models have parts sourced by LOW? I've heard and read a few things in regards to exactly this on some newish MK models intended to be tougher than the previous iterations, but nothing credible enough that I'd pass it along as even unsubstantiated info.

That one is made completely by LOW start to finish, and the other has parts made by LOW but assembled, tested...this is a biggie in that every one is tested..., and packaged in America.

There are going to be fewer problems with a scope if every one of them are tested individually before it's boxed and packaged.

Which Leupold model is made start to finish by LOW?

I figured a guy would never get that kind of info from Leupold. If they ever came out and said that their most reliable scope was completely sourced and, therefore, substantially different from the stuff they've been selling, it'd be like them tacitly acknowledging that their previous, and even other current production, models were sub par.

I don't know that you are correct on everyone is tested. I know that NXS scopes are rated for + or - 1250 Gs

I had to send a Nighforce NXS back for not holding zero. Never had a hitch with a Tract.

I'm sure that LOW can assemble the parts that they manufacture as well or better than anyone else.

They have a topend tactile scope that the military has purchased that seems to be very good. Maybe it is this one

I wasn't referring to Leupold, didn't mean to mislead. I was talking about the Toric vs NXS. Sorry.

There is a reason for the signed sticker on every NXS scope.

LOW makes some great scopes.

The vice president at Nightforce in Idaho told me at the time that their reject rate at the time was 1/2 of 1%. That is very good

LOL.
And if anyone ever does comprehend it, we should be very suspect of that individual too.

Dunning-Kruger effect, in psychology, a cognitive bias whereby people with limited knowledge or competence in a given intellectual or social domain greatly overestimate their own knowledge or competence in that domain relative to objective criteria or to the performance of their peers or of people in general

So in other words, everyone on the Campfire. LOL

Schott glass is used on the Tract Toric and Tekoas.To my eyes, the Toric seems to have more clarity than my NXS (which is good).

A package from Tract came today; a Toric UltraHD 2-10x44. I’m going to put it on my NULA 7mm-08 to replace the Leupold 2.5-8 that’s been perfectly fine for 15 years. Lol

I got sucked in, I’ll see if I can get the three gang hook removed later tonight. Thanks

Agreed

let me know how that nula/ula ejects with those long adjustment caps

It's a lefty NULA

yeah i forgot about that...thanks

I suspect that LOW doesn't make all the lenses in the NXS. I'll bet some glass is sourced elsewhere. This way Nightforce can be the only one with the whole recipe. If LOW made the whole thing, they could knock it off and sell it under a new name.

They probably aren't even made on the same machines. I suspect that Nightforce has some proprietary tooling in the plant...

I suspect LOW doesn't make any lenses. They are scope builders not lens manufacturers

I'm in this boat as well. I much prefer the glass and scope user characteristics of the 2-10 Toric to the 2.5-10 NXS for a hunting scope.

I’m going to have to try one.