Tract Toric UltraHD 3-15x50mm Q&A

[Sled]

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?

Post #37 in this thread. I can't remember if the first one was a toric or response but the one linked there was a toric.

 

[DropTyne]

Thanks, I missed the link when reading through the thread.

And yikes!

 

[fwafwow]

Apparently they felt it was significant since they offered to immediately replace the scope. I would say the heavy ring markings would indicate that.

Bottom line, there are too many unknowns about the condition of this scope prior to testing. I am not advocating or refuting the mechanical integrity of Tract scopes, but merely stating that we cannot deem the reliability based on the data that has currently been presented.

I do not believe that the testing protocol requires only NIB scopes. If used scopes are eligible, then the above ring/mounting issue is the only issue in question, IMHO. Tract did NOT believe that the ring torque issue would impact performance, but they still offered to replace the scope.

 

[fwafwow]

What was the erroneous ring torque given?

25"#

 

[DropTyne]

I do not believe that the testing protocol requires only NIB scopes. If used scopes are eligible, then the above ring/mounting issue is the only issue in question, IMHO. Tract did NOT believe that the ring torque issue would impact performance, but they still offered to replace the scope.

I did not imply testing protocol should include NIB scopes. The information provided in the last post of the test thread did cast doubt on the integrity of the scope prior to testing, and did not provide detail of the torque specs. Wringing a scope tube like a dish rag would not be considered "normal" use.

However, this does not seem to be the issue. Thanks for the additional information and clarification.

 

[fwafwow]

I did not imply testing protocol should include NIB scopes. The information provided in the last post of the test thread did cast doubt on the integrity of the scope prior to testing, and did not provide detail of the torque specs. Wringing a scope tube like a dish rag would not be considered "normal" use.

However, this does not seem to be the issue. Thanks for the additional information and clarification.

Sorry, I didn't mean to infer that you had done so. I can attest that the scope was torqued to 25" lbs. It was otherwise babied.

 

[fwafwow]

@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.

 

[amassi]

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.

Bottom line, there are too many unknowns about the condition of this scope prior to testing. I am not advocating or refuting the mechanical integrity of Tract scopes, but merely stating that we cannot deem the reliability based on the data that has currently been presented.

Yes
The warne vertical splits were 25"#
The nightforce ultralights 18"#

The scope was able to print acceptable groups before it was bumped. Then it failed.
25"# won't hurt a well made reliable scope

 

[fwafwow]

For those who haven't figured it out, the tested scope was mine. Here's a bit more color.

• Tract is still standing by their warranty and is replacing my scope - because of the torquing issue, not because of the drop test results (and they are aware my scope was the one drop tested).
• I'm a Tract fan. I own other Tract stuff. Their CS has been incredible - same day responses, including on weekends and holidays - by the owners, and including by phone. (Note - apart from the torque issue, all of my CS interactions were unrelated to quality.)
• There is more, but I think it is best for @JW@TRACT to weigh in - to the extent they want - but I suspect that post #22 will be revised.

 

[sndmn11]

The test is interesting but not conclusive by any means. What can be concluded by testing a used (maybe abused) sample of one? Furthermore, this is one of Tracts budget scopes.

They could easily get a sample of 10 for only the cost of shipping, or run through things on their own for only the cost of ammo.

I've offered several times, it is fun to experiment.

I also don't think if a rifle scope is budget or flagship, it should still work.

 

[PNWGATOR]

Tract has an incredible opportunity to engineer and build a correctly designed and functional line of scopes if they’re willing to listen and commit to the process.

No company has stepped up and done it.

SWFA is close. Nightforce too. Bushnell, almost.

Be interesting to see if Tract is going to be the manufacturer to actually get it correct.

 

[mtnwrunner]

Tract has an incredible opportunity to engineer and build a correctly designed and functional line of scopes if they’re willing to listen and commit to the process.

No company has stepped up and done it.

SWFA is close. Nightforce too. Bushnell, almost.

Be interesting to see if Tract is going to be the manufacturer to actually get it correct.

And it would be very profitable.....just from the Rok membership.

Randy

 

[prm]

Tract has an incredible opportunity to engineer and build a correctly designed and functional line of scopes if they’re willing to listen and commit to the process.

No company has stepped up and done it.

SWFA is close. Nightforce too. Bushnell, almost.

Be interesting to see if Tract is going to be the manufacturer to actually get it correct.

What more do you expect from Nightforce? At the end of the day it is a piece of optical equipment and it can break. Weight, size, and cost also play into the design.

 

[ID_Matt]

What more do you expect from Nightforce? At the end of the day it is a piece of optical equipment and it can break. Weight, size, and cost also play into the design.

FFP Reticle that is better designed for hunting in a good zoom range. 2.5-10 or 3-18 or something.

 

[bhylton]

They could easily get a sample of 10 for only the cost of shipping, or run through things on their own for only the cost of ammo.

I've offered several times, it is fun to experiment.

I also don't think if a rifle scope is budget or flagship, it should still work.

I absolutely agree and would love to see 10 of each scope tested. We could at least start to see trends... however, the cost of ammo alone needed for those tests makes my head spin . I wonder if the same could be accomplished with a laser bore sighter while doing the drops?

 

[sndmn11]

I absolutely agree and would love to see 10 of each scope tested. We could at least start to see trends... however, the cost of ammo alone needed for those tests makes my head spin . I wonder if the same could be accomplished with a laser bore sighter while doing the drops?

It's only 70 cartridges to drop test ten. If the scope adjusts correctly you could get on a 2" dot in three, so that makes a total of 100 cartridges.

 

[fwafwow]

First we need to get 10 scopes….

 

[sndmn11]

First we need to get 10 scopes….

I'd rather invest in MemeSlide Aiming Solutions

 

[Billy Goat]

If a scope is actually designed to hold zero thru conditions that a drop test simulates, they should all pass.

It's not a 25% or a 75% make it. They all make it. Cause they should be built to surpass that if they are actually going to be able to sustain it. There could be a very small failure rate, but if they are actually built to withstand it, they should all make it.



When a company builds a product, do you think they engineer it so 50% of them meet the expected lifetime?



You think the bullet proof glass at 7-11 in east St Louis works 73% of the time? Or is it built to work 100% of the time, and likely surpass any claim that they make of it? Or any other product that is supposed to do something.


I say to hell with sample size on what should be a minimum of what is to be expected of a scope. But what do I know.

 

[bhylton]

It's only 70 cartridges to drop test ten. If the scope adjusts correctly you could get on a 2" dot in three, so that makes a total of 100 cartridges.

To test zero retention wouldn't you need a statistically accurate zero each time a scope was mounted? So more like 10-20rds per scope to establish your accuracy "cone" or "true zero". Then you could drop and see if shots land outside the true zero.
Really just arguing sematics... with most scopes it seems pretty apparent whether they work or not.. ie scopes that loose zero loose it in a very noticeable fashion. That being the case, 70-100rds to test 10 scopes is probably a decent estimate. Cheers