Well guys you finally have someone to help field your Tract questions. My name is Brian and I'll be taking over for Trevor. I had a sit down with Jon recently and I decided to help with consulting. To start things off I'm not an optics guru. I'm just a guy who likes to shoot. My daytime job is a firearms examiner for a large department. My hobbies include Cerakote, Duracoat painting and pretty much anything that goes bang. I prefer rifle shooting but, I also shoot pistol and shotgun. As far as optics go I'm not the guy to tow a single party line. If your brand works I'm all for it. I do honest testing and if it doesn't I'll be the first to say so. Doug over at Cameraland knows me for a long time. I run everything from Nightforce, Swarovski, Zeiss, Athlon, Leupold, Steiner and even Vortex (Jon breaks my balls over it all the time). I will try to answer any questions you have and If I don't have the answer I'll get it for you. Lets try to keep things civil. These threads get out of control and guys expect too much at times. No optic is perfect but, I know Tract is an excellent brand and they are here to stay. I remember when Vortex started in the early 2000's. All I ask is you give Tract and I a fair shot. Thanks for your time.

Hello Brian. Nice intro. I've read some of your reviews here and always enjoy them. I like good, honest ones, whether good or bad. I gave Tract a fair shot a couple of years ago not long after they first came out. The Toric 8x42 is a fantastic performer. I'd like to hear your take on the new 10x model.

Welcome Brian. Thanks for the intro. I'll enjoy reading your reviews & posts.

Looking forward to it, Brian.

Same here, looking forward to it, and here's hoping it'll always be civil on this forum.

Is the Tract Response made to the same zero retention standards as the more expensive scopes?

You forgot "Hello, I'm Billy and thanks for taking the time to work with Tract. I'm here to ride your azz..." Said in jest PG....

Good to see you posting for them bhodges. If you know of can find the info on it, like Billy, I'd like to know more about the specifics of the Toric line of scopes, especially their elevation adjustment/retention hardware.

Lots of optics companies use the same manufactures to produce their scopes. It would be nice to know if any share the same parts and differences between them...but I'm guessing this is a bit much to ask.

Thanks for posting. I've been very pleased with the single Toric I have experience with.

I'm guessing it's "held to the same standard", which would mean it will get repaired/replaced if it fails, the same as the higher end stuff.

Only an idiot would expect a product to be built to the same specs as one costing twice as much (made in another factory in another country) or claim that it was as a sales pitch.

Let's hope sanity prevails on both ends of this.

You mean, like Tract themselves have stated?

Exactly, if "built to the same spec" is what they said.

I expect a bit of glitter and BS from anyone selling stuff, but claiming something that you can't deliver is a bad idea. The prevailing notion from optics companies seems to be that a good warranty is the same as a good scope, which is nonsense. On the other hand, expecting a $300 full-featured "tactical" scope to perform and hold up like a Nightforce, or a $600 SWFA, regardless of the sales-pitch, is silly.

This question appears on the Tract website:"With that being said, are the internals of your centerfire scopes all the same, with regards to ruggedness, dependability, and tracking? So, the differences in the product lines are primarily the differences in the quality of the glass? Thanks!" Here is the answer from Tract: "The TURION, TEKOA and TORIC riflescopes all feature the same mechanical specifications in regards to Recoil resistance, Windage and Elevation adjustments and Waterproof/Fogproof construction. There are other features that separate the scopes aside from optical quality such as the reticle designs, magnification range (3x versus 4x versus 5x zoom ratios) and various other specifications." Note that the reply includes all the scopes built in Japan and does not include the scopes built in the Philippines.

Bingo. That's what I had surmised. The Phillipine models are a different animal.

They are tested to 1000G in recoil testing. All the scopes have the same specs in that regards. Hey, anything mechanical can and will fail. The rate these scopes has failed has been very low. I purchased a Swarovski STR80mm spotter that failed in a few months. That's a 4k spotter. People have to realize there is a big difference between military grade optics and hunting grades. Tract scopes offer exceptional value for the price but cutting out the middle man. I realize rifles are tools and at times they suffer from different types of abuse. When I test a scope I use targets from Box to Bench Precision. I also drop the butt of the stock a bunch of times on concrete. I have no interest in throwing my rifle to test a scope. There are too many variables and its not a valid test. Whose to say the stock, rings, base, or gun failed? Maybe the scope was fine and something else went wrong. I do testing in a laboratory and everything must be repeatable and calibrated. You need standards in any test. All I can say is try one yourself and you'll be impressed. Take what you want from reviews and make your own decision.

Excellent response.

Yup, not bad.

Anyone at a 6th grade reading level should be able to divine what's said and left unsaid there. It won't satisfy those looking for a full "confession", I expect. They'll want full disclosure of proprietary test results and a couple of NIB scopes they can disassemble.

Brian's a very knowledgeable guy in optics as well as firearms.

If he knows the answers he will be right. If he does not know the answers he will do all he can to find the right answer and if that fails he will say he does not know.

He's a great addition to this forum.

Welcome

Very gracious Doug, considering he's working for the enemy.

There's plenty of pie here for everyone, I think.

There are no enemies in the world of optics. Doug has been a very close friend for 18 years now. I'm working on an Athlon 1-6x24 review for him now. Like I stated I think there are lots of great companies out there. I refused to stick with only one. Wouldn't you rather have a guy who has input on several companies instead of only one? Thanks Doug.

Thanks Doug for the kind words. Love ya Bro!

This is where we differ.

That is usually an excuse made by companies who make “hunting scopes”, designed for light duty. Aside from applications where absolute weight savings is paramount (for those who feel so inclined), I can’t think of a good reason why hunting scopes shouldn’t be made to the same durability and ruggedness standards as mil-grade scopes.

Yup, only weight and price.

Nothing stops anyone from using whatever they thinks works for them and that they're wiling and able to pay for. And there's no reason a company shouldn't offer products at price and performance levels that will sell.

Yep. That's pretty much the idea when you're in business.

I agree with you but that's when the cost is driven up. Nobody wants to go on a hunt of a lifetime and worry about their optic.

I could see a middle ground where a hunting scope could have precise, durable, repeatable adjustments without having a main tube you could use to beat down a muzzie insurgent.

How about money,and that there's lots of "deer hunters" who would never pay more than $200 for a scope.

Me too. I think there's a few that qualify, at least some of the time.

As yet, no one's explained to me if the current issues with formerly reliable brands is the result of poor new designs, poor materials, or poor QC (that last would explain why some never have trouble with their VX-3s and FX-IIs and 3s, while others have given up on them).

For now, about all you can do is read reviews, ask questions of others, and take your chances.

I'd venture to guess that these mid priced scopes work fine for the vast majority of deer hunters. BTW, why did you put "deer hunters" in quotes? Are you asserting that only real deer hunters pay more than $200 for their scopes?

You left out "More and more shooters with the ability to discern the difference between a scope with reliable adjustments, and one without."

SWFA makes a “military grade” scope, that isn’t crazy heavy, with multiple reticle and turret options.... in fixed power for $300, and 3-9x for $600.

Why can’t Tract, or anyone else do that?

First thing I’d do, if you’re looking at restoring Tract’s reputation here.... is send a new demo scope to Form, and let him wring it out. Good or bad.... I’d respect Tract for putting it’s glass up for the Pepsi Challenge, especially since the last one failed miserably.... and all we got for an explanation was a bunch of snake-oil lip service.

SWFA makes a scope that many find useful, but I would not call a scope with a two piece main tube that you can unintentionally unscrew "military grade".

I’d call a scope awarded a military contract “military grade”....

Since I work in a world where military contracts are awarded for COTS every day, I would not. For example, I would not refer to the Redfield variables procured under a military contract for use in Viet Nam as military grade, while I would describe the only military sniper scope that I have seen in the hands of a user as opposed to reading about, a Unertl 10x in the hands of a USMC scout sniper team at Camp Pendleton's urban training center in 1999, as military grade. The Unertl and the M40 it was mounted on was a revelation to me, the scope defining "military grade" and the rifle "military use" to me, a mere civilian. The Unertl did not look like you could unintentionally disassemble it.

? I'm not all up on the details, but I think a solicitation contract is a contract to produce something for consideration. Specs are set and the object is produced to those specs. I'm not sure that a contract other than a solicitation contract was ever secured. I think the solicitation contract was only for a 10x specific version that has now had the specs changed....so it wouldn't be "military grade" as defined. I've got several of them and think they are the best bang for the $ going. They don't need extra info added to them to sale.

In fairness, we have to consider that SWFA bought a design already paid for by someone else and doesn't have to factor R&D costs into its pricing. Also, with the reputation for that scope established, advertising costs are minimal.

I agree that another maker or several, could do a better job, as could SWFA by bringing out essentially the same scope with low-profile turrets and a better hunting reticle. So far, they've resisted that opportunity.

Tract already has numerous positive reviews of its better models. Not sure what major impact to their bottom line giving one to Form would accomplish, but It's worth consideration, minus the tossing around business, which looks like fun, but is hardly scientific or repeatable. Better would be impact tests on a test fixture that would be measureable and serve as a basis for comparison among similar products.

SWFA has shown with its fixed power line, that price is not a valid reason to make paper-mache scopes, especially since the products in question here (the Japan-made models) are not priced as blister pack products. Of course there will always be hunters who buy $50 Tasco’s to mount on their hunting rifles, but I don’t think that’s what we’re discussing here.

What’s the down side to such a main tube, assuming cost wasn’t much different, an extra ounce?

The original model was made to military specifications successfully. I would call that military grade. Whether or not it was awarded the production contract does not change its design and construction.

I agree that the current model has deviated somewhat from the original version, but the construction is likely very similar.

I don't know. I also don't know how much heavier a reliable adjustment mechanism is. Just thinking out loud.

I didn’t bring up the whole “military grade” thing.... someone else did. I was simply using it to make a point.....

That point is: SWFA can make a 10x scope for $300 that can hang very well with some of the most expensive “military grade” Optics in the world. That’s fact, not simply my opinion. It’s been demonstrated repeatedly for years.... function, durability, reliability.... they take a backseat to very few scopes.

They may not be as refined, the “glass” may not be as good, they may not come with “pride of ownership’.... but when rounds start flying, they represent themselves quite well.

Again.... why can’t/won’t anyone else do the same?

Answer: They don’t have to.... they can produce a steaming pile of schitt, and sell it to your average “gun nut” in droves.... as long as they have some cool features and a good marketing department. 99.5% of people who buy scopes, would have no idea how their scope tracks, or returns to zero, or even stays “sighted in”. It’s easy to build a scope to those standards.... then have a “great warranty”.

That's about a wrap folks...

I actually have a Tract Toric 3-15 and it doesn't just sit on a pretty rifle and get used during a limited hunting season or comfy visits to the range- its out hunting and being banged around almost every week of the year. If its not hunting its on the range. So far this year I have harvested 13 deer in very harsh and challenging conditions. Its about 8 months old and its introduction to life was enduring a 9000 mile journey to get here, and since has travelled many miles uncovered on the front of my Quade and in my ute. Not to mention my falls and tumbles.

The 'scope has a ballistic turret on it which works well and always returns to zero. Its been dialled countless times. I checked the zero for the first time in several months last week and it was absolutely spot on. It is on a reasonably high recoiling 300saum.

As I have said in another thread I rate the glass about the same as my Zeiss HD5.

The things I don't like is the fiddly push/pull parallax adjustment stop - I would prefer more tension and no stop. The field of view is slightly less than other comparable scopes I have (VX6 and HD5) but its minimal and not an issue.

Development wise, I don't think Tract have hit the sweet spot between their biggest tactical scope and the 3-15 Toric. I would like to see a 3-15 with a more rugged 30mm tube and more reticle adjustment, and coming in under 23 oz. Illumination would be a nice option too.

In regards to tracking, here's a precautionary tale; I recommended Tract to a hunting friend so he bought a Toric 3-15. He put it onto his 300WM and it wouldn't track - he kept getting extreme fliers - so back it went to Tract. They did a tracking test and sent him photos - perfect. It has turned out that his 300WSM wasn't stabilising the 110 Barnes that he thought that he had sorted using a previous 'scope.

Having said all of this I do think that Tract over pump their 'scopes (especially the lower end ones) and that their marketing is too slick and too commercial. Less slick and yap, and letting their products speak for themselves is an approach I would prefer, and it might have attracted less criticism. Let the customers speak more - that's what Athlon have done and its worked well for them...and they are mostly made in China.

In case anyone missed it here was my test. Its an honest test and the scope worked flawlessly. I started with a brand new rifle built by Kampfeld. I take credit for the paint. Its tough to argue with the results but there will be someone who does. I'm not about to waste time of gear that doesn't work. This rifle is a solid build and its a great platform for testing. Good components make all the difference. Ive seen many a rifle shoot poorly due to bad rings, mounts and ammunition. I've done my share of 3 position small bore, F class, 3 gun, and various other shoots to know what works. If someone has an issue we would be happy to help. Guys I'm here to help you. If you have concerns lets see your testing and equipment and we will go on from there.
https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/12650788/1

My 3-15x Toric continues to perform perfectly, sitting on top of my son's .260 CTR. About 400 rds so far. Lots to like about it.

When I sought a scope with a little more magnification than the 6x42, which really meets my needs for most shooting, at my club's 300 yard range, I really wanted a 10x42 with a 1" tube with about 4" of eye relief, a plex or No. 4 and a fast focus eyepiece. No one made such a creature and would not start producing it for the very limited market, probably just me (At one time you could buy the Leupold Mk. IV M3 10x40 with a duplex in a 30mm tube, but that option soon disappeared). So I started out with the SS 10x42 and mounted it on a 700 VLS in .308. The SS in 10x42 had adequate glass and excellent eye relief, about 3.9" and a good eyebox. It had parallax adjustment which I would never use, excellent turrets which I would never touch after sight-in and a mil-dot reticle which I would use as a duplex. I shot a few rounds through the rifle and then adjusted the Butler Creek objective cover. When I did so, the sunshade hood started to unscrew. As it unscrewed, I realized that it was not a hood, it was part of the main tube on which the seal was now broken. It seemed to be designed so that the objective lens was part of the sunshade and not part of the main tube. How odd! All the other qualities just don't matter if the scope comes apart when you had no intention of it doing so. When you tell me this is "military grade", you have zero credibility, I will no longer believe a thing you say.

I had shot enough rounds through the VLS to realize it was shooting no more accurately than my other .308's and the rifle with scope attached was something you would emplace rather than carry. I sold the factory stock and barrel, put a standard contour barrel on the action and had them bedded into a McMillan Remington Compact stock, which is the same pattern but a little heavier than the Edge stocks on my other rifles. I fooled around with short throats for a while only encountering frustration and then decided to get a really good barrel for it. Recently, a forum thread convinced me that my really good barrel should be chambered in 6.5 Creedmoor rather than the .308 if I wanted the ultimate .308.

I still needed a scope with a little more magnification than the 6X42 and wanted to go to 10X. Another SS 10x42 was out of the question. (Fooled me once, shame on you! Fooled me twice, shame on me!) I realized that I would have to go to a variable, probably on the order of 2.5-10X42. I wanted 4" of eye relief, a large eyepiece with fast focus adjustments, a more compact scope with a 1" tube, a plex or No. 4 reticle and windage/elevation adjustments reliable enough to hold zero after being sighted in. I was concerned about a 1" variable even though my old Zeiss Conquests worked fine because a well regarded authority has stated that all 1" tube variable scopes fail sooner or later, because there is not enough room for the most rugged internal mechanicals.

About this time Tract appeared and I looked at the Toric 2-10X42. I liked the model of taking money normally spent on distribution and using to invest in better glass and better mechanicals. I read some of the early reviews of it as a hunting scope and bought first one, then two. I got to shoot one a little, but I have to wait on my 6.5 Creedmoor barrel for more time with it. The Toric and the SS 10x42 have about the same eye relief. The Toric is more compact, has better glass and image and an excellent hunting reticle in the T-Plex. I have no idea how the adjustment tracking compares to the SS 10x42 (nor does any one else for that matter), but I am sure they will suffice for my needs. As to ruggedness, the main tube of the Toric has survived adjusting the Butler Creek objective cover, where the SS 10x42 did not, making the Toric much more rugged than the SS 10x42 in a very limited sample.

There has been a suggestion that Tract send another scope to Form for an extensive test. His testing is really useful for someone who is headed downrange. I am not and never will be headed downrange. It is also useful for those who shoot at long range but not under conditions of military usage. I will never shoot over 300 yards. I am lucky to have a 300 yard range. So for me and perhaps me alone, his testing is for different requirements than mine.

As this thread shows, the “fire” can be brutal.....but also a source of great information. When Tract’s original spokesmen made some stupid comments, he was appropriately called out. I bluntly challenged one of his silly comments. Nonetheless, based on the reviews of glass quality by MD and others, I took a chance and ordered some 8x42 binos. I’ve been very happy and believe one would have to spend close to double to improve upon them. I truly hope the business model works and they force the industry to push quality products at reasonable prices. I also echo the hope they’ll build a 30mm scope with an illuminated hunting reticle.

Why would you need 4 inches of eye relief on a creed? Hell, why would you need it on a 308?

There is such a thing as scope eyebrow. There is also a phenomena where the impact on the eyebrow is from your eyeglasses frame as the scope impacts on the polycarbonate lenses less than an inch from your eye. That gets your attention. I got used to over 4 inches when I used Leupold 6x36 and 6x42, was very comfortable with 3.9 to 4 inches with Zeiss Conquest and am comfortable with 3.75" in Meopta 6x42. The Swarovski's I had years ago had less eye relief and a rebounding eyepiece that did rebound.

I'm stuck entering cartridge casings into a ballistic computer today. I'd almost rather be getting beat up on the forum. This is so boring. A large eye relief is critical when shooting prone. You tend to creep up on the rifle alot more. Getting scoped sucks. [url=http://http://imgur.com/gallery/qcN0DSV][/url]

I like long eye relief, even on a 223. Short eye relief just bugs me.

I'm with you guys. I like 4 or more if I can get it. Two of the closeout Hawkes I bought from Doug have 4 1/2" and make mounting on a couple of problem childs easier. There's probably a small trade-off in field, but I've not noticed it. A Trophy XLT 3-9 I just bought claims 4", but I have my doubts, and it goes way down when zoomed.

So you watched the video a couple of idiots in Alaska created a few years back? I am in total agreement with you BTW.

I'm having an opposite issue where i have trouble getting the hawke far enough forward on my 700 long action. It's almost too much of a good thing. I ended up taking the rear weaver base and mounting it with just 1 screw so it over hangs the breech by a half inch.

Wow

How is it that you can make such a sweeping conclusion as to what other people don't know?

Everybody knows the SS scopes track like a champ.... I can only think of a couple reports where they didn’t... and SWFA replaces them post haste. I’ve had over a dozen of them in the past 15 years.... and they’ve always tracked, returned to zero, and stayed sighted in for me.

Have only seen a couple of reports on the Tracts... and they seem good for the most part. Though.... they’ve got a loooooong way to go before they can even begin to compare to the SWFA. No f’n way am I buying one to find out for myself.... but I still may give the Toric Binocular a run.

That's easy. I haven't seen results on this forum from a test comparing them both under the same conditions. I have seen results from rigorous testing of the SS 10x42 adjustments under conditions that could reasonably be called "military use.". I have seen laboratory tests and field test results on the Tract Toric, mostly good, under conditions that could reasonably called "hunting use". I have seen a lot of opinion about the Toric, mostly bad, based on an extensive test under conditions that could reasonably be called "military use" of a scope that wasn't a Toric and wasn't built in the same facility or country as the Toric.


I see a lot of opinion on scopes from persons who have never owned, tried or tested that scope. I see opinions from people who would never buy or try a scope that they have never owned because it's so bad or its too new. That's not knowledge.

The absence of results posted on this forum does not mean that there’s an absence of results...

I've run the 2-10x42 Toric against the 6x42 MOA-QUAD SWFA on tracking with a simple 15 MOA up/down tracking test. Both tracked and returned to 0 perfectly.

I've spent more time dialing with the 2-10x42 Toric over the past several months than any other scope. It hasn't faltered yet. I should note that I'm only dialing a max of 18 MOA which for some folks might be shorter than they need...for me it gets me out to 700 yards even with a 100 yard 0. At any rate, it has returned to 0 every time, even trying to tune in Tokyo by dialing up/down in between shots.

I've got some more testing I'm waiting to do with it comparing to a couple of other scopes. I'll go ahead and say, for my use and preferences, it's the top of the heap right now for how I use a hunting scope. I keep waiting to find something where it doesn't adjust or return to 0 perfectly but I haven't. If I find a fault with it I'll post but so far it's been perfect.

Show me the test results and I will edit my statement accordingly.

Examples of one or two mean exactly nothing.....

Years of abuse and unfaltering performance speaks volumes.

No one needs to run a test on the SS.... they’ve been performing for 20+ years, and have passed nearly every test throw at them. The Tract kicked ass in an Outdoor Life “shoot-out”... and there are Kardashian marriages that have been around longer than Tract.

Most guys I know, who hunt hard in hard terrain.... are pretty hard on rigs. Their “hunting conditions” are much closer to “military conditions”... though the consequences of their gear not working are far less severe. If your “hunting conditions” involve a short ride in the Gator to your box blind or tree stand.... then I’m sure that Tract has a scope just for you.

If your “hunting conditions” involve marathon length hikes up and down mountainous landscapes, with a rifle that gets strapped to a pack, stuffed in a scabbard, sling across your back, dropped, frozen, soaked, used as a hiking pole, and eventually needs the turret spun to make a shot.... then, at least for now, anything Tract is outta the question.

No, they mean exactly an example of one or two.





Yes



No. They still need to be tested. Over their history they have slipped. They still fail, at some point everything will. To say they don't need to be tested is blind faith....which results in gear not performing. I don't say that as a cut on them but in support of them.



For consideration.... Which scope takes a harder beating? :

1. A rifle strapped to an ATV running over three miles of rutted out, limestone-washboard trails with the ATV pushed hard, followed by a rough 1 mile hike strapped to a pack.

2. A rough 4 mile hike with the rifle strapped to a pack.

Mile compared to mile over a limestone trail, the beating one takes on an ATV is a harder test on the scope than a mile over the same trail strapped to a pack.

Noting that the tougher test on a person is not the tougher test of the scope.

Agreed on the testing..... but it’s a fair presumption that they’ll track. I’d only “test” one if results were whonky.

Also agree on the 4-wheeler..... but the only guys I know who hunt off 4-wheelers are total wanker phagggots.... and from Utah.

Noting the rest of that sentence..... dropped, frozen, scabbard, etc.... is that a tougher test than the climb up the stairs into a box blind?

I think that you would need to be a hunter hunting in steep terrain to know the answer to that question - with steep uphill shots you are inclined to pull the rifle into you and push your head forward. I've "scoped" myself a couple of time. The old leupolds that just had a bare metal rim and no rubber on the ocular were shockers.

The last para is what I do, plus. 8 or so constant months of this and my Tract is still rock solid. As an aside, we can't get the SS scopes here (they won't export) so I have to compare my Tract with the likes of Zeiss - which it competes with no problem at every level. For more than 1/3 of the price.

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/gallery/80/full/74020.jpg

Grinning...or the "climb" into a frozen, stair-less, box-less blind?

I am a real fan of the SWFA scopes. That being said, I just sent my one-and-only Leupold back to the factory for the second time. I think that when I get it back, it will go up for sale and one of these Tract creatures may be in the offing!

I understand guys are not willing to give Tract a chance and thats fine. If you don't like what they have to offer spend your money elsewhere. I'm a Toyota guy. I'm on my 5th one. My past 3 have been trucks. I've never had an issue. My Tacoma had 225k when I sold it. I changed the clutch myself at 185K because I didn't want to get stuck one day. To my surprise it wasn't even close to being worn out. Over the years I always heard bad things about Dodge. Well in 2010 I purchased a Challenger. Now I have skin in the game and can say I'm not a fan. Until you own something and try it first hand how will you know? Maybe the other guy had a [bleep] gun, bad ammo, or just plain can't shoot. At the same time I'm sure somebody with a Toyota will say they are POS. But from my experience and when I've read they are great. As for Tract I've been very happy. Guys keep harping on a test done here and you won't ever be happy with any results I post. Thats fine with me. Let it go already and lets move on. Tract has given scopes to several writers but we can't afford to give it to guys on every forum to torture test it. Imagine you owned a company and 50 guys wanted free gear to play with? Lets be reasonable. I work 60 hours a week testing guns at work. I still shoot in the weekend. I'm an avid shooter. If there was an issue Id be the first to bail on Tract. Take my word for what it is.

Oh for phugg sakes.
Reckon it's time just drop trou and get out the tape already.

lol

The drop test in question would never hold up in court. As an examiner any testing I conduct must be validated and repeatable. There are so many variables in that test. Whose to say the mount, gun, stock, or base didn't fail? Now if you pulled the scope and tested it again with one previously zeroed that would be more fitting. I'll let the haters hate.

I plead guilty. I belong to the "comfy range shooting" (I bring a camp cushion along for the hard bench and its only a 300 yard range) and "limited hunting season" camp. Of course, I am of an age where I am absolutely delighted to still be shooting at the range, have a 300 yard range available and still spend a week deer hunting each year. I am happy to still be in the market for rifles and optics.

In my discussions with the USMC scout sniper team in 1999 mentioned in an earlier post, the Marines told me that they like to engage between 500 meters and 800 meters because under 500 meters they are vulnerable to lesser rifles and over 800 meters the 7.62 "starts to run out of steam." I thought to myself "If I saw a deer at 200 yards, I might take the shot, but I would like to get a little closer." I have known where I fit in the hunting/shooting community for a long time. I am a mere civilian.

I spent some years selling manpack and handheld radios to the military and discussing them with real users. These radios are designed to military environmental specifications, undergo shake and bake testing, drop testing (in their packaging and to a specified standard height and to a specified surface), a Munson road test for vehicular application and are burned in to eliminate latent defects. Still many come back from downrange needing overhaul. The radios that were in vehicles took a real beating. The ones with holes in them or shattered from blast need replacement. My impression is that there is no civilian equivalent to military use.

I like this forum because I can learn from more experienced hunters such as a couple that are contributing to this message trail about equipment that might be useful to me as a civilian hunter. The discussion of tactical and military scopes is interesting but no more relevant to me than an equally interesting discussion of the Abrams tank vs. the Leopard tank. A JLTV will go places where my Subaru Forester won't but I don't go to those places and the Forester is giving failure free service. I have every confidence the Toric will meet my needs as it seems to be meeting needs of other hunters who hunt harder than I do and it does well under tracking tests for a hunting environment. I had a SS 10x42. I am sure it serves others well but it didn't last long enough under light duty to meet any of my needs.

These G-tests are not universally understood, and there is a lot of room for misunderstanding. Can you elaborate on what a "1000G recoil" test is?

Please provide details, or at least a technical explanation, to support the claim.

Thanks,

Jason

Curious about that myself.

Ironically, I've driven 1000's of miles with a Leupold strapped to an ATV and never had a bobble.

FWIW, all the recoil test fixtures I've seen appear to test the recoil by repeatedly banging the scope in the expected direction of recoil. Impacts from the opposite direction or from above or the sides, as could occur from real-world accidents weren't included. Airgun scopes intended for use on springers are designed to withstand the dual recoil and vibration from those guns. It'd be a pretty good trick to design a fixture to test for the random impacts a scope can experience in the field, and it still wouldn't account for differences in mounts, ring-spacing, etc.

So far, ordinary scopes have worked well for me, aside for some vagaries in adjustments, with ordinary care and caution in use. Now that ones with better adjustments are available, I'll trend towards them, and continue to use them with reasonable caution in the field. Those who require mil-spec durability are free to buy scopes that meet that requirement, and should expect to pay for it.

Didn't you also give one of the early 3-9x40 Vortex scopes a workout?

So the scopes are tested at the factory with a machine that replicates impacts equivalent to 1000G force. Our Japanese produced scopes are made by Light Optical. To my knowledge they also make the Vortex Razor, Nightforce SHV, Sig Sauer, and Huskemah. The Philippine's produced scopes factory also makes Nikon, Vortex, Bushnell and several other brands. Keep in mind this could change at any time since scopes are routinely farmed out to different manufacturers. Today we are going to order more targets from Boxtobenchprecision to test tracking results. I leave for vacation tomorrow but once I get back I hope to start working on this. I will still be available to answer questions but just not as often. A 2 and 5 year old will be keeping us busy.

You and me both, and an ATV can beat the livin' schittt outa your gear.

Showoff

I've never had a Leupold 6x42 lose zero, lots of different scopes, lots of miles, drops, falls, etc. I have one mounted on a .223 Montana that lives in a gun boot on an atv driven every day. I just got tired of having to shoot 3 shots after an adjustment. I'm still a big fan of the LRD on a set and forget.

I've gone to the B&C reticle in my VX3. It matches up perfectly with the ballistics in my 7-08/140AB/2800fps load.

Need one of these to test scopes. MAST test rig

Instrument the gun, scope. Record data. Condition data for use with MTS controller, run test.

Or a 3 axis EDS for higher frequency testing, and shock testing. EDS

For the wifes [bleep] maybe. Wouldn't work for a scope. JFC!

Over sensored 5 letter word for a strap on.

Dil do does this work?

Quite a rig.

How far did they have to carry the deers legs?

Will the tract scope hold up to military grade hunters with balls the size of watermelons and hard as steelies?

Some hunters you could give a $30 rifle and a $50 tasco and point em toward hell and they'd come home with meat on the table! Other hunters might not be able to hunt there way out of a wet paper bag. That's just the facts of life and 95% of us have all seen it more than once.

I'm very confident tract will get it done with no worries and I'd have zero reservation hunting one..........but, I've never had to swim the Atlantic or climb a mountain twice as high as mount Everest just to fill my freezer.



Trystan

I’ve experienced many scope failures in the field, so I’m not as flippant about wanting durable, mechanically-sound scopes on my rifles. With our current technology, scopes are the most fragile part of a rifle setup. When you think about your rifle possibly failing you under harsh conditions (weather, drops, falls, etc), what’s the first thing that comes to mind? That’s right, it’s your scope. If a manufacturer will make a scope that can minimize the risk of my rifle setup failing, I’m all for using it over more tender scope options on the market. Hence my general question: What’s the downside to having scopes that function correctly and can beat tent pegs and not lose zero? A couple of ounces? I’ll take the weight penalty, personally. That’s a worthwhile tradeoff IMO.

There are scopes that are built this way at every price point above $250, so money is no excuse to not build a scope made to work properly without failing.

Well you must not be one of "Some hunters you could give a $30 rifle and a $50 tasco"

What? There are plenty of good $30 rifles on the market.

Jordan Smith, I agree with you on much of what you said and I've always appreciated your approach that is both classy and respectful when making a reply to anyone on this forum. In fact I use a SWFA fixed 6 on my main hunting rifle for a reason. I know how well the SWFA fixed 6 works mainly because I have first hand experience and so I can make a respectful and classy reply that is based on experience concerning the SWFA fixed 6. I've used 3 of the SWFA 10s and there of the same quality IME though I prefer the 6 in most hunting situations I find myself in. Until I have first hand experience with Tract I choose to reserve judgement the same as I would for any decent person I run across.

One thing that does have me somewhat baffled sir is why someone as respectful and classy as yourself is choosing to mingle with some so called cesspool dwellers that have repeatedly shown a complete lack of respect for others and in this case based on zero first hand experience with the product.

You sir are one of the good guys and whenever you invite yourself into someone else's camp I've never seen you do it with contempt or disdain. You most certainly would be welcome in my camp anytime and likely most others around here. Your a valued campfire member by the majority. 16 bore is another great campfire member though lately I'm begining to wonder why he's choosing to take an unclassy road based on his Association with cesspool dwellers. I think both you valuable members should rethink your class and your worth and choose Association based on your worth around here.

Me......Im just one campfire member that isn't afraid to treat cowards and cesspool dwellers like the disrespectful schit they choose to be. In fact some have even offered to make a truce or befriend me if I would only apologize for my unkind acts. Why would I want to befriend anyone who walks into another man's camp unannounced treating folks with contempt and disdain???


Trystan

Trystan.... you’re a lying piece of schitt.... you’ve proved time and time again. You should come back “tomorrow”...

They say everything is bigger in Texas...John, you need a bigger ATV, or shoot smaller deer. 😃😎

I'm lucky more than anything else.

Thanks for your response, but that wasn't what I was looking for. It seems that you're just regurgitating info that you read, or were told.

I'm respectfully asking for a response from someone at Tract that actually knows what they are talking about in terms of random vibration, impact loads, etc. In other words, an authoritative figure that can elaborate on these marketing claims.

I suspect that nobody at Tract has this knowledge, and that is OK. The manufacturer probably does have that information and knowledge. What I don't care for is Tract, or their latest online representative just throwing out, "replicates impacts equivalent to 1000G force" when they don't seem to know what they are talking about.

Throw out the technical details, jargon, and info. We can handle it!

Thanks,

Jason

For reference, my post above contains the original question that was asked. I am still waiting for an answer.

Thanks,

Jason

Yeah, but that was only for a few weeks.

You never seem to like the answers you get to any of your questions, so why don't you pick up the phone and call Tract yourself. They are very willing to help. Then you can report back on what you find out.

I fail to see why the same review that I think isn't fair is always brought up. I'm trying to find the location of that optic and I want to retest it myself. No other company would reveal their engineering or testing methods. I myself have never heard or seen Nightforce , Vortex or Leupold answer this. Again if you don't like or plan on purchasing a Tract I feel your only hear to stir the pot. You may not like me or Tract and thats fine. Bring up valid points and we can talk.

FWIW Brian, I think you've already established that you're a decided improvement over the late, unlamented Trevor, who was clearly in over his head. You're spot on about all the speculative naysaying being done.

As far as the infamous Response is concerned, maybe one of the Jons will pony a new one up for you to test, minus the tossing. Form did a good job and knows his stuff, but maybe his (used?) example was just a fluke, or maybe not. I'd actually like to see one of their rimfire models tested myself, maybe against one of the similar Hawke models or a Nikon. Another good one would be the Tekoa 2-10x42, as that power range seems to be somewhat in vogue.

I don’t read this as pot stirring.

I’m a Tract owner. I’m also a Bushnell, Swarovski, S&B, Zeiss, Kahles, Leupold, Sig, Meopta, Minox, Leica, Sightron, Burris and Steiner owner.

What? no Tasco?

Thanks for the kind words. Yup I concur I don't believe Trevors heart was in it. Also the fact he just moved. I used to break his balls I call him a non shooter. But I say that about most all of my friends. I shoot alot! I spoke to Jon and when he goes to the warehouse he will track down the scope in question. I'll test it on my rifle and see if it's the optic or maybe the mount that failed.

Must be one of them Optics Aficionados.

I’ve said it before, given the level of good natured rancor around here, I think Trevor did a great job. He was always personable and good natured. He wasn’t an optics engineer and he never pretended to be one.


Sending out a Ford Fiesta ST instead of a Shelby GT350R to represent the company didn’t make a whole lotta sense, but I’ve got no idea whose call that was.

Quite a few of us feel that FormD's test was perfectly valid.

I would argue that any test done on a Tract scope by an employee of Tract is a flawed test, and independent testing is necessary to be valid. I'd say send FormD another (new) scope.

If the first test in my opinion was flawed why send another scope to be ruined? The scope in question was a $400 scope and I'd never throw one of my rifles to test it. If you want to buy a scope and test it be my guest. We will never be on the same page with this so the point to moot.

And some of us feel differently, so be it.

Your opinion...

I don’t recall the rifle being thrown.

I’m not terribly compelled to wade through another sea of sentence fragments regaling the latest 25 yard rifle scope test. If that’s the plan, good luck.

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbt...ange-tracking-rtz-zero-retention-results

Your opinion is not that of many potential consumers, and Form's tests carry a lot of weight around here, whether or not you think they're valid.

What's hilarious is somehow a Nightforce survived those same tests without being "ruined". By the way, the rifle wasn't being thrown around, it was initially dropped 12" onto a padded mat, and the Tract failed that test. If you're worried about a scope being ruined by being dropped from a foot off the ground, then I don't have a lot of confidence in your interpretation of what constitutes a stoutly constructed scope. Hard use rifles see those sorts of impacts regularly.

That's an excellent point. Go with one of the good ones.

I've long been leery of the notion of a company putting out product lines that span too many market segments. I like the old GM model of at least separating the quality (or feature) layers with different brands, like B&L/Bushnell was briefly. Might not be a good model anymore.

Another thing I don't care for is a company selling refurbs. Even if they fix one problem, who knows what else is lurking in there. I guess it depends on how thoroughly they check them out and warranty them.

[quote=bhoges]I fail to see why the same review that I think isn't fair is always brought up. I'm trying to find the location of that optic and I want to retest it myself. No other company would reveal their engineering or testing methods. I myself have never heard or seen Nightforce , Vortex or Leupold answer this. Again if you don't like or plan on purchasing a Tract I feel your only hear to stir the pot. You may not like me or Tract and thats fine. Bring up valid points and we can talk.]

I think this is an excellent summary. The hunters that use Tract Torics are pleased with them and rely on them. The negative comments come from those who are not using them and would not use them. I don't see the need for another test to military conditions of a hunting scope. Please spare me a discussion of random vibrations or impact loads.

As far as the need for unbiased independent testing, in my world of defense electronics the production engineers certainly regard the quality control tests as unbiased and independent. No production facility can consistently turn out quality product if the quality tests are not unbiased and independent. The production facility in Japan that builds scopes for Tract and others has an excellent reputation for quality which they could not do without quality control and quality testing.

As I've mentioned a time or two, or maybe three, that scope was a dud before the first drop, as it simply wouldn't let the rifle group to its potential. The problem I have with the drop test is that it's not consistent or repeatable, so the "geometry" of the impacts can't really be compared directly. Even in a test fixture designed to deliver such impacts different scopes would undergo different levels of stress by virtue of length, bell diameter, etc. I would expect a true tactical or military grade optic to survive a good bit, but would be surprised at a "toy tactical" like the Response taking much of a beating, aside from recoil in the expected direction like any scope should endure. Comparing a Nightforce to a Response is like pitting a Subaru Brat against a (true) Humvee. Hell, lots of so-called high-end scopes would go tits-up after a brief stint on a powerful springer airgun, yet there are scads of cheap aigun scopes that hold up just fine because they spend a couple bucks building that capability into them.

The scope reviewed and tested by Formidilous was a Tract “Response” not a Tract “Toric”.

His testing could hardly be described as represented military conditions.

The Tract Response was built at a factory in the Philippines.


The following is a link to the test/review.

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbt...ange-tracking-rtz-zero-retention-results

+1

Hence why a test with another Response would be prudent.

The test is valid. It might not be entirely scientific, but it's valid. It's much like how rifle accuracy testing isn't entirely scientific - there are variables such as being shot outside in changing environmental conditions, with a human controlling the rifle. Those factors don't necessarily make the accuracy testing invalid, the test simply needs to be repeated enough times to get a decent sample size. In other words, more scope drop tests should take place to see whether the first was an anomaly, or the norm.

As has been mentioned a bunch of times, SWFAs in the 300 dollar price range stand up to these sorts of tests, so there's no reason a Tract Response, which the manufacturer specifically said was tested to the same impact levels as their more expensive models, shouldn't stand up to the test.

Not to get too far off topic, but a HMMWV isn't anything special. It's like the variable powered Leupold of the off-road world. Both the HMMWV and the Leupold have a good reputation from those who don't actually use them, and they both break down quite often when used hard.

If by that you mean a test of optics and tracking, okay, if they want to do that. None of their competitors (Nightforce isn't one of them) does drop testing so far as I know, for public consumption anyway, so why bother? At that price level, having a good warranty and honoring it is sufficient for the intended market. I'd prefer a SWFA myself (did, in fact), but mostly for its reliable adjustments and focus range, not so I could drop it. If I were expecting to bang one around, I'd pony up for an NF (probably used).

I already did that in August of 2017. This is what Jon LaCorte stated, last year:

"We had a custom gun builder out of Louisiana run 500 rounds of 458 LOTT through the TORIC scope with not point of impact change and the scope was still tracking perfectly"

"The scopes go through a drop type test that simulates recoil, the recoil is similar to the same level of recoil generated by the extreme large caliber rifles like the 458 Lott and 458 Win Mag. Our scopes are made in the same factories as many of the other big name scopes, so they all have very similar recoil ratings."

"All of our scopes are designed for the same level of recoil resistance, durability as well as the mechanical construction such as tracking and return to zero"


I'd like clarification on the "1000G force testing." If they can't or won't elaborate, then simply say so. And why should I pick up the phone again, when we have a spokesman here on our forum representing Tract? In fact, he claims, "Well guys you finally have someone to help field your Tract questions. My name is Brian and I'll be taking over for Trevor."

Why can't I simply ask their spokesman to clarify the claims for the company that he represents?

I have no dog in this fight. I don't care if Tract fails or is a huge success. But the company has made claims, and so have their reps. So I'd like to see some proof, or at least some shred of evidence that they know what they are talking about. So far, I haven't see it. All I have read are claims and fan boys like yourself running to their defense.

Jason

I have perhaps a little different perspective on all this. First, I trust Form implicitly. He's the real deal. There just aren't many people that shoot that could match his skill level. I believe his test was valid. If I did a drop test (which I won't), and it caused an apparent failure of the scope I would tend to suspect my mount, my rings even my bedding before I would say the scope failed. But, the other side of the coin is if Form said the scope failed after the drop test I have 100% confidence that his mounting system and mechanical condition of his rifle and stock are 100% and not the problem. I would say it's fair to guess that Form has put more than a million rounds down range in his career - maybe even 2 million.
He is a recognized expert in everything "The Rifle" to borrow a phrase from Stick. Everyone, even Nightforce and SWFA can let a lemon slip past QC. I haven't heard on this board of any Nightforce failures; I have heard a couple of people claim their SWFA scope failed. I would really be surprised if someone had a Nightforce ATACR or NXS fail. The way Form describes Nightforce construction of the turret assembly, the materials they use in the turret assembly and the in house testing of each scope before it is released for sale, really instills confidence in a Nightforce ATACR or NXS scope.

Brian, I would like to hear the results of a test you conduct on a Tract riflescope. I would also like to hear FORM do another test on a Tract riflescope that is the same level as the one he tested before. If both Brian and Form don't reveal any failures of the scope I'd call that a major feather in the cap of Tract. If either Brian or Form find the Tract scope failed, well, Tract has a problem. That would be 2 out of 3 randomly picked scopes of the same price point/level failed testing.

I've been reading this whole thread without comment. First, I think bhodges is a better spokesman for Tract. I've seen his reviews/posts before and he seems to know of what he speaks. Second, I'm one of those Tract customers who was spooked by FormD's testing of the Tract. I actually had one and returned it before mounting it.

I have a slightly different view of the drop test - within reason I like them. My Burris E1 hit the pavement last year after my buddy accidentally kicked it over. I've fallen and dropped my rifle, I've knocked them over leaning against a tree, I've had them thrown inside a gun case (airline) - in short a hunting rifle is going to incur significant impact from directions other than recoil. Throwing tests aren't overly repeatable but are better than simply hoping they don't move when the inevitable impact happens. I'm not a Stick fan but his throwing test was a bit extreme - but proved a point. I think its reasonable to do a 'drop test' like FormD did regardless of the exact impact direction/angle/velocity can't be exactly repeated.

An idea: a bunch of us could buy a Toric, send it to FormD to test, then sell it afterward and recover whatever money we can. I'd be in for $40. In my mind this is cheap R&D for all of us on the 'Fire. It would also be worth spending $40 to settle the 'debate'. Right now all we have is a couple of drop tests (FormD and JCMCubic) and 2 scopes that moved upon impact.........

What Im trying to state about the test is the fact that two different mounts were used in the test. When the rifle was dropped or thrown it land on different spots each time which can't be duplicated. Whose to say the scope didn't move in the mounts. I bet you can remove the glass from a rifle and drop it several times and if you reinstall the optic it could be off too. The test isn't valid. Too many variables come into play. We have a difference of opinion on this. I recently witnessed an expert witness conduct a test on a perps revolver. When it came time for him to testify they pulled him. I could have contradicted everything he did in his b.s. test. Without proper equipment and valid tests everything he did wouldn't hold up. Its like running two cars in a race with different tires and drivers.

BUSHNELL ELITE scopes use to have a try it for one year and if you don’t like it send it back for a full refund. I know it sounds a little crazy but being a new company trying to get off the ground with optics that aren’t cheap you may have to offer a similar warranty to let people decide for themselves.

I just ask to be given a fair chance. Since Tract is new it takes time to get up to speed.

Burris and STeiner ???????????????????????????

Need to state that on my test it could just have likely been the mounts or action seating, etc. SWFA 6x failed the same test....and again, it's just as likely it was another link in the rings/base/action chain. Both the Toric and the SWFA were rezero'd and all was well. The "test" I did isn't a fair test as it doesn't effect only the scope. Even if it was only the scope....it was an ~5' drop directly on the scope 3 times in a row....it's pretty harsh.

Same rifle with same Tract Toric scope took a long tumble down a steep hillside while hunting when a sling swivel stripped and was still zero'd when I checked it. It's adjusted perfectly with a lot of dialing and returned to 0 perfectly.

The only way I see to settle this is to do as bwinters suggests and have Tract send a Toric to Form to test (if he has the time and inclination....he may not want to mess with the drama). He tests in a standardized and repeatable manner. It could make or break Tract's reputation.

I’m not impressed by anyone that claims they’d take a bushnell over a S&B if their life was on the line.

for some, their life IS their wallet..

I think everyone knows the test was on the Response and that it was built in the Philippines although the test on the Response is used to denigrate the Toric, which wasn't tested and was built in Japan. (I explicitly stated this in an earlier post.) I have no need for a similar test on the Toric. I understood that Formidilous's testing methodology was for military purposes from his replies to me a couple of years ago. If I misunderstood his comments which included his photographs, I apologize.

I'm not sure I'm following you John. I certainly never said any such thing. Heck, I can't even afford a Bent Fender <G>

No you.

Form never “dropped” this scope.... hell, it barely made it to the tracking phase. If you go back and look, the scope wouldn’t even stay sighted in, and caused group size to double.

Top that off with Trevor’s BS about all the scopes being held to the same standard...and you can see when/why/how Tract went off the rails here on the fire.

This test wasn’t “military” style.... it wasn’t even “hunting abuse”. The scope flat out wouldn’t work under the most simple and mundane of all practices.... bench shooting groups. It didn’t hold zero, it didn’t return to zero, and it didn't track. End of story.

Why the hell would anyone ponytail up $40 on a Toric for Form to test. Tract oughta be sending him the best that they got, then thanking him afterwards. If it passes Form’s gauntlet, they’ll sell a few here..... if not, you can tell us we were right, and go back to the drawing board.

Disclaimer: Based on numerous recs here, and a few elsewhere, I'm very happy with the LRHS's I have bought. LIke them lots and lots. Liked the SWFA as well.

I think someone, anyone here on the 'fire who is emphatic about retesting should reach out to all of the scope sellers and try to get samples from each sent to Form so he can conduct the same tests. It would be interesting to see who responds. I'm betting very few, if any.

We don’t need to.... he’s already run most of them... and posted the results.

Tract started this whole thing, by planting Trevor, and subjecting their scope to Form for the first test, then dodging the results.

Hodges is doing damage control now, and failing to address the aforementioned test. There was no dropping or abuse of any sort.... they’re stuff just failed to perform. Tract should pony up and see if their scope, any of them, can pass the Pepsi Challenge.... like they attempted to do originally.

Gotcha. Good point that Formid has tested most of them.

I met the co founder of tract, I think his name is Jon at a local trade show a few months back. Nice guy who talked to me at length about optics. this can't be restated the scope formadillo tested was I think their cheapest line that is built in the Philippines. Probably the same factory that build nikon's stuff and likely vortex stuff too. The Toric line is built but LOW in japan. Please understand there is a huge gap in quality in a LOW japan scope and one built in china or the phillipines, let me say again HUGE gap. IMO LOW japan is involved is one of only a couple factories in the world capable of building scopes that track like we want. Heck its very possible they also build the SWFA SS scopes as well.

The way it works is optics companies spec what they want to these factories. These optics makers offer various standards that adhere to a price point. Want better tracking? spend more at LOW for a higher tracking spec. Same for glass quality. As time has went by all but a couple of my optics are LOW built or in the case of nightforce from my understanding LOW builds the parts and NF assembles it in the US. unless its some high end euro scope, LOW is the factory you want making your long range scope. with all that said formadillo needs to test a LOW built toric scope. I would be very very interested to see what he comes up with. The drop test he did IMO is extremely valid. While I don't agree with everything form spouts. I thought his testing was vary thorough and very interesting.

Lastly I told Jon, at tract what I thought. Frankly why buy a tract optic? its a boutique brand that in the past these companies have come and gone and you end up with an optic that has no resale and no support if it breaks. I told him they should focus on mechanical tracking. Frankly there are tons of other optics out there that IMO make a lot more sense to buy than a tract. However our options are limited on scopes that track mechanically. I think they should make this their trait rather than glass or anything else. put up some videos of the scopes being tested mechanically. Provide a guarantee the optic will function mechanically. basically sell us this over just another scope in a highly competitive market.

That makes a lot of sense. Just curious, how did he respond?

I heard the toric was made by Light Optical Works and the response was made by Electric Light Orchestra?

I think he was listening. He also told me many times optics companies use 1" internals in 30 and even 34 mm scope and market them as HD offerings when in reality they are nothing more than a larger tube with the same guts in it as a 1" tube. He didn't mention any makes but I personally feel Burris does this all the time, honestly I don't think he would be surprised at what formadillo found in their cheap line of scopes. I didn't mention the formadillo results as I didn't want to upset him or seem like I was trying to cause a problem. Rather I just wanted to talk to him about the business.

will they actually change to what I think many of us would like to see? I have my doubts. These guys all come from the main line optics industry. I think he was a former nikon guy. They tend to want to do the same thing they did at the company they worked for I would assume. Nikon I hasn't shown they really care about tracking. nightforce on the other hand has videos of them banging and testing the scopes. The fact is people are doing way more with optics these days than they did in the past. its surprising how few companies are out there that really cater to mechanical reliability. They get away with it because honestly your average guy doesn't shoot much. The scopes that break probably cost 1/4 to 1/5th what they retail for. So they just batch QC those scopes and send out a replacement. Heck even vortex with the PST 2. of all the companies out there that aught to know better. I test 2 off the shelf examples and both had right reticle shift with elevation travel. Yet your average guy will never figure that out.

what I think should happen is an optics company has their scope built solely by LOW in japan. Then they offer a DVD with each scope that shows that scope being QC tested in the lab, probably locally here in the US. Show the serial number of the optic. then show the turrets functioning in a culminator, show the scope being shock tested like nightforce does. Show the scope returning to zero. Do all the tests a company like nightforce does. BUT PROVIDE A VIDEO DVD OF THAT SCOPE BEING TESTED!!! add $100 to the cost of every optic to video the test and conduct it. that is how a company like tract rises from obscurity. imagine a video DVD in the box with the scope showing all the testing done to that particular scope. no one is doing that. I bet something like that would get all our attention around here. oh yeah and put a signed sticker on the objective bell by the person that tested it, just like nightforce does.

A DVD of someone beating the [bleep] out of the scope you just paid good money for? You want a video of somebody redlining the piss out of the next truck you buy too? A video of somebody banging the chick you just married? WTF.....

I simply said that I see no need for another test of a hunting scope to military standards and I don't. I really don't care what Trevor said, I waited to see what Mule Deer and others said about the Toric. The Toric has more than passed the simple tracking tests you discuss in the hands of other reviewers and is well regarded by the hunters who use them in conditions harder than I will use them, as they dial the elevation adjustments and I set and forget. I would not spend the money to send a Toric to be tested. I would buy it to use myself and did-twice. It joins my Meopta MeoPro 6x42's which are doing fine in my use despite also being described as not reliable. Form's extended testing is simply not relevant to my needs, as much as it meets your requirements. It yields recommendations of scopes with features I don't need, some of which I can't use because they lack features I need. After all, my SS 10x42 is in a landfill somewhere in Pennsylvania. Tract has sold a few more Torics here and will sell more in spite of all the hate.

How about a video of her sister.

Apparently you're unfamiliar with my sister-in-law!

Better be a blu-Ray or I'm out.

I started working up storyboards.

So far there’s an United Colors of Benetton storefront at a post apocalyptic strip mall, 10,000 cubic yards of whipped cream, a hot air ballon with a confetti cannon and three clowns, but two of them are mannequins.

More later my crayon sharpener broke.

um hell yes, nightforce does just that with every scope, watch and learn

Switch it to a Lane Bryant, double the whip cream, make the confetti cannon a pinata full of candy and the clowns chocolate Easter bunnies and you're getting close. Might add in a pallet jack and some aircraft cable....

LOL!!!!

She’s just got the one sister, huh.

budget considerations

Yep, the "Legendary Impact Testing" at Nightforce. Is it scientific and repeatable? Nope. But it probably helps weed out problem scopes. And I don't think it has been secret or proprietary info.



Another video here



Jason

Yea, LOL.

Stunt doubles to protect the "talent". Works just as well for scope testing as it does for amateur porn.
Shoot it in bokeh, thank me later. Hint.

Here is the student project that Nightforce sponsored with the University of Idaho for an impact testing fixture.

NF inpact testing device

My hat's off to NF for engaging the students.

NF is the gold standard in optics I own several. They are tanks and worth every penny. Hard to compare NF to a $400 Tract. My gripe with the Response test was that one scope had NF rings and the Response had a Warne mount. I agree it shouldn't have failed but I never saw the mount or optic in question. I myself have never been a fan of Warne products. I've seen my share of issues with them. I'm a huge fan of AADMOUNT. I have that on my JP Rifles AR15. I feel the scope should have been sent back to the factory and been diagnosed. Maybe a bad unit got out there.

$750 bucks or so is a good price for a 3-15 x 50 rifle scope. I have been tempted more than once. Let's say I idiotically finagle myself into another 300WSM which I have no need for, and want to put a rifle scope on it. I don't know this new rifle, so I buy talley LW mounts which have worked for me in the past, and now the scope, which scope would I buy that would have the higher chance of being correct so that if the rifle was not shooting it would not cost me a small fortune in bullets and powder along with a scope swap to figure it out? Leupold? Vortex? Meopta? Tract? Nightforce?

What Tract did by cutting out the middle man keeps the cost down. I remember my first NF NXS 8-32x was $1150 back in the day. Optic prices have soared over the last few years. I think about what some brands cost and I think they are insane. For a little more money I'll just get a S&B. I just purchased a Vortex AMG though their LE program. Even with a discount they bumped up their MSRP so much its barely worth it. I wanted to keep the weight down on my Vudoo Rifles V22 thats on the way.

Jimmy, that’s a fair question that puts things in perspective. 15 years ago, the answer would have been easily leupold. Today, in that price range, it’s harder. I would probably lean towards Meopta (or Zeiss). For a few hundred more, there are more options like Swarovski Z5 and hunting line of NF, or if you can still find them, the LRHS from Bushnell. The SS HD glass is adequate and repeatability stellar, but I’m not a fan of the reticle for lowlight hunting conditions. For precisely the reasons you mention, I would not go the Leupold route—-been there done that x2. In both cases, I figured it cost me a couple hundred dollars and a silly amount of frustration and time. I’m a real fan of Tract binos but want to see a few more tests of the Toric line of scopes. I’ve got a great shooting T3x in 06 that’s looking for an upgrade in optics.

WTF lol

We compare $300 SWFAs to Nightforce scopes all the time, and they compare favorably in the tracking and zero holding departments. There is zero reason a Tract shouldn't be able to do the same, but they don't compare. Instead we just get excuses whining about flawed testing, because the cheap POS Tracts won't hold up. If you think they'll hold up, do drop tests or shut up.

Is this your experience with a Tract scope?

According to the information in this thread here are some of the facts. A number of folks have tried a tract scope and were very pleased with the results. In fact though its not contained in this thread Mule Deer I believe made the statement that you are getting more for less money with the Tract optic. We Also have a number of folks who seem to be down talking the Tract optic when in fact they have never even tried one. Many of those same folks have said many times that first hand experience is the only authority that grants a reply made in wisdom otherwise your just a dumbass talking out your ass! In this case I'd take my own advice and get first hand experience before making a reply. A good number here who have first hand experience seem to be saying the exact opposite of those who haven't even seen the scope in question.

Than we also have the Form test. The most flawed part of that test was the fact that the scope had been passed around plenty before it arrived at Forms front door. In fact whoever sent the scope to Form you would think no doubt new the scope was tits up and the problem showed immediately. Makes me wonder how many handled the scope previously that may have even had a dog in the fight. Hell, send me your favorite Nightforce and I'll send it to Form to be tested as soon as I'm done with it. I guarantee you it won't even get past sighting it in if I don't want it to. This test Form did was ridiculous and Form even stated as very matter of fact that the test certainly was not to be taken as valid because of to many unknown variables. I took Forms word at that! Some however have chose to cherry pick through Forms words rather than take all of Forms words in its entirety.

For many hunters it appears to me the Tract scope line is going to offer more for less dollars and thats a good thing for most of us. Do I think the Tract scope will track with an SWFA. No! and personally I don't need it to be an SWFA. Why! Because SWFA"s are heavy and I do have certain hunting situations where I don't feel like packing around the extra weight. I realize bombproof mechanical integrity would be nice but if you make the Tract scope heavy like an SWFA what's the point. Just buy am SWFA if thats what your after.

I for one along with many others will opt for Reasonable mechanical integrity for the weight savings. So far according to those with first hand experience Tract is proving to be more than reasonable as far as mechanical integrity is involved short of a $2500 sniper capable scope. Again the comparison is just freaking absurd!

I think Tract is here to Stay and I think they offer a lot of what most hunters want for a great deal. In the end Tracts long term success I think will come down to quality control and if Tract keeps that top notch I think they are going to knock this out of the park.


Trystan

Trystan, You said it better than i could!!

Or what will happen exactly ?

You sound like you have a vested interest in SWFA. I know you don't believe in Tract so why not let it go already? Its seems your just here to flame every post I make and we can do nothing right. I just started last week it takes time to get up to speed. I don't even have product myself to test. So you want to compare a fixed power SWFA to a variable Tract? Why don't you send me a SWFA to test? How do I know your test tins't bias?

I would wager money if your not a turret twister you will like the toric scope. its a LOW built scope. if your a set it and forget it guy, that is not much a challenge for a decent built scope. Think bushnell elite series. but then again why not just buy an elite instead? I would quite honestly. Even though vista outdoors sucks and is terrible for bushnell, The brand is still likely to be around for a while. Tract, who knows. Like I said already Tract needs something else in this competitive market than # me too. Video each scope being tested. Give some to tactical shooters and internet wannabees, Get them posting their experiences. This is how you build and optics company from nothing and take it beyond boutique. It has to offer something. Right now I don't see enough of an advantage to push the buy button. just looked at tracts web site again. the toric is $725, at that price point I am buying a nightforce SHV or a zeiss V4, just being totally honest, yeah the v4 is probably a bit more but there are places where you can get one for about the same as the tract if you look around. The V4 is stunning in person. Its got a zero stop turret as well. both those brands offer resale value and aren't going anywhere if you break the scope. Why again would I buy I tract? I wouldn't unless I am convinced I need to.

How exactly would you propose testing it?

It won't be shoved up your size 7 1/2 ass. Though I'm sure you have a Photoshop for that

What the [bleep] is a "7 1/2 ass"? That some kinda NAMBLA secret code [bleep]?

Steelie’s not getting enough attention, so he’s acting out.

Haha you never disappoint jack!!! Lmao

Trystan,

"In fact though its not contained in this thread Mule Deer I believe made the statement that you are getting more for less money with the Tract optic."

I did not make that statement. What I have written about the Tract Toric 3-15x42 I've tested (and have continued to test for well over a year now) is that the adjustments have worked perfectly so far, and the optics rated the best for the least price any I've ever tested on my night-time optics chart.

I started testing this particular scope on one of my usual scope-busters, a very accurate Heym .300 Winchester Magnum, using a load that averages around 1/2" for 3-shot groups at 100 yards, the 210 Berger VLD at around 2950 fps. The scope worked perfectly out to 1000 yards, cranking it both up and down to shoot at various ranges from 200-1000, and then when I turned it back to the 100-yard zero again it put three into the usual small cluster, exactly where it had been zeroed to start. All together I fired about 55-60 rounds of that load, as I recall.

Did NOT do a "drop test," however. I should probably also mention that the .300 has steel Talley bases Acra-Glassed to the receiver, and the scope was mounted in steel Talley rings.

Then I mounted the Torix on my much lighter NULA .30-06, also a very accurate rifle, and it worked perfectly for several dozen rounds as well. The NULA has Talley Lightweights (which are actually NULA-designed rings) Loc-Tited to the receiver. Also did not do a "drop test" with the NULA.

Since then I've put the scope on 3-4 other rifles as well, though none that recoil as much as the .300 or .30-06, and it has continued to work correctly, after hundreds or rounds.

Admittedly that is ONE scope, but have heard reports from several other hunters who bought Torics and have gotten the same sort of results--though none have performed a "drop test."

Tract is one of a few companies that directly market made-in-Asia optics on the Internet, instead of going through the standard distribution channels. I've tested (and own) optics from other such firms (including a number of SWFA scopes, and binoculars from Tract and Maven) and they have all provided above-average performance for the price among the dozens of optics I test every year.

But admittedly I don't do "drop tests" with scopes. Never have, and probably never will. Instead I mount them on harder-kicking rifles and shoot them for a while, to see if they quit working correctly. Quite a few quit, often within the first 50-100 rounds. In fact I've now had 19 brands of riflescopes (not individual scopes) fail in some way, either right out of the box or after some shooting, some that cost quite a bit. In fact during the past month had one retailing for over $2000 fail within 50 rounds, and it was a brand with a great reputation for ruggedness. In fact have never had one of that brand fail before, but anything mechanical made by humans can screw up. So again, my Tract Toric is only an example of one.

You should make a video of yourself abusing it, include that DVD with it and sell it to Cummins cowboy. He's in the market for just that apparently.

Thanks John for your review of the Tract Toric . Those results are very good by any measure.

Maybe this will sink in to some that think you need to drop test a scope, I don't and one test by Form, should not be the picture of any kind
of reliability.
I don't like a smear and complain crowd, some without any knowledge who like to chime in without any experience.

Cowboy, don't buy a Tract. Stay with a Nightforce, it seems you think you need it. LOL.......
,

I’ll test one if you send it . Where the hell is the tract scope that was being passed around?

Thanks for clarifying and explaining your testing Mule Deer. That was helpful. I suppose that If there was a scope that I wasn't comfortable with or didn't like for any other reason, I would likely refrain from buying it and wouldn't be asking anyone to send me one so I can see if I can make it fail but that's just me.

[


its not "abuse" its simply testing the scope. did you watch the video I showed of NF testing procedures? They have a fixture that checks the scopes zero retention. They also check erector travel with some sort of machine. The point isn't to video abuse, but rather show the scope passing a factory test that includes simulated recoil and accuracy of adjustment. I have my own testing I conduct on every scope I mount now. I would video the view through the scope but I am not sure what people are using to do that. Here is some testing I would like to see as part of what I am talking about. this is similiar to the setup I do, I just don't know how this guy videos it.

When you are not a turret twister, other factors have more priority. I looked at the SHV 3-10 for my needs. It looks like a nice compact hunting scope without some of the features I don't need. I can't get it with the No. 4 reticle NF offers in other markets. It's eye relief is a stated 3.5" which is about 0.25" too short for me. I would have to try one or at least look through one on a rifle to be sure I could use it, but I have not kept any of the scopes I have tried with a 3.5" eye relief after shooting with them.

If I could get the SHV with a tad more eye relief and the No. 4 reticle, I probably would have taken a plunge on an SHV. The Toric meets most of my expectations and exceeds my expectations for the image. It's advantage is in value for the money. I did look at the choices for 10x magnification, 4' eye relief, fast focus eyepiece, no parallax adjustment and a hunting reticle. It seems to me there was more choice for this simple a scope a few years ago. (Zeiss V4 goes from a 1-4x to a 3-12x56 or 4-16X44, both with 3.5" eye relief, and long range reticles.) The scope that meets my needs perfectly on paper is the Schmidt & Bender Summit 2.5-10x40 with a No. 4 reticle. I don't know if they are still being manufactured. If you do find one, they cost around $2K. The Toric 2-10X42 with its glass, the T-Plex reticle and a cost of $725 is great value compared to that.

Cowboy, start a new thread on your favorite.

The top brands don't do this, so think about that.

Targetsusa.com sells something called a scope tool on their sight. You mount a scope on it and with a reference target you move the turret through its adjustments and it'll show if the adjustments are repeatable. You could set it up and dial a scope daily for a few weeks and get a feeling on its ability. Not explaining myself very well but check it out. 250 bucks. And you could do a mechanical tracking test.

Seems someone here used to espouse Leupold beating the Hell out of every scope to test it...

are you needing this for a magnum rifle? there is a downside to extra eye relief. there is not cheating or avoiding the optical triangle. more eye relief less FOV. Also the image is further from your eyes which makes the scope power setting appear less, I mount my scopes so that I have to slightly move forward a touch. basically pull the gun into my shoulder pocket just a bit for the best view at the highest power. Lower powers eye relief is less critical which is most of my shooting off hand. most of the other times I am shooting on high power maybe I am prone. in this case I am not having to snug the gun to my shoulder rather I am more over it. I think careful mounting can really help. I never have a problem personally, but I don't shoot magnum boomers either. my hardest recoil is probably 280 ackley loading full house.

leupold and many of the euro stuff has more eye relief. I don't really like it. I prefer the way japanese optics typcially are. which is to say shorter eye relief generally.

Thanks for a courteous and civil reply on this particular series of posts.

I became accustomed to more than 4" of eye relief with Leupold 6x36's and 6x42's for most of my life. I mostly shoot .308 Winchester although I have added 7.62x39 and will add 6.5 Creedmoor later this year.

Others have mentioned the need for longer eye relief when shooting prone or uphill but that does not apply to me, so I can't comment. Eye relief does vary with position. I notice the difference in shooting from the bench and from offhand.

Eyeglasses affect the usable eye relief and the effect on the optic triangle varies with the prescription. Its the scope hitting the polycarbonate lens in my eyeglasses less than an inch away from my eye that gets my attention. The Swarovski PH 1-6x42's and 2.5-1042's that I used for a couple of years had 3.5" of eye relief and spring mounted eye pieces that gave and rebounded if they hit your eyebrow or glasses. In my case, they did hit and rebound. I was never comfortable with that.

I am quite willing to trade FOV for eye relief in scopes. In binoculars, FOV is more important to me but I still look for 18-20mm of eye relief. I find that the larger eyepieces common on scopes these days take care of image size issues even if you have to mount the scope a bit higher to clear the bolt. I was worried about the Meopta MeoPro 6x42 with its 3.75" of eye relief after using the Leupolds and Zeiss Conquests with 4 inches of relief, but the Meopta is very accommodating to varying vision needs. The Toric in my limited use so far accommodates vision issues well.

How to void the warranty on your ATV...

That video actually had me laughing!

I have a Kimber 84M in 338 Federal that seems to have taken on the hobby of ruining scopes. The last two anyway. Maybe I'll try one of these next.

I bring up SWFA, because they work. I've paid for all of my SWFAs.

Also, I would possibly purchase a Tract if they had a scope I wanted, which would stay sighted in. The subject was broached to Trevor about making something along the lines of an SWFA 3-9, with a low profile, covered windage turret, zero stop, and ~3.75" of eye relief.

You're the tester, yet you don't seem willing to perform the tests that guys want to see. Knowing that a scope might actually stay in line during everyday bangs and bumps is an important test, and if you feel that other tester's methods are off, then make a test you'd find to be valid. Otherwise, without further testing (since we've already seen the scopes to be knocked out of line - more testing could sway the results the other direction) there's just a big unanswered question looming over Tract, which many of us aren't going to pay to find out the answer to with our own money.

I’ve been playing air guitar all morning.

Yes, this! A scope made for hunting. All I want is a low profile, covered turret scope with good eye relief that dependably holds zero during a challenging hunt. A fixed 6 power (or no more than a 3-9 variable) with less than a 40mm objective, weighing less than 16-17 ounces or so. Preferably with a simple duplex/plex or LR duplex/ballistic plex reticle.

Mule Deer,

Thank you for the clarification




Trystan

Tract Toric 2-10x42. Comes with a covered (or can be left exposed) zero-stopped elevation turret (max 18 MOA with zero stop). Capped windage. Simple T-plex (great hunting reticle). 4" eye relief. 18.6 oz

I've had there 3-9x40 turion on my .50 cal muzzle loader since last year. With more than a hundred rounds fired with a 150 gr. charge and 250 gr. bullets . It's has stayed spot on the best groups my muzzleloader has shot. It went on my sons hunt in arizona unit 12b bumped around in the back of a 2 seater ranger and gun scabbard for 5 days before making a 150 yard shot dead on with drop provided by the reticle and there ballistic calculator. So far a much better muzzleloader scope than the nikon that went tits up twice and the leupold it replaced. I also have a 3-15 Toric that has been spot on on my winchester feather weight 270 wsm. Bumped around in a honda pioneer for three days before Making a 350 yard shot on a mexico couse buck last year with distance dialed in. These are the real tests of a true hunting scope in my opinion. So far they have done well. Granted I will be buying a NF for my semi custom build for a long range couse rifle.

Ha, I have one, and so far have nothing but good things to say about it with limited use. But it's not what I consider low profile with the large turrets. Perhaps I should have said smaller profile turrets rather than low profile.

Needs to be mil/mil.

That is SO fuggin fake!! If the scope was functioning correctly that Kimber would be shooting 3 MOA..

LMAO

Yes they will (I have already brought one in). They will export to NZ, Australia and Canada. The end cost to me was about $450 NZ$

Interesting, and thanks for this.

I went to the site and found this: "SWFA, Inc. is now authorized to export to the Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom only. International customers should contact [email protected] for all inquiries and special order instructions".

So I might be able to do a comparison with the Tract Topic under our NZ conditions.

I'm tempted to give the Toric 4-20X50 a try on my AR .308. I'm torn between the 3-15 and this for hunting and targets. Curious to see how it would do against my Kahles K624I. The Outdoor Life Optics Test seems to indicate it has fantastic glass even compared to Swarovski and Zeiss.
https://www.outdoorlife.com/sites/o...mport/2016/riflescopes.png?itok=NEbbvG8T

How interesting that these are the Five Eyes countries that share intelligence.

Scotty, Kahles is probably one of the best tactical scopes out there. I was checking out the new 3-18x compact at SHOT. Even though the Tract has excellent glass it just doesn't compare to a 3k scope. I loved the Kahles turrets. Might be a purchase down the road for me. Tract 30mm scope is a great mid level scope for long range shooting. Its not extremely heavy and has excellent glass. You just don't have reticle choices or other features the high end companies offer.

Bhoges,
Probably a stupid question, but what is your background/qualifications that makes you uniquely qualified to represent/test/review rifle optics.
If this has been covered or is a known quantity, please forgive me for asking. Just want to know who's advice I'm considering.

Jackmountain what are your qualifications for asking a stupid fffucking question like that?

The absolute most important feature of any scope used for tactical or long range applications is reliable, accurate, and durable mechanics. What has been your experience with the mechanics of the Kahles and 30mm Toric that make you say that they are great in those roles?

One test by anyone does not give an absolute indicator of reliability. Funny that you praise John’s test of one scope, and with the next sentence denigrate Form’s test of one scope.

Having said that, a single test that reveals a failure is far more telling than a single test that shows no failure. Here’s why: if it were possible to thoroughly test every scope of a given model, we may notice a trend of one failure in 100 scopes, for example. If we test one scope from this batch we expect to see no failure, as the probability of the scope passing the test is 99 in 100. Another model of scope may have a failure rate of 1 in 10. If we put all the scopes of both models in a pile and randomly test two scopes, with neither showing a failure, we don’t know whether we are testing the scope with one failure in 10, or one in 100. But if our random two tests both show scope failures, it becomes much more likely that we are testing a scope with a high failure rate, due to the likelihood of randomly getting a failure. A scope test that leads to failure says a lot more about the scope then a test showing a scope working the way it supposed to.

I am watching from a distance. But so far I have seen nothing in the line I would be interested in.

For my own use (and many clients I know, who have hunted with me and talked over the issue) I am waiting on a bomb-proof fixed 4X with a 4 MOA set of hash marks, 30MM tube, 40-46MM Objective lens and NOTHING else.

That one should be followed with a 2.5X and then a 6X One the 2.5 please keep the 30MM tube and at least a 36MM lens.
Just a set of hunters scopes.

The industry seems to be oblivious to this fact, but there is a large section of shooters out here that don't want any widgets and gizmos, and do not drink the cool aid.

Basically we want an up-grade on a Weaver K4, a K2.5 and and K6, but made tough enough to pound nails, and with the light transmission we can get with the 30MMM tube and large objective.

A scope is a sight. It's something to aim with. Many of the new ones seem to be designed to entertain tecno-nerds and that's absolutely ok and it's good for them. Many are very good marksmen too and are being catered to quite well by you and everyone else in the industry.

But there are many who want a simple sight that we can aim with, that's 100% dependable, and has just a simple set of marks to do ranging with.

All good and dedicated rifleman will learn their trajectory and wind drifts pretty fast, and don't need the gizmos to calculate all the things groups and target shooters like.

There are still a few million hunters out here that don't want those kind of do-dads..

Any chance your company would pay attention to us?

In the mean time my 24 year old old Vari-X3 on an even older 30-06 FN Mauser delivered a few weeks ago.

Some around here might credit the tape on the barrel before the Leupold.

so kahles is the gold standard? umm watch otherwise.



another model with tracking error

He didn't denigrate forms test! He said, "One test by Form should not be any picture of reliability" Do you really disagree with that statement?

Concerning Johns statements in his post I believe farmboy1 was most likely referring to the part where John had tested the Toric but also several others John knows have tested the Toric with the same results. Likewise a number of others have tested Tract scopes who are posting on this very thread and have experienced the same sort of results as John. Admittedly non of them were doing drop tests so I can see that being a valid argument.

It would sure be nice to get to the bottom of the SWFA logistics that enabled the company to have scopes built for $300. My guess is taxpayers dollars due to government involvement and likely a few strings pulled by someone who knows someone. I highly doubt Tract nor anyone else for that matter is going to compete with SWFA unless somehow the federal government gets involved and they get $800 for a hammer and $1200 for a toilet seat!

I've personally worked for the federal government and the stuff that goes on behind closed doors would make your head spin....or maybe not.
The fact that the feds were involved with the SS scope certainly opens possibilities and in a big way IME




Trystan

To state a statistical probability, first, you must randomly select a test group. Randomly means each scope in the total number of scopes has an equal chance of being chosen for the test group. These tests that involve only one scope and that scope fails tells us one thing - that scope failed. You can't validly generalize to the rest of those same model scopes, and especially not to the entire line of scopes and infer they have a higher failure rate than other scopes based on a single scope test. If a random selection was made then you have an equal chance of grabbing a "bad" scope on your first grab as you would on your 30th pick if your n = 30.

You are randomly selecting a scope every time you buy one and the retailer randomly picks one off the shelf. Not sure what point you’re trying to make. If a model of scope has a failure rate of 1 in 1000 over the entire population, and you randomly select a sample of 30 test scopes, chances are high that you will see zero failures in those tests.

I know a guy who took a company public that offered a line of consumer products. 500 million IPO. He told me that you need a 6:1 or greater cost to retail value to make it. so a $600 scope would cost $100. I personally don't think there is that much mark up in these scopes, but I do bet its 4:1 or greater. so SWFA selling a $300 scope means, there is no money that a retailer needs to make because SWFA is the retailer. automatically between marketing and lack of retail spread. They can sell a scope that would retail for $600 for half the price. The price isn't a huge deal here. I think there are lots of people that would pay $1k for a scope with bomb proof tracking, with more features that the swfa SS line

WOW I'm surprised but I guess there are duds in eery batch. Many PRS shooters are using them. I wonder if he leveled the target and the scope on the first test. The second video with the parallax issue is pretty wild. It goes to show even a 3k scope can be defective. I know friends with S&B scopes that have issues. [bleep] happens.

Goodness, this drop test business...

I've drop tested my Toric many times - its what happens when you take your rifle away from the key-board and into the hills. I hunt deer at least once a fortnight in rugged country (as I've said before) and my Toric gets nudges and vibrations and bashes every time. Its never in a case or bag. This has demonstrated to me that the Tract is as good as any scope I have had during my 55 years of recreational and commercial hunting, and better than many.

Its likely that my Toric has hunted in rugged conditions as much as any Tract 'scope has (14 deer shot this year). To me, that's the acid test.

Keyboard conjecture from people who have never owned one and are unlikely to means nothing to me.

Im not saying that they are the best, or that they last forever. But the Tract Toric sure is "good enough" at this stage and if it's reliability is as good as the glass they will soon become an established brand.

I think it’s the fact that it’s still an expensive scope and for that price or just a little more there are established brands already. I’m still thinking of getting a TRACT TORIC because I like to see and compare. I agree that they need some more reticle choices and some other smaller power models and maybe some fixed power models that are light weight and sleek low profile design and they would get more attention from more people. Leupold has been established brand forever and I’ve read post after post of people having their Leupold not tracking worth a crap and losing zero and repeated returns to get repaired only to have problem still not fixed or it going bad again and those scopes weren’t dropped or thrown around.

Simply wondering bhoges background, my apologies If the question came off as facetious. Don't keep up with PRS or any of the other shooting sports, don't attend SHOT or have any industry connections etc...Was simply wondering if he is a competitor in the shooting sports, industry insider, LEO/mil, marketing executive..... Nice to know someone's background when reading reviews and opinions on a farly new product line

He has already posted what he does for a living, he said he was a firearms examiner for a police department.

I should know better than diving into this thread, but here's my observations.

We know that a bomb proof and accurately tracking "military grade" scope does not just happen, it is developed, manufactured, and tested with such as a priority. It comes at a cost; weight and $$$$. And even so, some still do not make the grade.

I see nothing that leads me to believe that Tract develops, manufactures, and tests their scopes to theses standards. As a matter of fact, their rep, bhoges, specifically says they don't.

So what is there to argue about? The question is not whether or not tract is "military grade". It clearly is not, and again, it does not happen by accident. Do you need/want a "military grade" scope? Thats up to the individual. Those of us who have experienced failures tend to lean more towards yes, we want "military grade". Those who haven't, don't.

One of the interesting things that Form has mentioned is NF's testing. If I understand correctly, EVERY NF scope (non-SHV?) is tested before it leaves, which is where the NF sticker comes in. The number of "problem" scopes that get to the public may be reduced by this testing. Even over-building the scopes for ruggedness, I'm curious how many issues they catch doing this?

Failure rate would be good info.

John (Hondo64D) called NF last week and talked to them at length. They subject the SHV's to the same testing, which led to his purchase of a big SHV.

Interesting that the SHV's are subjected to the same testing. Thanks for posting that.

I wanteda barn gun, so I got an especially cheap Rem 783 in 223 for less than 300$ with a toy scope on it. Discarded it and put one of the utterly useless "Response" 2.5-10 scopes on it. This was done just to see if the scope was worth the bucks, and the rifle as one i didnt care about scratching it. It gets tossed in the truck, dogs have knocked it down and it has been handled with little respect since I got it last year. Sighting in was done without any special effort, the optics are quite respectable even compared with Meostars, dialing seems to follow the designated specs and it has held zero. Any dialing on turrets seems to be spot on. The vermin zapper will pop a 4" steel plate virtually 100% at 300M.
I find the styling a bit clunky, but the glass is all I could ask for compared to some more pricey scopes. The mechanics to date have been reliable as far as i have used them. I have not run the little thing thru any scientifically valid testing but the seat of my pants says it was money reasonably spent. So here we have one scope selected at random that performs as advertised that is counterpoised against one that has failed miserably. My only conclusion is that mine was truly random and paid for by me alone and as such I am satisfied.
My qualifications are nebulous. I have been a BR shooter for over 30 years, successful at times. I have broken a handful of scopes a few respected names and Iv probably fired well over 100K rounds from 22rf to 375 family.

Prs shooters are sponsored. They also have specific shooting needs that don't fit very close to hunting. Many prs would probably use something else. If they were choosing. I bet a lot less vortex would be used

Thanks for sharing the info.

ctsmith,

In a limited number of tests, with my night-time optics chart test I have no been able to find any difference between the SHV and NSX scopes.

In this test, a cope is set on 6x and then aimed at a chart 25 yards away, illuminated with a 100-watt incandescent bulb, also 25 yards from the chart. (I bought a batch of the same bulbs several years ago, so keep the test consistent.) The with black-and-white lines that vary from 1" to 1/16" inch thick, and scopes are rated by the thinnest line that can be seen. If the line can be very clearly seen, the rating's given a + sign.

Average modern multi-coated scopes rate a 6, the 1/4" line . Above average is 7 (3/16"), and I've yet to test any scope yet that rates higher than 8 (1/8"). So far, both SHV's and NSX's have rated 7+.

As other examples, several Swarovski Z3's and the original Zeiss Conquests rated 7's, while more expensive Swarovski and Zeiss scopes rate 8's.

In the past few years, far more scopes rate 7-8 than they did when I first started using the chart-test over a decade ago. In fact, the scope has to be pretty inexpensive to rate a 6, and even some scope retailing for less than $300 rate 7's.

The point I'm trying to make is just because the first scope you pick is a dud doesn't mean you can infer that that scope and/or scope manufacturer is going to have a higher failure rate on their scopes than a manufacturer that did not yield a dud on the first scope you grab. As you note, they are all random picks, and as such each scope, dud or not, has an equal chance of being selected. If you get a dud on the first pick, it is more than likely bad luck rather than the manufacturer's bad product. Now, if a lot of people are getting duds (which according to folks who are running the Tract Optics, is not the case) on the first random selection then you have an argument for poor manufacturing/quality and poor QC.

This is my point. Every single “dud” you test is statistically meaningful, and the more duds you have, the more statistically meaningful they become. Not enough legitimate, 3rd-party testing of Tract scopes has taken place yet to have any statistically meaningful information about their correct functioning and longevity.

I’d disagree about a single dud being more likely bad luck than indicative of the failure rate of the product. That depends on the failure rate of the population of the product. If the failure rate is 50%, then you getting a single failure is not just a case of bad luck, but is indicative of the probability of getting a dud. In that case, you are as likely to get a dud as a good scope. But if the failure rate is 1 in 1,000,000, then getting a dud is indeed a case of very bad luck.

Most owners of scopes that don’t function correctly have little or no knowledge that their scope is imperfect. It’s not something you can reliably determine with a gut feeling. Until you put your scope up to a thorough tracking test and monitor it over heavy use, you really don’t know how well it mechanically functions. And while not directed at you personally, a 4 MOA box test that I see so often says very little about the erector’s mechanics.

By and large, this is untrue. Most PRS shooters are not sponsored, and the shooting actually does cross over to hunting quite well.

It is quite obvious that no matter what bhoges, MD, anyone who has experience (actual use), or evenTract themselves says or could say about this new line of scopes (and binos) will be half way satisfied with anything posted. It will be picked, nitpicked, and raked over the coals to death, quite obviously. We'll keep using the one I have to smack steel, hogs, and mule deer.

This is quite interesting and a little entertaining.

Send me a scope and I will pass it around to 5 or 6 of my friends and when we are done I'll send it to Form to be tested. Seriously I am beginning to wonder why you leave so many variables out of the mathematical equation........not to mention, your numbers are far from reality or real world results to begin with.

Form himself said his Test was invalid at best. I'm surprised he even waisted his time doing the test knowing the scope had been God knows where and who knows what was done. Hell, maybe I had the scope and I performed my throw it at the freight train test and it didn't pass.

Do you seriously think Forms test had any degree of validity to it given the previous history of the scope in question??? Form stated as a matter of fact that his test had no validity whatsoever and I take his word at that.

You seem to be trying to give validity to a test that the expert you keep referring to said had zero validity. The argument doesn't seem logical nor the course of wisdom.

You used to make some of the most logical arguments around here......that is until you decided the smear and complain crowd had something to offer you and thus decided to follow them around in support of ill ideology.

Bad Association spoils useful habits






Trystan

Exactly!

That's OK, JG. I'm correct in stating the probabilities. Some people will never abandon unsupportable positions.

Where is this list of significantly meaningful "duds"? From what I've read here the only tested Tract scope was a dud. One. Not 50%, not 30%...one. It was a randomly chosen scope which means the probability of it being a good example was as great as it being a dud.

I just looked at Tracts website and nothing jumps out at me as “man, I really gotta have one of those.” I do want to try one of their scopes and if I do it will probably be a 3-9 with a t-plex reticle.

It's nothing personal, nor specific to Tract. It takes a lot of positive, credible reports, and a long time-tested track record (tract record?) to establish the mechanical reliability and integrity of any new line of scopes. I'm certainly not going to make a mass migration to a new brand of scope based on a couple of guys saying that they happened to get a single scope that hasn't failed yet. IMO bhoges has done insufficient testing and is somewhat biased, MD has freely admitted that his report is based on a very limited sample, and Tract is also obviously very biased. So what are we left with, other than a few casual reports of "the glass is great and the scope seems to work properly...maybe"?

Well said, Jordan.

The math was simply used to illustrate a statistical point. I was not attempting to accurately model the failure rate of Toric scopes, since that is largely unknown still. You still don't seem to understand that I never said that Form's test is definitive or conclusive. In fact, I never said much at all about his test. Not sure what you're ranting about. To be honest, the scope he tested most likely had seen normal use before he got it. It's very unlikely that the few people who used it before he did attempted to destroy or abuse it. You're being ridiculous by implying that the good CF members here who used that scope before Form would throw it at a freight train or anything remotely close to that. They simply wanted to try it out, and Tract obliged. You have no clue what the history of that scope was, so stop pretending that you do. All we know is that a few other guys tried it out before Form got his hands on it. Period. While not definitive, Form's test is just as valuable as any other Tract mechanical test I've seen, and probably much more than most, due to methodology.

Show me where Form said that "his test had no validity whatsoever". You're making up BS, as per usual. I wasn't going to address your ridiculous claims, but then you made it personal. I'm not sure who, or what, you're talking about with your comments about my supposed "associations". I'm here to talk about guns, hunting, scopes, and related things. If somebody is discussing a topic I'm interested in, I may add my comments and experience to the discussion, regardless of who else is participating. I try to leave personal things out of these online discussions, as you may have noticed. I know a handful of the people on this forum personally, and that's about as far as it goes, despite your fantasized assumptions.

You're not getting it. The Toric has a certain failure rate, even though that rate is currently unknown until a much larger sample of the scopes is properly tested. Just because we don't know what the rate is, does not mean that it doesn't exist.

So far I know of 2 Tract failures, and slightly more positive reviews. Certainly not a confidence-inspiring ratio at this point. Every time a valid test surfaces, it's statistically meaningful. You need to re-visit your statistics if you think that random selection automatically equals a 50% probability of a particular outcome. Even though the true number is currently unknown, let's pretend that the Toric has a population rate of 1 in 30 failures within 1000 rounds fired or 50 miles carried while hunting. If you select a Toric scope at random for comprehensive testing, it has exactly a 1 in 30 chance of failing the test, and a 29 in 30 chance of passing. That is NOT the same as a 50:50 chance of that single scope, selected randomly, being a dud.

Since some of you don't like my reviews how about bashing my paint work. This was probably the uglyist Mcmillan Edge stock I've ever seen. I picked up an Anschutz used a few years back for dad. At the time he was 87 and holding a rifle offhand was getting tough. I got screwed and purchased a lemon off the web. Bad bedding, ruined barrel, and pretty much a half ass 22 benchers rifle. It went off to Mark Penrod for a new barrel and bedding. Now she shot great but was still ugly. My father loved the gun but I never had a chance to do the stock for him. He passed over a year ago and I wanted to finish it for him. It took a few days to fix all the pin holes and seams. I primed and blocked it 4x. I just applied the base coat and have to clear it still. Ill post pictures when its complete. I can't wait to see the finished project. My father would have loved it. If anyone has questions on refinishing wood, metal, or fiberglass I'm pretty good. My old life from 1990-1997 I was an automotive painter.

https://i.imgur.com/t9BftYP.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/OX18iL7.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/nf54LTP.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/4qpAzuj.jpg

It's looking great. I'm sure your dad will be proud of the finished product. Great way to honour him.

Your battle-worn rifle looks great, as well. The skull isn't my style, but the workmanship looks first class.

Someone let bhoges know DIYGuy hacked his account.

This thread has been very informative. Its rare that Ive seen such a lopsided thread with one side bashing or driving all the negative they can. I wonder if the Tract brand will ever be able to hold its face up against the level of negativity here.

JS , thank you for your condescension, my gut does fairly well at times. Oh when you have a chance could you delineate where in your statistical analysis we can find the horse or the cart.

No condescension intended, but take it as you will. There's nothing wrong with stating your experiences, but from what I can see they have limited value in assessing the mechanical integrity of your scope. That's all I meant to say, nothing more and nothing less.

Nobody is criticizing Tract's optical quality. Nobody is criticizing its willingness to attempt to listen to shooters. What you may have noticed is that we want to hear more about how the scopes compare mechanically against scopes such as the SWFA line, NF, Bushnell LRHS/DMR, etc, and we're not seeing it. I think there are lots of guys that are not about to buy a scope that is a big unknown in the mechanical department for $750-1000, when other options on the market, that are known quantities, exist in that price range. What we're really trying to say, is that if Tract wants to get an "in" with target shooters (who buy a lot more scopes than hunters), they should put a couple of their best scopes in the hands of testers we thoroughly trust based on a proven track record, and let the scopes prove themselves. I have a lot of faith in Form's opinion of how scopes do mechanically, as do a lot of other shooters here on 24HCF. If he tested the Toric and said it was mechanically good to go, I'd be a lot more inclined to try one out.

For the record, I would like Tract to succeed. I want their scopes to be as durable and integral as NF or SWFA SS. I want the company to listen to shooters and offer every feature we want. If my comments seem critical, they are intended to serve as constructive criticism. As happens on rare occasion, I agree with cumminscowboy in that if Tract wants to become established as a viable option for target shooters and hunters, they need to get the word out there that their scopes are reliable, accurate, and tough, since that is what currently matters most to many serious shooters. Leupold, for example, didn't establish their name as a leading scope manufacturer because the scopes wouldn't hold zero. They became mainstream because a lot of shooters and hunters felt that the scopes were plenty clear and bright, and held zero through hell or high water. Sadly, that is no longer the case for Leupold. Hopefully Tract is different.

Sorry guys, I don't know what else to tell you. I don't any information more then I've stated. I'd love to test some more scopes myself but I only have the one model currently. Tract needs a bigger budget to get more product out there for testing. My hands are tied.

Once again, it doesn't matter what you say or do. I believe your intentions are good and your reports are worth reading. Just be prepared to get schitttt slung your way any time you report anything is good and worthy other than SWFA, LRHS, NF.

You’re assuming again. You might as well say “let’s pretend”. You don’ t know the failure rate and neither do I. In selecting your sample each scope in the population to be tested has to have an equal chance of selection. Other than maybe the Tract founders, no one has a clue what the Tract failure rate will be. I don’t even believe one sample analyzed with an inferential statistical tool is enough. I think a track record of a lot of testing over a period of years would be more accurate. Until then, anyone claiming they know the failure rate of Tract Optic’s scopes is mistaken.

Ummmm, exactly?

Yes, I concur.

Particularly regarding Tract’s LOW produced optics, I can’t imagine LOW wouldn’t have mountains of data representing a swath of production and function metrics relevant to this discussion.

I wonder if they’ll share?

I’d think this sort of data would be used by their sales and business development folks as they seek to pen production deals with half of the industry.

Where does a guy get a few of these targets?

Kinkos or anywhere with a plotter for hire.

Boxtobenchprecision makes excellent targets. All setup for MIL or MOA. Even has true MOA.
https://www.boxtobenchprecision.com

make your own. I used a large political campaign sign.

My Kahles has CA under certain lighting conditions which is annoying because it creates a sensation of blurriness to my eyes. Does the Toric have any CA?

Yup. Kinda amazing the amount of hard data wanted for a $700 purchase. Wonder if they insisted on that much info on their wives before they married them. Maybe Form would be willing to put prospective brides through their paces too.

Reading through all this, and I don't have a dog in the fight, Jordan remains one of the people I listen to when he speaks/types. Not because I agree with every word (most of them I do btw) but he stays on point, doesn't get in the mud, and can convey his thoughts accurately and precisely. And without throwing rocks......

I understand his statistical argument and agree. Odds are odds and the odds of 'coincidentally' acquiring a bad sample on yout first go-round are A. Telling, B. Pretty slim if a product does indeed have a low error rate.

Keep in mind the ones bashing the product have never tried a Track optic and ones that do own the Tract optics like them. Mule Deer’s review was favorable.
I’m thinking of purchasing one.

My dad used to say that some folks would complain if you hung them with a new rope. Evidently true.... Happy Trails

Tract's business model of marketing directly to consumers, especially by trying to sell on 24hourcampfire, means they are going to have some unique issues.

With an employee readily available online at a site where consumers hang out, Tract saved a step and cut out the middle-man. Several "downsides" to this model exist, as I see it. One is that they need a factory rep on the forum who really knows his product inside and out, and is actually able to hang with the forum crowd. So far, we haven't seen that from Tract. Another downside is that any problems with their product will be quickly aired on the forum, and brought back up every time the company brings out a new product. This can be seen with other examples, for instance when someone buys a new Kimber rifle, there's invariably a bunch of guys who comment about how previous rifles would only shoot 3 MOA or not feed or whatever.

Tract also should expect to receive some good old fashioned internet trolling when they have factory reps on an internet forum. Wouldn't matter the company or product, getting a tough time is just a fact of internet forum life.

Combine all that with an arrogant salesman (Trevor), followed by a failed scope test from a tester that people actually trust (Form), and they should expect to be raked through the coals.

The requests for better testing are a natural outgrowth of the direct to consumer sales model that Tract chooses to employ. Potential buyers have wanted this sort of testing for years, and their only recourse with other companies was to go through customer service, or they just complained to middle men about the issue and it was never sent up the chain. Here we are able to request it directly with Tract's rep.

If scope companies are testing to address tracking and zero retention issues, let the consumers know about it....and not some marketing BS about 10,000 Gs, let us know how the tests work - we're on internet forums to begin with because we're a bunch of nerds who want to know the ins and outs and technical side of our junk.

As far as asking for testing, we see the most talk about it here on the Tract threads, because the factory rep is here, but that doesn't mean folks aren't pushing for the same thing with other companies - I've sent emails to Leupold about their issues, for example. But this is all stuff that could be addressed by a thick-skinned, technically proficient factory rep.

I certainly see the positives of the direct to consumer model, such as eliminating all the associated costs of a middle-man. But a downside is that if you choose to market on internet forums, your salesmen better have their big boy panties on, because internet forums are a tough arena.

Another potential downside of Tract's model is that their forum representative's behaviors reflect directly on the company. If I buy a Leupold at Sportsman's Whorehouse, and the obnoxious counter guy screws around for twenty minutes bringing the scope out of the back, and then shows up with the wrong scope, I don't blame Leupold for the poor service, the blame is laid at the foot of Sportsman's. With the direct to consumer model, any poor interactions with the salesman results in blame placed on the company...cough...cough.....Trevor.

So a factory rep has to navigate the nuances of internet land, trying not to fall in the myriad minefields, while maintaining good rapport. Doug from Cameraland should teach classes on internet sales, as he's the master of navigating internet forum sales. And Tract should send all their internet guys, whether "testers" or whatever they choose to be labeled, to Doug's class.

Excellent posts

Trever, was a spokesman same as the new guy.

You bring up a good point. I assume you met you wife and had a shotgun wedding the next day? Some guys, like myself, are sticklers and wanted to get some “hard data” by dating their prospective wives for 6, 12, or even 24 whole months before committing.

ctsmith was absolutely right when he said, essentially, that guys who havent’t experienced many scope failures may not worry about the track record of their chosen scope models so much. I’ve personally lost enough hair, and spend enough time, frustration, and money diagnosing and dealing with scope failures, that these days I stick with using scopes that I know are going to work properly and keep on ticking, based on their historical mechanical integrity and failure rate. It’s not just the $700 that I’m gambling, it’s also the cost of ammo and the time invested that I lose when working with faulty gear. It’s the same reason that I have a used car thoroughly inspected before buying- I want to do my due diligence before buying, to make sure I’m not getting into something that will only cause me headaches down the road. When Daewoo came out with their line of cars, some people looked at the spec sheet and jumped on board, while others waited for the Consumer Reports and reliability feedback to come out before taking a gamble. This is no different.

John,

If you give one a try, please use the crap out of it and report back. I’m sure there are several people here that would appreciate another reliable data point.

Very well said. Completely agree with your assessment of the business side of things.

My testing involves, first of all, me personally purchasing the scope. Yes, I run a box/tracking test, then proceed to load workup, and verifying stuff out to 600 yds (far as my range goes). Then I proceed to kill the ever lovin' schittt outa hogs....hundreds of them per year with said scope and various bullets. Throw in about 20 cull whitetail does a year, a whitetail and muley buck or two, another 5-10 aoudad culls, and that would be the extent of my scope testing. I'd guess (and it's purely a guess) that only 10% of this shooting required dialing.

In 46 years of doing this, I've had only one scope, a Swaro A 3-10x42 go tits up while actually shooting at an animal, which happened to be a big 190" mule deer buck. Shot the poor thing to pieces. I had one other scope, a leupy VX3 that quit tracking so I sent it back, they fixed it and installed a B&C reticle, and all is well again after a couple of years of "testing". Swaro fixed that scope and I sold it.

I don't give a flying crap about probabilities, forumulas, extrapolating failures, or any other crap like that. I test gear like I test gear, described above. Once again, the Toric is performing very well.

Feel free to tell me what's wrong with my testing procedure.

I'm doubtful that many would take note if it was a positive report. If it was a negative report I'm quite certain that all would consider it gospel.

I actually rely on your testing procedure and experience, JGRaider, as well as some other hunters that I read on the forum and on this topic..

None of my physical scope failures happened while doing statistical analysis either.

Guys, As I am sure you can totally understand I have nothing to gain in this thread as Tract is an independent, direct to consumer brand. I have no opinion as I have never even seen one of their optics.

What I can tell you is that Brian, who is their new "voice of Tract optics here on the Campfire", is a long time friend of mine who is extremely qualified to comment on guns and optics. He is very knowledgeable and you can feel safe listening to what he has to say.

That might be a new one to use on the wife: "Honey, I'll be gone for the next few days in the mountains doing statistical analysis. It's extremely involved and time consuming, and I know you'd be bored out of your mind, so I'll soldier this one alone. Now, where did I put my rum....?"

I'm working on getting a scope for testing. I just started 2 weeks ago. From day one certain people have relentlessly attacked Tract. I can't do this overnight. The whole focus on this blog was a test from last year. I don't have the scope to examine it for defects. I'd like to do that first. These things take time. There are people here who are interested in Tract and are happy with theirs. At the same time individuals who don't own one or never plan on purchasing are just here to bash Tract and myself. Thats fine I'm used to the abuse after 17 years on the street. Let it go and move on to another forum. Maybe get out and shoot a little more instead of posting all the time. I'm not Doug. I'm just a dumb cop who isn't p.c. Tough to be neutral when others aren't.

Not all...

Really, that’s your take away?

I can’t tell you how disappointed I am to read this post. I hope the Jon’s have a chance to read this thread. What a wasted opportunity.

Really? You're surprised by bhoges' take away from his raucous welcome to the board? Really!? What else could have possibly been his take away? People demanding immediate testing and results. People slinging negative comments about bhoges because Trevor was a dip. People trashing Tract Optics in general with no real basis for it. I got the same impression bhoges got.

Exactly my take on the subject.

Your take away is quite amazing fir all the wrong reasons.

There have been lots of really charitable posts—generous on so many levels, in this and previous Tract threads. Not seeing that is tragic. None of these people owe Tract or Trevor or Brian Hoges anything. If it were me and my company, I’d be focused on cherishing all the great stuff folks have brought to these threads, not pissing and moaning about what they haven’t. Form didn’t need to put together that photo essay. His efforts weren’t driven by malice. It wasn’t about being evocative. It was about passion. These boards are full of enthusiasts, people who dig this stuff.

I have no issue with Form in the least. I just wish he used a Nighforce mount on the Tract when he tested it like the other scope. The drop test is the one I have an issue with. I'm looking forward to checking the scopes in question myself.

Actually, the current one was "tested" for a year and a half before the "purchase" was finalized, thanks for asking.

As for scopes, I had enough info gleaned from reviews by reliable folks to pique my interest in a Tract, and the combination of a good sale and a nice conversation with Jon Lacorte sealed the deal. My Tekoa's been on two rifles so far and has performed perfectly. The glass seems as good as any I've used and the reticle is a great design for hunting. I'm not crazy about the looks and it's a little long and heavy for a hunting scope. All things considered, the risk I took was worth taking, based on the historical failures of other hunting scopes in this price range ( I specifically exclude SWFAs from that category, because the reticle and form factor are unsuitable for my hunting use, no matter what others think), and on my experience chasing zeros on other hunting scopes, mostly Leupolds, for decades. I don't know how many scopes I'll be buying in the future, but if one of the Japanese Tracts fits my requirements, it'll be considered along with any others that do the same, and I'll have personal experience to base that consideration on. Don't care what others buy or why, but so far I have no reason to recommend against buying one of these.

Never went down the Daewoo road, but I could tell you a thing or two (none of it good) about Toyotas, Subarus, and at least one Ford!

Just talking with Jon about something that you might find interesting. He says there have been pretty much zero complaints with customers that have purchased scopes. Thats says something.

There have also been some aggressively argumentative posts and posts insisting that Brian begin testing immediately. One bad egg ruins the omelet, one bad apple ruins the bunch. Stick, when he was allowed to post in the optics forum was his usual blatant, nasty, insulting self. Thankfully Brian hasn't had to deal with him. But don't kid yourself; it ain't been all sunshine and roses with regard to posts directed at Brian or Tract. There have been some mean, insulting posts directed their way.

That’s fair enough. So apparently you saw the value in making sure your lady was going to work out for you, as much as possible, before marrying her.

I don’t see any hunting scope offerings that interest me, but I’m tempted to give a 30mm Toric a whirl, and thoroughly test it myself, if it wasn’t for the meager 20MRAD of total elevation travel. That’s a deal breaker for me.

Personally I think there are over-zealous people on both sides of this conversation. Critics who write off Tract as a company because of Trevor's actions, aren’t giving the business a fair shake. Likewise, the few guys who have tried one Tract scope, with what I consider minimal mechanical testing, saying or implying that Tract scopes are good to go, are giving them too much credit based on too short of a track record.

I’m sure the executives of Leupold would say the same thing. No matter how much integrity a business owner has, he will always be seen as biased regarding his own company and products.

Never-the-less, that’s a good sign. We’ll see if he can say the same thing once his scopes go mainstream, if that ever happens.

Maybe I missed it, but I have not seen this. What I have seen is a general attitude of people thinking that Brian should reserve judgment until thorough testing can be done.

I see how some people get to 10 -20-30 thousand posts now.Good god get a ffucking life.

I assume you're talking to me, in a passive aggressive way.

I don't know about you, but in the last few weeks I've put about 1300 CF rounds and about 1000 RF rounds downrange, competed in two PRS matches, gone to work, played with my kids, scouted my mountain hunting spots for Bighorn Sheep, and I took my 4 kids and my loving wife to church today. How's that for a life?

I should have been clearer. I included the Trevor era. He was bashed and abused by a few...needlessly so. Anyone, including me, can and should make their point without insulting the person or the product. Pointing out certain features, such as the Tract you were looking at that only had 20MRAD of elevation adjustment is helpful to the shooters here and to Tract. I'm not too alarmed by that, but I can agree that some of you guys are shooting farther than that would get you, so it is a deal breaker for you. I don't see that as a negative post. You simply made one of your parameters known. One Alaskan I know of would have then followed that with telling Trevor, or Brian, what a goat **** the Tract scope is. The second part of that (goat ****) is not a wanted or needed addition to the on-going conversation.

That is awesome. Can you expand on that? How many scopes sold, and how many complaints?

Thanks,

Jason

Well, you get points for seeing there's a difference between the two types. That's far from true in a lot of cases on here. There's certainly some overlap, especially as to reliability, which is in everyone's interest.

Since you play on both sides of this game, you might want to check out the latest episode of the Fieldsports Channel on YouTube. They take a couple of Mauser's newer hunting rifles, the M12 and M18 out to 1500 meters at a facility in Wales. Just ordinary guys doing the shooting, but with an experienced coach/spotter calling the holds for them. He used, of all things, an old M98 with tracers to get a feel for the wind conditions. Interesting stuff, and a good look at a couple rifles most have never considered. Regrettably the cartridge choices for those models are limited here so far.

That would be my approach.

What I have seen with a certain select crowd is that anytime someone new shows up to the campfire you are automatically guilty and you must prove yourself innocent to those select few. I call that small crowd "THE COWARD CROWD" and I say you don't have to prove Jack schit to the likes of those people. In fact they don't even warrant a reply to there ignorant interrogations!

Every person with actual experience with a Tract scope have given a more than positive review. The COWARD CROWD hasn't even seen the scope in question, have zero experience, yet give negative feedback. Seems like a cowardly thing to do....No!

If you want your opinion to hold any value go get some experience with the product and than come back. Until than your words hold no weight nor value and in reality are just another set of lips flapping in the wind waisting valuable oxygen!


Trystan

What I have seen with a certain select crowd.... is they lie through their teeth, talk about how great they are, then fail to back it up. When they’re confronted about it..... they ignore it, or deflect it, or blame everyone else for “being mean”. Trystan did exactly that.... and so did Tract.

Seems Trystan and Tract were made for each other....

tell us how you really feel, Twit-thtan.

Hmm, don't know about all that, but I do know that if you post on the long range forum, brag about shooting tiny groups at long range, and then make a big deal about posting proof of your prowess, it's always a good idea to follow up and post that proof.

And your groups should probably have more than two rounds apiece.

Maybe you did miss a few.

I’m about to buy one of these phuggers , and torque it down , degrease it and drop the piss out of it.

The issue I have with Tract, among other companies, is strictly marketing at this point as I have never used any of their products....

With the popularity of social media and internet forums advertising is essentially free. In the "bigger, better, best" world we live in everybody wants to go straight to the front of the line without earning anything. In rare cases maybe its warranted but the best way to get to the front is to earn your way. When the first thing you see on their website is "EXTRAORDINARY optics" you really don't want them to be ordinary. The way I see it these guys went from Nikon to just another "me too" optics company that advertises direct to consumer and cutting out the middle man but at least some of the Nikon Monarch riflescopes are made in the Philippines, probably in the same factory and they are priced about the same. No middle man, similar price, somebody is making some coin. What sets any of these new optics companies apart from the rest? Same business model, same factories, same components yet none of these companies consider themselves "average". They aren't alpha glass and they aren't crap..... sounds average to me WHICH IS FINE...... don't blow smoke up my ass and tell me you're elite which is exactly the message we received from the first guy here pimping their products

Maven used to be Brunton and you can "accessorize" your optics which makes me feel gay just saying it. Tract is a couple of Nikon guys using contacts they made working for Nikon and branding their own stuff. GPO is a couple guys that were with Zeiss that started "German Precision Optics" and their $hit is made in Japan. No Germany? WTF? Whoever came up with the name for their flagship product should be fired for naming it after a porn site. Don't google "Passion HD" on your work computer. God almighty! Speaking of brand names, whats with "Tract"? Reminds me of tract houses... Nothing wrong with a tract house and it serves a purpose but I've never seen advertising for a tract house using words like EXTRAORDINARY. They exemplify average or adequate

I wish every one of these companies well, competition is a wonderful thing but I just get sick of the claims of how great they are. I've seen favorable reviews on each of them, what am I supposed to say, congratulations it works? If they put out a good product at a reasonable price point they don't have to be extraordinary or premier or epic or legendary or monumental or sensational or..... you get the point. Lots of people with average gear killing extraordinary animals. Its tiring to see everybody want to be the best without earning a damn thing

Perhaps like this one Jordan? One example is hardly a blanket condemnation of everyone, but, there are other examples that are of the same tone.

Hey Drum, good to see you posting. I think you have made a pretty accurate description of all involved. You'll get no argument out of me, except that the Toric binos do offer exceptionally good glass.....

Take care bud!

Tract wanted their scope tested by members of this forum....

They wanted the free ad press here....

Now......

They don’t want another scope tested, or “see no reason why” they should send out another one....

They want guys to take it easy on them, even though they have yet to address the failure of their tested scope.

That said:

I’ve used their Toric Binocular, it’s fabulous, but I won’t buy one because they haven’t been around long.... and who knows where they’re going to end up. My requirements of a riflescope don’t involve “glass” or any other accessory.... they involve toughness, repeatability, and dependability. “Glass” is way down on my list of requirements.... a scope is simply a place to keep my crosshairs until I’m ready to use them. As such, I pay attention to ALL reported failures on this, and other forums.

Leupold doesn’t have a rep here on the fire.... if they did, I bet that guy would get flamed daily... and for pretty good reason. Same with Nikon, or Zeiss, or whomever. You want direct access to guys who actually use this stuff? You got it.... but they have no allegiance to you, or any reason to be “kind”.... they do have a reason to point out flaws, discrepancies, and fallacies with your product, business model, and representation.

If you don’t want that kinda feedback.... good, bad, and ugly..... then market your wares in Outdoor Life, and to stupid gullible sales people behind gun counters. They’ll listen to you, stroke your product, and tell you how great it is....

wow a dose of reality this is why the focus should be on mechanical reliability. Why is this so hard? A $79 bushnell banner has good enough optics for me. Nightforce is the only company that kinda touts this. But even they could do more to show it.

What does a 14.4mm exit pupil give you?

How does the 30mm tube improve light transmission?

That comment was regarding the methodology, not the timing.

Lol......better watch out bhoges! 5 people out of thousands will pronounce you unfit for the fire. Hardly a drop of piss in a large bucket when you think about it. Don't worry because opinions based on zero experience carry little to no weight around here for the other 99% of the fire.

Still, this small drop of piss in a large bucket will make grand pronouncements concerning your status here on the fire speaking for less than 1% of the large crowd here. It is delusional self appointed Heroes all of whom have not so much as held nor seen a Tract scope.

You really should take there complete lack of experience with the product as little golden nuggets of wisdom???




Trystan

Better watch out Trystan.... 99% of the fire knows you’re a lying piece of schitt.... or would you like to subject that to further testing also?

So how many Tract scopes do you own? I assume more than zero, since you seem to think that ownership qualifies a guy to post in this thread...

Mostly true, but serious internet advertising is far from free. Your own site is not expensive but getting beyond that raises costs quickly. The format of skipping the middleman means they will not be "advertising" the product in their stores. When retailers advertise most of the money comes from manufacturers.

Was going to ask the same question...

I took possession of my 2nd Tract scope today, this one, a rimfire. I'll mount is this week but will not get much time with it until after July 9. I'll give a report when I get some rounds downrange. I will not drop it.

Maybe you missed this, but I am one of the earliest owners of a Tract optic. I also just sold an extra Tract scope in the classifieds. It's going to a dear friend. This is not to imply that ownership is a prerequisite to participating in this discussion.

None of this is personal for me, it's passion.

I am wondering how this "thorough testing to reserve judgement' is going to evolve. How many scopes have to be tested by BrianFormJordan to make a meaningful sample to satisfy this group?
3? 6? 25? 100? 1000?
And where is this number (whatever is is) going to come from? Tract? Does BrianFormJordan have to buy them?
Or do we all have to buy them them and test them ourselves and post our reviews?
One here and one there doesn't cut it so come on all buy up a bunch and send them for testing.
How did Nightforce ever do it?

Formi is 0-1, so at least another would be progress. I am hard on gear so weigh heavily his assessments. I have failed multiple Leupolds. I'm sure Leups (and the like) have served others well and I do not question their experience, but neither do I question mine, which leads me to conclude that I put more of a demand on a scope, and lean towards formi's (and the like) assessment than those who do not demand the same.

When you have one test... and it fails... what else do you need to know?

Form’s tests hold a lot of water, at least in my experience, because they’re thorough, and relatively objective. He has few requirements... and they all lead to hitting schitt repeatedly at various distances under stress to rifle,optic,mounts, and shooter. If wares cant hang, they’re weeded out quickly...

I’ve owned and used/abuses the vast majority of scopes from the usual suspects the Tract is being compared to here.... SWFA, NF, Bushnell LRHS, Leupolds, etc.... my experience mirrors closely what guys like Form/Jordan/4th see. There’s a reason those guys are skeptical of Tract.... as am I.

One review/test/failure here... one there.... doesn’t really cut it, but they can lead to a general preponderance of circumstantial evidence leaning one way or another. Whom/What you choose to believe is the real trick.

If I was selling a quality product and one I knew to be reliable, and someone reputable from a group that includes my targeted market tested one and it failed, I'd be jumping through hoops to have another one tested. And then another.

Because I'd be confident of the results and I'd want the true quality of my product to be known to all.

Those test results would be the best marketing I could buy.

DING, DING, DING!!!!!!!!!

Exactly....

Yep. If Form was willing to do it, they should send him a Toric. If it tracked, returned to 0, and held 0 perfectly it could make the company.....if not, it could break the company.

You inferring that Outdoor Life is chopped liver?

Smokepole for the win!

But if it failed, its the rings' fault.

...say's American Rifleman.

IIRC, wasn't the scope Form tested somewhat of an entry level model, and had been handled by several users?
If so it is not the test I would be interested in.

+1 on him doing a Toric.

Would not a scope thats been used be the best scope to test? Isnt that the point?

After all this bullshït, if I was Form and Tract came to me with another scope to test ................................................................................... ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... but I'm a spiteful bitch.

I guess we could expect a kicked around Bushnell Trophy to be comparable to a LRHS.
That is my point.

Nope..... but a kicked around LRHS would be very comparable to a new LRHS.... that’s kinda the point of kick-ass durable scopes.

Tract stated, prior to the test, that all their scopes were subjected to all the same testing, so to their word, the Tekoa, Response, Toric, etc should all represent in the same way. I don’t think you’d get a bullschitt answer like that from Bushnell on the difference between a Scopechief and an HDMR.

They should send him the new 4-20x50 30mm scope and let Form put it through its paces. If he pronounced it fit I would probably buy one the next day.

Who, me??

Good on you! You did it up, just right for your dad...I’am sure he see’s it and loves it. 😎

Here's a Fallow spiker shot on dusk last night with my Toric 3-15. Excellent light and definition. Dialed ballistic turret to 275 yards and centre of shoulder hit. Nothing unusual here, have done it many times with this 'scope out to 500 yards or so.

A lot of people on here are dissing the Tracts without ever having owned one. I know they will take the knocks and have classy glass, but am also prepared to put up, so I have a 3-15 SWFA moa on its way to try and to compare. The SWFA will get a thorough work out.

Through experience and working them hard, I already know that the Tract is the equal of the Zeiss HD5.

Nice deer congrats. I went to New Zealand on my honeymoon. We had a great time. 3 weeks wasn't enough for all we wanted to do.

Optically equal to the HD5? I was hoping the Toric would be better since, personally, I found the HD5 to be less than stellar optically.

I just sold my HD 5-25x50. I was happy with the optics but I didn't like the turrets or the reticle. I'm going to put the Tekoa 4-16x44 on my Ruger #1. I scored one in 6mmPPC. I'll be using it on chucks the without holdovers my Zeiss wasn't the right fit.

I was meaning all round utility and reliability.

Glass wise and in particular for sharpness the Topic is superior to the HD5.

I like the reticle on the Toric better, but do like the pull up/locking exposed turrets on the HD5 for dialling. Both dial reliably. Ive had the HD5 for 5 years or so and its been back to the factory once for dirt on the reticle. This is not unusual for them - a quality control issue.

People on here have been beating their gums without ever trying a Tract themselves, let alone comparing a Tract with what they think is superior. SWFA has had a lot of mentions.

So, a SWFA 3-15 FFP MOA arrived in the mail today.

Initial thoughts are...heavy, bulky and ordinary-ish glass. Slightly finicky eye box at 15 power but might be better when mounted for a good cheek weld. The glass is "good enough" though.

I like the reticle, but not in FFP. Below 6 power it loses its practicality for hunting - far too fine.

So the Tract Toric beats it on every visual test and feature, thus far. Reticle, turrets (lift and lock, zero stop, covered windage, elevation cap on or cap off), eye box, weight, size and glass (I emphasise that Im a hunter, and thats what I'm assessing for - hunting).

The SWFA has twice the elevation and windage, but the Toric has enough for practical purposes out to 800 odd yards. And you can always fit a tilted rail.

So it will really come down to tracking and reliability. The Tract is partially home on that but it needs a good wringing out hunting Tahr in the Alps. That comes in the spring (November).

Apparently the trendy test is to biff 'scopes onto the ground, but because I'm an all year round hunter that's what I will be doing with them instead. The Toric has had a 8 month head start but I will now be able to compare them both on the range and in the field. They will get plenty of knocks. My expectation is that they will both be reliable and that the features and glass will define which is best, but we will see.

The SWFA will be mounted on a very accurate Schultz & Larsen 6.5x55 (replacing a Sightron S-Tac 3-16).

Put a few rounds through a Fieldcraft wearing a 2-10 Toric Saturday to verify 0 after adding a bubble level and remounting scope. Put a lot of rounds through it Sunday afternoon. Rotated 4 different rifles wearing the 2-10 Toric, a 6x42 SWFA, a NF 3-10 SHV, and a 4.5-18 LRHSi while shooting yesterday. For a hunting scope, the way I use one dialing no further than 700 yards with a 100 yard zero, I prefer everything about the 2-10 Toric....and that's not a cut on the other scopes. Still dialing like a champ.

My Tekoa 3-12x42 seems to have a very finicky parallax adjustment at max power. Just a few degrees of node before it's getting blurry. Seems to be a bit ultra-fine for a hunting optic where I would prefer some wiggle room. Normal or outlier?

I can't speak to any of the Tract scopes parallax as the 2-10 Toric I use doesn't have a parallax adjustment...and I like it without it.

I can speak to the 2.5-10x42 NXS parallax being very finicky on getting the parallax exact.

Just came in from a couple of hours of shooting. If I've counted correctly I think the Toric is ~8 rounds away from 900 through it. 28 loaded rounds left on the 3rd loading of 300 Alpha brass + a 20 round box of factory Winchester. Mirage was killer today.....

I don't like the push/pull locking on the parallax knob (Toric). Its finicky. Simply more torque on the turning would suffice. I would agree that the adjustment is quite fine but I don't find it a problem.

Been a while, but I don't recall that.

You buy yours when they were 30% off?

No I did not, although I do not know the specifics of why they were discounted. Mine is black though as opposed to the Tungsten grey I was expecting.

I agree the push/pull is completely useless. Would be cheaper to just have a friction adjustment.

x3 on the locking parallax knob. It's almost a PIA.

Far as I know, all Tekoas are black. Torics are tungsten.

The 30% was a special sale for Fire members, just on the one model, IIRC. Whatever you think of the scope, $402 beats $574.

I have been sitting here reading through the thread sipping on a cup of coffee. I have two thoughts. I am a forum junkie of sorts. Whether boating, fishing, kayaking, motorcycling or bicycling I digest a lot forum material. I will say this. It takes stones for Tract to enter into the forum as a participant. There are always people who will go out of their way to make like difficult for them. I have seen it on every forum. But, I also agree with the poster who suggested that if they believe their product to be of superior quality that they should get more of them into the hands of people who will thoroughly and objectively ring them out to affirm that it is a superior product.

For someone like me who has never had a Leupold, Burris, Redfield or Weaver in the $200-$400 price range fail, and who is satisfied if not thrilled with the features and glass in those scopes, I'd have to be dang sure that the triple price Toric would deliver far superior glass, features and durability.

Again my hats off to Tract for giving active participation in a forum a go. I would never do it.

Paul we did send out 2 scopes for testing a while back as you read. Funny how only one came back. It couldn't have preformed too poorly if someone liked it that much to keep it. I'd like to send out more for independent testing but I'm not sure how that will go over. The Toric isn't priced that high considering what you get.

What was the second scope? The first one went to FredIII, then me, then dude270 then Form, then back to tract who was supposed to test it and see what had failed and why. Any word on that? I know when it was with me I threw it on my AR and played a little but no real testing. Didn't care for the cluttered Xmas tree type reticle at all. I didn't throw it, drop it, submerge it etc... I didn't tumble down a mountain with it, have it fly out my truck window, fall out of my tractor, go over the side of my boat etc..... I'm not that "hardcore" of a hunter like most here seem to be I guess
Build quality seemed decent for sure. There are just too many other proven options and it doesn't really do anything that other scopes don't do at any better of a price. My opinion was meh....

Actually, it went to deflave first.

Yup

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbt...48/re-tract-optics-response#Post11607048

Thanks for editing your post, as I was just about to post this...So fred got both scopes? Cuz at the end of the link you posted, it sure looked like the one 'flave got was going to fred.

Yup that was all before my time. Im still trying to find the location of the one scope that came back. Im waiting for Jon to go to the warehouse. I wish things moved faster.

What do you mean by this? Go over with Jon, or with the viewers here?

Since a very vocal minority have been clamoring to have Tract send more scopes to various Campfire members for independent testing, the logical conclusion would be that he meant he didn't know how releasing more scopes for "Campfire" testing would go over with Jon.

If I were a manufacturer I’d be very reluctant to send product such as a scope to internet experts to conduct “testing”. I’d want to see some level of credibility and know it was unbiased, relevant and repeatable testing methods.

Maybe we need a standardized ‘Campfire’ testing procedure. A set of steps to measure low light, clarity, dialing, zero retention and so on.

Yeah.

I thought Form's was pretty rigorous and still repeatable. Muledeer's was as well. ....other azzhat's might do something like dropping them...

Where is Form’s, or do you recall what it was?

I'm not a business man, but I'm failing to see the logic in having someone on here to represent the brand again. All it seems to have done is rip the scab off.

There’s a link in this thread somewhere....

Form didn’t even get to test the scope... it went tits-up before any testing could begin.

It was Tract’s idea to send out the scopes.... not forum members.

Tract wanted Campfire feedback.... until the feedback was poor.

Tract then made some bold statements about all their products being built and tested to the same standard, and vowed to investigate the “bad” scope and report back.

Tract then disappeared for a while, until they thought their failure had blown over.

Now Tract is back, with a “spokesman” who doesn’t seem interested in any of the above, and wants a clean slate.... but doesn’t want to finish what Tract started here.

The campfire provided a service to Tract..... not the other way around.

Most of the time, when bad stuff happens.... it’s not about what happened... it’s what you do about what happened.

The only way to regain full credibility here.... after you schitt the bed.... is to sleep in it. Send out another scope for testing. If it passes well with one or two guys.... then you’ll gain a lot of favor. If it bombs again... they can bail outta the campfire and keep on marketing via Outdoor Life.

Oh, I'm sure someone "got really busy" or "didn't know what to do with it or who to send it to"....

Well put!

If you read my post I'm very interested in getting those scopes back and see what went wrong. I'd like to shoot them myself. Sorry guys, I'm here to help to a point but its not in my power to send out scopes.

I am going to say this, and it not meant to be contrary in any way. I respect what you are trying to do here. As I mentioned earlier, it's almost a no-win situation for a manufacturer's rep to be an active participant in a forum. Even when things are perfect you'll find blowhards who want nothing more than to run you or your product down. Then when things don't go perfect, you'll have a big bullseye placed squarely on your forehead.

Your product has a reputation here. You know what it is. It is not going to change unless YOU (meaning you and Tract) do something to change it. So Tract has a decision to make. Maintain the status quo or take a bold step to change forum perception. From a cost/benefit risk/gain standpoint, here's the way I see it. Find a way to get several scopes out to the folks the forum trusts the most. You know who they are. Let them run them through the paces. If the scopes perform the way they should then you have made great strides in restoring or building credibility. If they fail under heavy testing, then your reputation remains as it is. But you can get those scopes back and figure out what went wrong and how you can fix it. You would really like to know wouldn't you? Your actual cost in getting out 4-6 scopes would be nominal in the grand scheme of marketing costs, and frankly, I don't see that you have a whole lot to lose. Oh, and it is unlikely you are going to get the previous scopes back, so I'd abandon that hope.

So that's my sideline evaluation of the situation. I really would like to see Tract succeed. I appreciate any company that has the balls to step into a forum and participate.

I have not posted in this thread as it has (had) nothing to do with me and much prior experience has shown me that critical discussions do not go well with company reps. However as it seems there is confusion and or inference of what happened or did not happen with the Tract scope I was sent- so here we go.


First a bit of background-

Anyone can think anything they want about testing, repeatability, legitimacy, or relevance of how to evaluate a scope. The reality is I evaluate them as needed for field use. Will a 12” drop on a padded mat pass strict peer review in a controlled study? No. But it is absolutely a legitimate test to tell if a scope will hold zero: if the mounts and gun are beyond reproach. I was the lead on the most intensive and largest scope evaluation/test that has ever been conducted within the DOD- 18 months, 200,000 rounds with every single legitimate scope in that category being tested. For the first time scopes were tested for absolute function with no bias whatsoever by knowledgeable end users- not engineers that have no idea what we do with aiming devices. Tracking, adjustment error, zero retention, return to zero, side and top impacts, longevity under recoil, SFP vs FFP, mil vs MOA, and operational performance. Scopes were zeroed on guns with brand new barrels with a certain lot on ammunition and checked for zero retention constantly with only that lot.

Only two scopes came out of that not having failure- Nightforce and SWFA. The results of that project is being used by two major entities of the DOD to shape what and how they test optics.







Now for the Tract-

I did not ask for the Tract in any way. I said no when I was contacted about it being sent to me as I knew what the fallout would be from the “rep” and the company if it did poorly. It was stated by both the person that had it and the “rep” that they wanted it sent to me. I plainly stated how it would be tested, what I was looking for, and that if it failed it would probably be non-functional when Tract got it back. I also reiterated that I did not think they would like what the results would be, and that they should probably send it to someone else. That if it was “good” everyone would know it, and if it failed everyone would know. It was insisted that I test it. I also asked if they wanted me to replace the mount with another, I was told “nope” it’s good. Ok.

Well guess what? When mounted to a rifle of absolute consistency it produced 10 round groups of two-times the normal. It failed the most basic task a scope has- zeroing, holding POI during recoil, and zero retention. There was no malice, no bias, no subjective feelings, no “beliefs”, no “I wish”, no nonsense. It was tested exactly like every other scope I test/eval right up until the point it failed. That scope was sent back to Tract.





I did not ask for, and advised against it being sent to me because it was, and is, plainly obvious that Tract and their reps like almost every other company will try to hem and haw their way out of the results when it goes against their beliefs instead of owning it and improving the product. EVERY company, rep, engineer, and person will claim all day long how they want real results, and honest feedback.... right up until it goes against their product, their most recent purchase, or their favorite. People do not want truth- they want bliss. I’m happy to work with any company that actually desires to produce solid products, but I have no time for marketing, “features”, or salesman.


There has been calls to send me another Tract- DO NOT send me one. You won’t own the results.

That's about a wrap folks..

I love the sound of a good Mic drop...

Thanks for the clarification.

That was pretty good wasn't it?

I agree what else can I say. Failures can and do happen. That's why I'd love to see what failed on that scope. It would be great to send it back to the factory and have it diagnosed.

That scope is on a shelf somewhere.... right next to Tom Brady’s cell phone and Hillary’s emails......

Funny how damning evidence seems to disappear.

This is very interesting to me.

Are the testing and results something that can be made public? It would be very interesting to see which scopes failed and in which area(s) they failed.

I have received several questions about this- no, unfortunately the test and results can not be shared. Every major brand had a scope/scopes evaluated.

I see a lot of scopes used on an individual level, and if there are specific questions I might be able to answer them.

Mic drop........
Nuff said...

This thread started on 6/11. Today is 7/13. Personally, I'm moved by Tract's commitment to finding the scope. Most companies would've given up looking for it weeks ago. I made these flyers for you to hang up in your warehouse. I hope they help.

LOL Love it !!!! Well done sir

It is amazing to me, how companies get butt hurt over poor evaluation of their products. A friend of mine was an editor of an outdoor magazine. He was given some spotting scopes to test. He did an honest evaluation and found out that was not what they wanted, when they pulled $25,000 in ad money from the mag. I will never buy that brand of high-end optics.

It's for this reason that I find it hard to take results in a magazine sans a grain of salt.





Understand and appreciate it. Not brand/model specific, but overall, could you share the most common areas of failure? Areas (or tests) that a user should look at/test first if they are testing an unknown scope....something of an "if it passes these tests, the others are probably fine"?




Should be noted that even if Tract doesn't own the results, the results of your testing are useful to others.

Here is an insider tip in regards to testing. Writers won't review certain things because if the review goes bad they will pull advertising money. No most of these writers and magazines have too much to loose. I guess that's better then someone doing at test and saying the product in questions worked great when its a POS.

Like this?




or this?

I'm well aware of your feeling towards Tract. I stand behind them since I've tested them myself. If they didn't work I wouldn't state they are good to go.

I think I found it....

My feelings toward Tract are based purely on Tract’s track record of excellent internet lip service.

Like I said in this very thread.... their Toric Binocular is amazing. It outpaces everything in its class... easily. But I won’t buy one, due in large part to the way they’ve represented themselves here.

Brian,

How many have you tested, and which models were they?

.... and how were they tested?

Does it really matter? No matter how I tested it you'll say I was flawed or have a vested interest.
I've tested the Toric and Tekoa out to 700 yards and the 22 out to 50 yards. I myself haven't tested the new 30mm model as of yet. I'd say I've run about 6 scopes on my rifles.

Of course it matters.... you’re the spokesman, so speak about it.

Give it a break dude. Obviously only Night Force and SWFA passed the military tests. All others failed. That includes S&B and a lot of other scopes ( aiming devices ) that most folks consider top of the line. I have some old Redfield's and Leopold's from the 70's that have lord knows how many rounds through them that are still fine. But they sure haven't been subjected to as many rounds as Form and his guys put them through but it still has been a lot of rounds over the years. You are holding on to tight to what Trevor said. Let it go. Tract may well be a great scope for the general shooter/hunter but still not be something our brave and knowledgeable men and women in our military will use. That is my two cents from a hunter, fisherman, and general outdoorsman that does stuff every chance he gets.

So Tract is good enough for the average shooter. Great slogan. I'm probably below average but I want good equipment so I know the problems are on me. SWFA's fall in every ones budget and NF seems to be in a lot of people's.

Cute

The scope was indeed located by a reporter and gave an on camera interview but it’s appearance was “Blacked Out” to protect it’s location. The scope said it didn’t want to be found for fear of being sent back to Formidilosus and subjected to more torture tests like being dropped from a 12’ft ladder onto its face and used like an ASP to beat felons into a fetal position.

When pressed by the reporter for more details of its experience at the hands of a trained “Man of Sam”. The scope said it remembered gunfire, lots and lots of gun fire, to the point it was shaking violently inside. At this point the scope asked for the reporter to stop zeroing in on the specifics of the torture and abruptly ended the interview...😎

Nary a scope has had it so good. In its short life, It got to see the world. It rode atop a bunch of fine rifles and was the subject of several photo shoots. It starred in movies and was the guest of some of our best.

It feels so Howard Hughes, now 😎

Laffin.

Haters are going to hate, fan boys are going to fan, anything made my humans has some rate of failure, and companies are going to engage in puffery to sell their wares.....until they can’t anymore. Hoping that’s where Tract is. For the record, I’m a fanboy of the Toric binos (but haven’t pulled the trigger on the scopes). I have little paitience for cost and hassle of replacing scopes (particularly during load development or hunting). Over the years I’ve had to replace Redfield, Burris, Leupold, Swarovski, Minox and now Zeiss. Shoot enough, or have high expectations, and it happens from time to time. Did Tracts first rep say unbelievably stupid things? Absolutely. Have their been product failures? Yes. We’ll all benefit if Tract and other new players push and challenge the industry to innovate and cut costs. Let’s move on. By the way, if anyone from Tract is listening, let’s see a 30mm hunting scope with hunter friendly turrets, and a hunter friendly illuminated reticle. Less than 25oz weight is ok if the internals are tough and repeatable and glass is stellar. .

You don't want much from a scope that sells for less than $750.00 do you? Man, I'm glad that you guys who are constantly raking Tract and their representatives over the coals are, in part, doing so to save poor fools like me from purchasing one of their scopes just because it isn't equal to a Nightforce Mil-Spec scope's ($3K+) internals and Tangent Theta's optics ($4.5K).

ppppfffffffttttttt.

Just SWFA Fixed internals ($299) with SS 3-9x optics or better ($599) would be great! Add some great reticle options and well-designed turret options (hunting and target), and maybe a few luxuries like ZS and illum, for under $1k, and they’d be right there with the LRHS, which is pretty tall cotton.

I don't doubt your assessment. You've been there, done that, got lots of t-shirts. I just wish I had one of the SS HD models to observe the optics myself. If the optics are as good as you say I'd probably spring for the 5-20 model. The optical quality of the non-HD models has been described as average/adequate. When I hear/read the adjective "stellar" applied to optics, I think S&B, Zeiss, Hensoldt, Tangent Theta. A question - what does the optical quality of the SS HD models compare to? The internals are clearly as good as Nightforce, the Gold Standard of scope reliability and click to click accuracy.

The 3-9x HD is optically what I would call “very good”, and to my eye is about Conquest level, slightly better than VX3. The resolution of SWFA scopes is likely their optical strong point in my mind.

I wouldn’t say SWFA is as reliable or durable as Nightforce- no one can make that claim. To do so means that a company would need to test every single scope that left their factory for function and zero retention with impacts. However, SWFA has proven to be very reliable and is only second behind NF of any scopes I’ve seen or used for problem free service.

Most of the people talking about the glass in the SWFA’s are either talking about something they’ve never seen or compared, or are just repeating what they’ve been told. When I first started using SWFA’s heavily in 2010, everyone commented on how good the glass was in the 3-9x and 6x thinking they were a NF or S&B as that’s what most of the other scopes we were using were, and they had no idea who SWFA was.


People see what they want to see. People complain about reticles, glass, weight, size... What do you want to bet that every single person that claims they “can’t see” the reticle, or the glass is “ok”- would have ZERO issues finding and killing a 200” buck standing in front of them in legal light...?

I’m drinking coffee looking at $5,000 scopes, $300 scopes, and everything in between. I would hunt any animal in the world with the SS scopes and not think twice about.




The 3-9x42mm SWFA is equel/better than Leupold VX3. The 5-20x50mm is Swarovski Z5 level.

Yeah, but you’re really just trying to find the “where abouts” of the scope to shut it up from talking about what you did....Torturer! 😜😎
That’s some high praise for the SWFA 5-20x50.

The SS 3-9 is probably the best all-around optic for under $1000. It covers a lot of the bases for sure. I could do without the windage turret, and I’d love to see a zero stop.... ala LRHS. But as-is, I still think it’s the best option for a Western style big game rifle, that needs to be LR capable.

SS 5-20 is a tank, but it’s also incredible for the money. It’s a great optic for a belly-gun.

...which is precisely why I purchased a Nightforce ATACR 7-35x56 most recently. I need to scope another rifle, but it's tame compared to what the Nightforce is on, so, I thought I would give the SS 5-20x50 a try. I'm at a disadvantage in that I've never been able to use a SS...the shooters at my gun club tend toward using very economical scopes with Leupold being the predominant choice of most of the shooters, followed by various Wal Mart blister pack-type scopes. I have to rely on what the shooters on here have to say about the various SS scopes.

I've said it before, but it bears repeating here; I consider what Formidilosus says about scopes, and rifles, as gospel. Only the Lord knows how many millions of rounds he has shot in his career. The man is an organic Google when it comes to shooting precision rifles.

I put faith in Form, Jordan and DShooter for truth in scope durability and glass equivalents. All three IMO use scopes to a degree I’m likely never going to. 😎

I’m nowhere near Form’s class... and nowhere near as classy as Jordan.

I like this evaluation because of the qualifier "Western style big game rifle, that needs to be LR capable." I went out west in 1972 and probably won't go again. For my hunting in Pennsylvania and occasionally in Indiana, if I zero the rifle at about 175 yards I am an inch high at 100 yards and an inch low at 200 yards. This is all I need and I never need to touch windage and elevation after sighting in. I have some variables that I am taking to the range now to try out just in case I decide that I need more than 6x to engage the 300 yard target at my club's range (the issue is: does shifting point of impact as the power changes and additional parallax associated with the variable scope offset the availability of more power?). I would not shoot at an animal more than 300 yards away if I had the chance because that is the furthest at which I can practice. I might have a 300 yard shot across a field in Indiana in the next few years but there is a lot of wind blowing across that field.


I looked up the SS 3-9x42 HD on the SWFA website. The first thing I noticed was the turrets which I don't need. The second thing I noticed was the reticles which look like upside down German No. 4 reticles with hash marks that I don't need. Then I looked at the specs. It weighs 19 ounces which is 3 or 4 ounces heaver than the scopes I use but not enough to make any difference and I would like a little more weight if I am going to be shooting at a little more range. It is 13.1 inches long, only a little longer than my current scopes and about as long as the 3-9x40 Conquest I used to use. Finally I looked at the eye relief which varies from 4.13 inches to 3.03 inches, that is from great to unusable. For me this is either a very large 3x scope or a useable 9X scope depending on where the 4.13 inch eye relief is. The eye relief and reticle choice means I can't use it for the shooting and hunting I do. I would not choose it over the older 3-9x40 Conquest with either a #20 or German #4 reticle.


I am tempted by the Nightforce SHV 3-10 with the Forceplex reticle, but I am unsure about the eye relief and whether it is overbuilt for my use. I would have to at least look through one first. The scopes that I am looking at right now are the Tract Toric 2-10x42 and the Tract Turion 3-9x40. They both come with more than competitive glass for their price, an excellent hunting reticle in the T-plex and constant eye relief of about 4 inches. Based on the reticle choice and constant eye relief I would choose either over the SS 3-9 HD if I decide to replace my 6x42's. They both have mechanicals built in Japan. If I am lucky this year, I will shoot between 500-1000 rounds of .308 at the range and maybe some 6.5 Creedmoor, if the rifle is built in time, with two shots at deer. This shooting is spread over 3-4 rifles. With this level of use and the reports from hunters who use them harder than I ever will, I don't expect durability to be an issue. In shooting so far they track well when sighting in and the optics are fine in bright daylight as all optics are, but the image on the 6x42 keeps luring me back as it did with the 3-9x40 Conquests before them. If any of my scopes fail, I will do what I did with a couple of scopes in the past from other makers that failed, put a spare scope on the rifle and send the failed scope in for repair. After all, I am never going downrange.

Enough with the BS. Let's make this absolutely, positively clear. This is your thread, about the products that you represent. Answer the questions. It's that simple.

Doug vouched for you and said you'd find the answers if you didn't know them (page 1). Well, crap, you and Doug look like clowns in many minds.

This can go round and round, but in the end you, Tract, and Doug will look like idiots until you start taking the bull by the horns and being honest.

More BS from you and Tract. Waiting for Jon to locate the failed scope?

Are you serious?

No better yet, you expect us to take you and Tract seriously? Really?

This is your thread dude. Only you can revive it. Or Trevor.

With no animus toward anyone, I would suggest that the only way Tract can avoid irreparable harm is to release some (4?) of their upper tier scopes for testing to some of the better shooters that frequent this board. Form and Jordan come to mind. I don't mean to leave anyone out...I know there are really quite a few shooters that could easily wring a scope out and reveal any failures should one or more occur; Form has helped me tremendously in the past and I have been aware of his vocation for a while. Jordan stands out because he clearly and dispassionately explains his understanding of whatever is the thread's subject. He writes very clearly and covers a topic he writes about very thoroughly. He also shows his targets/game and it is self-evident that he is an ace with a rifle. The other "aces" are apparent when they post, but they tend not to post that much.

Over last weekend I was at a shoot. Someone next to me had a scope failure. This brand is cheap junk. I know they are but I don't go out of my way to flame them. I could care less. I just don't understand the level guys have devoted to flaming Tract. I just purchased a Vortex AMG that won't focus at 25 yards. [bleep] happens I'm not going to trash all their products over it. People ask how I tested the Tract scopes. Just read my review. Same test is don't on every scope. I used tracking targets from Benchtoboxprecision. Why I get personally attacked is funny. I don't own the company or have any pull. If they choose to release items for testing or track down the lost scope that's on them. All I can do is relay messages. I'm not a product engineer so I don't have detailed knowledge of their inner workings. I wouldn't compare 99% of the scope out there to Nightforce. They are proven tanks. But to compare Tract to them isn't fare. If SWFA is a great scope good for them. I'm not saying Tract is the best in the world just they are great scopes for the money. If you like brand x buy it I could care less.

People see what they want to see. People complain about reticles, glass, weight, size... What do you want to bet that every single person that claims they “can’t see” the reticle, or the glass is “ok”- would have ZERO issues finding and killing a 200” buck standing in front of them in legal light...?


You'd lose that bet, guaranteed, at least as to the reticle. I've tested my SS MIL/MIL near the end of legal shooting hours, in the shadows of my own yard, and I'd be hard-pressed to make an accurate shot with it under those lighting conditions. Others, even the Bushnell Trophy XLT 3-9 duplex I just paid a whopping $60 for on clearance, were perfectly usable, because the heavy portion of the reticle extends to nearly the center. That's not speculation, it's the way it is. In the open, even open hardwoods after the leaves are down, it'd be fine, but I need something I can aim with where the game goes, not where I'd like them to.

No argument with anything else you've said, but I see what I see.

Reticles matter. Thicker subtensions are going to be easier to see in dim light and heavy brush or areas with broken backgrounds.