ZeroTech TRACE ADV 3-18×44 FFP Shoot2Hunt

[brazz04]

Well, I think you figured it all out. This is all a big scam, the people involved are just shills, and we are all just a bunch of suckers in a cult that simply do not have your incisive wisdom. Well done, internet guy. Very well done indeed.

Here to help!

 

[SteveAndTheCrigBoys]

Who will be the independent testers of this scope? Obviously it can't be folks associated with Shoot 2 Hunt or Rokslide considering they stand to profit roughly 75k per month on the sales. Just wondering where and how that will be done.

I wonder if they'll give one to someone other than form to throw on the ground and test. Will be interesting.

They aren't mounting every scope and performing a drop test on every one. They are performing a collimator test similar to NF per this post from Ryan.

Post in thread 'Would you buy this scope?'

Thursday at 6:35 PM

I appreciate the sentiment, but how exactly are you guys going to test every single scope? I can’t imagine a quick test that would verify zero retention? If that is the limiting factor capping it at 500 item increments, I would rethink that. Scopes 5x as much as this are not doing testing at the individual piece part level, there’s no way that’s sustainable.

• Ryan Avery

• 

 

[Ryan Avery]

I wonder if they'll give one to someone other than form to throw on the ground and test. Will be interesting.

It's clear from reading Rokslide that there are many critics out there. This scope will undergo testing by more independent reviewers than any other. However, the reality is that you won’t find any bigger critics of this scope than Form and me.

 

[Shortschaf]

Well its half price of my NX8s with locking turrets, so thats a huge bonus on a hunting scope.

Unless I missed it, I do not think this scope has locking turrets. Just zerostop exposed elevation and capped windage

 

[Coopsdaddy]

I guess I didn't notice what this is solving that the industry has been ignoring? Besides not being able to find the length of the scope without reading through the forum, it seems like just another scope to me.
I like it's zero stop, locking diopter, illumination, and parallax. But none of that is new?
Not interested in any of the reticles....and that's always been a deal breaker for me.




You mean like that big Shoot2Hunt logo on the side?

I could do without that for sure,hope they rethink that.
Look around most guys are particular with 500 different color combinations of rokstocks.

 

[HuntHarder]

Scopes look like they are right on track to be great. What is a negative with the scopes? Anything you wish you could change or should be changed? @RancherJohn

 

[prm]

In my opinion, Ryan and Form have much more to lose by releasing a questionable scope. I lean to the side of this scope getting much more abuse than others. At some point you either trust the process they are following or you don’t. You’re free to purchase, or not. Is there another scope company with high standards and some transparency?

 

[RancherJohn]

Scopes look like they are right on track to be great. What is a negative with the scopes? Anything you wish you could change or should be changed? @RancherJohn

I did not really find anything I wanted to change, but I also did not shoot it or carry it as much as some of the other guys. I did not personally slip turrets or reset the zero stop, but in watching it done I did not see anything I would have different there. Some may want a locking elevation turret, but in use I did not see the lack of a lock being a drawback, nor did I have the elevation turret dial itself even when carried in a gunbearer where the scope rides against my body. I did not carry it strapped under the wing of my pack. The illumination button seemed to work well, but I did not carry it enough to see if it would get bumped on during normal use nor did I get a good idea of battery life (not that it really matters, but would be good to know). A dial illumination would not be immune from the same problems, and may be worse (increased complexity in that design being another issue).

As a side note, I did not have issues with my Maven dialing itself in use but there may be 2 reasons why, 1) I only carried it for a few days as well and 2) I used an o-ring from @Bluumoon. My Maven turret was not mushy or overly firm, but the parallax did stiffen in the cold. Other shooters did have a few times where their RS1.2s dialed a few tenths, but I can't remember who had done what regarding o-rings and/or electrical tape.

It honestly felt like a properly built mk5HD, with the benefits of a smaller profile and better reticle. If production models match the ones we used (and I have no reason to doubt that based on LOW's track record), I think it will punch well above it's price class in all categories.

 

[RockAndSage]

+1 for having zero issue giving a negative review this thing doesn’t function properly. Especially considering the promise to replace if you get a dud.

100% agree.

Something that I don't think is very well appreciated in the gun world, is that everything has its limitations, and that there are big differences between standards and limitations.

If someone says, "Well, I've shot/used/run ____, and I've never had a problem with it. No complaints"...all this says to me is they simply do not have sufficient experience with it to make that determination. They don't know what the limitations of that thing are. Because everything has its limitations.

An honest and fair negative review is simply someone uncovering a limitation of some kind.

From there, you can assess the total utility of an item, and if on balance it's a keeper, then you just address the limitation mechanically or behaviorally, if needed at all. But absolutely everything has its limitations.

And performance standards aren't limitations - they're a recognition of a necessary performance envelope, short of limitations, that are the bare minimum acceptable. Identifying and determining an acceptable performance standard is entirely different from identifying a limitation, and actually requires a lot more thought and, frankly, experienced wisdom.

Set up the wrong standards, and you set up the wrong tests to assess it, and end up with garbage-in/garbage out useless "data".

The drop-test standards Form has set up are exceedingly reasonable for reality and about as scientifically valid as can be expected - especially when "scientific" in a lab setting often ends up eliminating so many variables as to be detached from reality. That might be necessary in failure-analysis R&D, but it can be counter-productive in broader durability/reliability assessment. Rifle-scope drop-tests mimicking reality in a consistent, high-volume, repeatable way tell us far more about expectable performance in likely realities than anything that could be set up in an ASTM lab or test.

The fact that production units are also going to be individually whack-tested and then assessed with a collimator before shipping just adds an immense amount of value, beyond what Form and others are doing in volume, in testing these pre-production samples.

This is far and beyond "industry standards", and I don't know what else could be reasonably expected. Especially if someone has a firm grasp of the nature and differences between reality-based testing, vs how isolated-variable lab testing works.

I'll be interested and appreciative of any "negative" reviews that might emerge over time with these scopes. But I expect far fewer than anything else out there on the market, given what has gone into them. Especially the reality-based knowledge and experience informing how they were spec'd, assessed, and tested. It's exceptional value, especially at $1000.

 

[Jake Larsen]

From there, you can assess the total utility of an item, and if on balance it's a keeper, then you just address the limitation mechanically or behaviorally, if needed at all. But absolutely everything has its limitations.

And performance standards aren't limitations - they're a recognition of a necessary performance envelope, short of limitations, that are the bare minimum acceptable. Identifying and determining an acceptable performance standard is entirely different from identifying a limitation, and actually requires a lot more thought and, frankly, experienced wisdom.

This is far and beyond "industry standards", and I don't know what else could be reasonably expected. Especially if someone has a firm grasp of the nature and differences between reality-based testing, vs how isolated-variable lab testing works.

.

Just highlighting a few key phrases that stood out to me here.

A common theme I’ve noticed among the naysayers vs those of us generally exited about this scope (and other products developed in a similar fashion) is experience. Theres a lot of theorizing about how this stuff and other products could/should/are advertised to work, and a lot less honest field testing/observation.

A “firm grasp” of the concepts seems to come from one source: Experience

I don’t have direct experience with this scope yet. But I do have enough experience with other products and have tested enough to be able to recognize what’s being done here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk