Did you read posts #2 and #4 in the evaluation?The scope that was used in the test was that scope (used and questionably abused). An extremely poor one to test. In fact if it were me I would have refused to test it as any results would not be creditable. Statistics 101.
poor analogyWow. Very good response from the manufacturer. Kudos. I was expecting it to go in the weeds.
On another note, Every scope regardless of price should work, period. Would anyone buy a car they have to push?
Only by releasing a scope that didn’t reliably function.Did Maven ever respond to their tanking?
Correct the reliability/durability issues, add THLR’s reticle in a 3-12x44 FFP scope and I’ll replace all my current scopes.@Formidilosus 's test was well thought out and repeatable. While we as a company aren't happy with the results (and it has been forwarded to our R&D team for improvement), the test is quality, and we appreciate the thought that went into it.
We value the input on desires for new features and holding us accountable for our products.
Assuming there is a reliability/durability issue. You cannot discount the fact the scope rings were over torqued and could have potentially damage the scope internals.Correct the reliability/durability issues, add THLR’s reticle in a 3-12x44 FFP scope and I’ll replace all my current scopes.
Thanks for responding.
Would over torquing caused the drop fail but still tracked?Assuming there is a reliability/durability issue. You cannot discount the fact the scope rings were over torqued and could have potentially damage the scope internals.
I consider it budget What is it? $700 range? In todays optics market that is on the low end.
Weird how other scopes survive that much torque.Assuming there is a reliability/durability issue. You cannot discount the fact the scope rings were over torqued and could have potentially damage the scope internals.
There are no credible statistics on a sample size of one. That is statistics 101.That scope Retails on Tracts website for $794. Last month you could get one for with a 15% discount. The scope that was used in the test was that scope (used and questionably abused). An extremely poor one to test. In fact if it were me I would have refused to test it as any results would not be creditable. Statistics 101.
^thisFrom what I've gathered
-Dependable
-Useable mil based ffp reticle with bold posts for low power use. Realistic wind brackets. Ie no need for 12 mils of wind hashes.
-Low power mag range that makes scopes friendly to get behind like 3-4x so a 4-16 and not a 4-32. Also makes parallax less finicky
- hold zero under use that most would consider abuse, but closely mimics real world use.
Do you know that from the information Form provided? All I have seen is Tract provided mounting instructions that specified a torque value that was too high. Apparently they felt it was significant since they offered to immediately replace the scope. I would say the heavy ring markings would indicate that.Weird how other scopes survive that much torque.
What other test have been performed on TRACT scopes? The only other test I am aware of from 24hourcampfire was the first test on a Tract Response that is manufactured in a completely different factory than the Toric?Lots of talk about the sample size of one. The prior two similar tests on 24hrcampfire are consistent with these results. That's 3 for 3....