Tract Toric UltraHD 3-15x50mm Q&A

[BjornF16]

. Honestly, the best thing the company could do is respond as they have and then evaluate where to go next. We should give them some time to do that before flinging insults at them.

Their initial response was great; problem appears that the company didn’t stand behind JW and the post was deleted (and there has been silence since)

 

[SDHNTR]

I think it’s early and unwarranted to call lack of response from Tract being shady. Tract has been following the sort of industry standards that most optics companies are using and there is nothing wrong with that. The point of the drop tests is to call attention to those standards and advocate for change. If Tract annd other companies are going to learn and adapt from these test results to change those industry standards, it doesn’t happen over night. Designing, engineering, and producing a new or updated product can take years. Honestly, the best thing the company could do is respond as they have and then evaluate where to go next. We should give them some time to do that before flinging insults at them.

Except they have had many chances to do that since they showed up here. They have been asked too many times to count what kind of impact testing they do. Zero response. It took being called out on this test to finally “encourage” them to respond, which they did, at least initially, and it actually showed some promise. Then they retracted their response as if it was unauthorized or they were embarrassed by it, and we’re back to where we started, with no information and dodged questions. It’s a simple question really, nothing to hide from. I’ll try one last time and will make the question as simple as possible:

Hey Tract, please tell us what you do to test your products for impact?

 

[SDHNTR]

Tract has been following the sort of industry standards that most optics companies are using and there is nothing wrong with that.

I disagree. There is A LOT wrong with that! Which is why most scopes are so fragile and why this very page exists. Those “industry standards”, assuming there even are any to begin with, are woefully inadequate. Obviously.

 

[Sled]

I disagree. There is A LOT wrong with that! Which is why most scopes are so fragile and why this very page exists. Those “industry standards”, assuming there even are any to begin with, are woefully inadequate. Obviously.

Ok, they failed a bit and the industry standard sucks but look on the bright side...at least they're not as bad as Leupold.

 

[Axlrod]

Ok, they failed a bit and the industry standard sucks but look on the bright side...at least they're not as bad as Leupold.

For my use there are no shades of gray. Scope either works or it doesn't. So all the ones that don't are BAD, and the few that do, well that is all I buy.

 

[Sled]

For my use there are no shades of gray. Scope either works or it doesn't. So all the ones that don't are BAD, and the few that do, well that is all I buy.

well in that case i'd love to hear your list of approved scopes. is it by manufacturer, model or do you drop test each and every new scope you get?

 

[Axlrod]

well in that case i'd love to hear your list of approved scopes. is it by manufacturer, model or do you drop test each and every new scope you get?

Haha
There is an entire section around here somewhere on scope drop tests
But my list is:
SWFA
Nightforce

Been using SWFA for many years- the only scope that would stay zeroed on my 416 Rigby.
Have used NF on my hunting rifle over 10 years. They test them at the factory for ya, but I have went ahead unintentionally drop tested them sometimes.

 

[fwafwow]

I think it’s early and unwarranted to call lack of response from Tract being shady. Tract has been following the sort of industry standards that most optics companies are using and there is nothing wrong with that. The point of the drop tests is to call attention to those standards and advocate for change. If Tract annd other companies are going to learn and adapt from these test results to change those industry standards, it doesn’t happen over night. Designing, engineering, and producing a new or updated product can take years. Honestly, the best thing the company could do is respond as they have and then evaluate where to go next. We should give them some time to do that before flinging insults at them.

I decided to hold off on more detail, in part due to the above post.

I spoke to one of the two owners in January and he does not believe that the tests are necessary for Tract scopes, as they already go through "testing" and in their experience, none of their customers lose zero. He also said that the tests have too many variables, and IMHO suggested that the tester was biased (and referenced a SH thread from some time ago). I pointed out the limitations of the variables (same rifle, rings, swapping for other scopes, etc.). When I said that the fact that designing a test is complicated doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted. In fairness, he seemed to agree on that part.

The owner also confirmed that the post above by the Tract "member" was not authorized, which I also take to mean there was no referral of the results to "R&D".

Tract did stick to their word and agreed to replace the scope in question. I asked if the NIB scope could be sent directly to Form via Ryan for testing (given the responses in this thread about the ring marks). The answer was "no". I got the replacement scope in short order and then sold it.

 

[BjornF16]

I decided to hold off on more detail, in part due to the above post.

I spoke to one of the two owners in January and he does not believe that the tests are necessary for Tract scopes, as they already go through "testing" and in their experience, none of their customers lose zero. He also said that the tests have too many variables, and IMHO suggested that the tester was biased (and referenced a SH thread from some time ago). I pointed out the limitations of the variables (same rifle, rings, swapping for other scopes, etc.). When I said that the fact that designing a test is complicated doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted. In fairness, he seemed to agree on that part.

The owner also confirmed that the post above by the Tract "member" was not authorized, which I also take to mean there was no referral of the results to "R&D".

Tract did stick to their word and agreed to replace the scope in question. I asked if the NIB scope could be sent directly to Form via Ryan for testing (given the responses in this thread about the ring marks). The answer was "no". I got the replacement scope in short order and then sold it.

Are you suggesting they wouldn't stand by their warranty if the new scope didn't hold up to Form's testing?

Are you divesting your other Tract possessions?

 

[fwafwow]

Are you suggesting they wouldn't stand by their warranty if the new scope didn't hold up to Form's testing?

No, but I’m not sure they would stand by it. I was initially optimistic that my request would be approved given the (now deleted) post by @JW@TRACT, but it wasn’t. Again, I got my replacement due to the documented error of using their torque specs, not due to the drop test results.

Are you divesting your other Tract possessions?

I have done so. Except for the binos I have for loaning to someone who forgets a pair.

 

[Marbles]

I decided to hold off on more detail, in part due to the above post.

I spoke to one of the two owners in January and he does not believe that the tests are necessary for Tract scopes, as they already go through "testing" and in their experience, none of their customers lose zero. He also said that the tests have too many variables, and IMHO suggested that the tester was biased (and referenced a SH thread from some time ago). I pointed out the limitations of the variables (same rifle, rings, swapping for other scopes, etc.). When I said that the fact that designing a test is complicated doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted. In fairness, he seemed to agree on that part.

The owner also confirmed that the post above by the Tract "member" was not authorized, which I also take to mean there was no referral of the results to "R&D".

Tract did stick to their word and agreed to replace the scope in question. I asked if the NIB scope could be sent directly to Form via Ryan for testing (given the responses in this thread about the ring marks). The answer was "no". I got the replacement scope in short order and then sold it.

Thanks for the update.

 

[BjornF16]

No, but I’m not sure they would stand by it. I was initially optimistic that my request would be approved given the (now deleted) post by @JW@TRACT, but it wasn’t. Again, I got my replacement due to the documented error of using their torque specs, not due to the drop test results.

I have done so. Except for the binos I have for loaning to someone who forgets a pair.

So I guess that means the R&D Improvement suggestions that JW forwarded are not going to happen?

 

[ElPollo]

I decided to hold off on more detail, in part due to the above post.

I spoke to one of the two owners in January and he does not believe that the tests are necessary for Tract scopes, as they already go through "testing" and in their experience, none of their customers lose zero. He also said that the tests have too many variables, and IMHO suggested that the tester was biased (and referenced a SH thread from some time ago). I pointed out the limitations of the variables (same rifle, rings, swapping for other scopes, etc.). When I said that the fact that designing a test is complicated doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted. In fairness, he seemed to agree on that part.

The owner also confirmed that the post above by the Tract "member" was not authorized, which I also take to mean there was no referral of the results to "R&D".

Tract did stick to their word and agreed to replace the scope in question. I asked if the NIB scope could be sent directly to Form via Ryan for testing (given the responses in this thread about the ring marks). The answer was "no". I got the replacement scope in short order and then sold it.

Thanks for the update. Denial generally only works for a short term business strategy, and when extended it tends to bite you in the ass. And calling yourself a “member” tends to result in Bevis and Butthead snorts and chuckles.

I honestly see these tests as an R&D investment opportunity for most optics companies. But here we are about 1 1/2 years into this drop-testing experiment and the optics companies all seem to be sticking to the status quo. The big winners seem to have been SWFA and Trijicon. Nightforce was a known quantity already. The rest seem to be ignoring these test and doubling down.

 

[fwafwow]

So I guess that means the R&D Improvement suggestions that JW forwarded are not going to happen?

I think only @JW@TRACT (or someone with authority) could answer, but based on my communications with the owner, I’d say NO DICE.

 

[Ryan Avery]

Thanks for the update. Denial generally only works for a short term business strategy, and when extended it tends to bite you in the ass. And calling yourself a “member” tends to result in Bevis and Butthead snorts and chuckles.

I honestly see these tests as an R&D investment opportunity for most optics companies. But here we are about 1 1/2 years into this drop-testing experiment and the optics companies all seem to be sticking to the status quo. The big winners seem to have been SWFA and Trijicon. Nightforce was a known quantity already. The rest seem to be ignoring these test and doubling down.

There are a few listening. Things move very slow in the optics world.

 

[Macintosh]

When enough people start to understand that no one except the optics company has anything to lose by considering the results, eventually they'll start to pay attention.
New products that involve legit new design take multiple years to reach market. Nothing will happen quickly.

 

[fwafwow]

And calling yourself a “member” tends to result in Bevis and Butthead snorts and chuckles.

I am extremely proud of my handful of B&B memes. They were underappreciated while they were alive, and now that they have passed on, I hope to remind America - nay, the world - of their important contributions to society.

 

[ElPollo]

I am extremely proud of my handful of B&B memes. They were underappreciated while they were alive, and now that they have passed on, I hope to remind America - nay, the world - of their important contributions to society.

half the kids I went to school with were Named Beavis and Butthead something like 10 years before the cartoon was made.

 

[ElPollo]

There are a few listening. Things move very slow in the optics world.

Good to know. But I won’t hold my breath on anything new coming out soon.

 

[freddyG]

I decided to hold off on more detail, in part due to the above post.

I spoke to one of the two owners in January and he does not believe that the tests are necessary for Tract scopes, as they already go through "testing" and in their experience, none of their customers lose zero. He also said that the tests have too many variables, and IMHO suggested that the tester was biased (and referenced a SH thread from some time ago). I pointed out the limitations of the variables (same rifle, rings, swapping for other scopes, etc.). When I said that the fact that designing a test is complicated doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted. In fairness, he seemed to agree on that part.

The owner also confirmed that the post above by the Tract "member" was not authorized, which I also take to mean there was no referral of the results to "R&D".

Tract did stick to their word and agreed to replace the scope in question. I asked if the NIB scope could be sent directly to Form via Ryan for testing (given the responses in this thread about the ring marks). The answer was "no". I got the replacement scope in short order and then sold it.

I don’t think Form has ever posted on SH, so the owner you spoke to is just going off of here say , and not actual facts. The scope failing, the rescinded reply, and no warranty on the scopes when they get put to rough use, tells anyone with any common sense to stay away.