Tract Toric UltraHD 3-15x50mm Q&A

[SDHNTR]

My bad. Sorry, I thought it was the 2.5-15x 44 that was tested here. That’s the scope I was more interested in and for some reason had it in mind that’s what was being tested. My mistake.

 

[fwafwow]

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.

Did you read posts #2 and #4 in the evaluation?

 

[freddyG]

Wow. 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?

 

[SDHNTR]

Did Maven ever respond to their tanking?

 

[stevevan]

poo

Wow. 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?

poor analogy

 

[PNWGATOR]

Did Maven ever respond to their tanking?

Only by releasing a scope that didn’t reliably function.

 

[BjornF16]

@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.

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.

 

[prm]

The market has many larger, heavier, higher zoom scopes. But finding a good hunting 2-10ish FFP scope, with a good hunting reticle, and durable, seems to be a challenge. I don’t know what the market is, but I’m one. If Tract built that, I’d buy.

 

[DropTyne]

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.

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.

 

[fwafwow]

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.

Would over torquing caused the drop fail but still tracked?

 

[Mike Islander]

I consider it budget What is it? $700 range? In todays optics market that is on the low end.

Unless you buy an SWFA 6x42 for $209. Absolutely bullet proof actual budget scope.

 

[amassi]

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.

Weird how other scopes survive that much torque.

 

[fwafwow]

A few of my questions in this thread have gone unanswered, but I want to make clear the scope wasn’t “abused”. It was a safe queen.

 

[Rob5589]

A 700 dollar scope should work as advertised and hold up to some hard use. Period. But price doesn't buy durability/reliability as we have seen in scopes 2-3 times more expensive.

 

[Marbles]

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.

There are no credible statistics on a sample size of one. That is statistics 101.

So, if the scope had passed, you would have called the results not creditable? I guess the fact that it did not literally have parts falling off is not creditable, you did say "any results."

 

[eoperator]

From 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.

^this
I would vote for;
-2-10x40 @~20oz
-4-16x45 @~24oz
-5-20x50 @~28oz
30mm tube, Capped windage and "pull up to engage" elevation turret. Seems to me that a "pull up" turret could be much less susceptible to damage from impact. The impact forces could be transfered to the scope tube instead of adjustment mechanism.

 

[DropTyne]

Weird how other scopes survive that much torque.

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.

 

[Sled]

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....

 

[freddyG]

What was the erroneous ring torque given?

 

[DropTyne]

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....

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?