ZeroTech TRACE ADV 3-18×44 FFP Shoot2Hunt

[Shortschaf]

I haven’t read the whole thread so hopefully this hasn’t been mentioned…I am a little disappointed with the revealing of the reticles, especially the Rokslide one. A simple rearranging of the letters and it could have been the MHG reticle.

Mother of all Hunting reticles for Geriatrics?

 

[CorbLand]

Mother of all Hunting reticles for Geriatrics?

I knew we were just a forgot relic of the past.

Gone, forgotten, and all of it happened too soon.

 

[BLJ]

@ZeroTech Optics

Is there any issues with spray painting the scope in relation to warranty?

@ZeroTech Optics.

Any issues doing this?

 

[Mikido]

I’m not getting the notification emails. When’s the next drop?

 

[Q_Sertorius]

I’m not getting the notification emails. When’s the next drop?

They said the notification email will be 24 hours before the next drop. I’d expect the drop on the 15th or 16th.

 

[OneGunTex]

If the Sniper’s Hide thread is any indication, the apparently common prejudice against Zero Tech as a brand could limit the popularity of the S2H scope.

It will be interesting to see if the S2H scope can prove good enough to overcome that prejudice (or poor reputation or whatever you want to call it).

This is real. Before becoming active here, I totally did not realize that a manufacturer might make 2 scopes within a line differently, other than mag range and features. I.e. I assumed that the Maven RS 1.2 and the 2.1 (or whatever) were built the same. I never considered that the 2-12x model could be durable and the 3-9x might suck.
You're totally going to have people who had a ZT, it sucked, and not buy the S2H scope; and likewise who heard about the S2H scope, decide they want a 4-24x instead, and are shocked and disappointed when the ZT 4-24x Trace doesn't meet the promises of the ZT 3-18x Trace S2H

 

[B_Reynolds_AK]

Definitely, since the vast majority of people are very much ignorant when it comes to gear, optics, guns etc. Not in a derogatory way, it’s just that they don’t have the interest in knowing.

ZeroTech naming the scope the same as their previous Trace Advanced line was a marketing mistake. As Form has repeatedly said, it’s an entirely new erector system, so it really is a new scope, not a new model in an existing line. It’s going to make product differentiation very difficult. Lots of companies have collaborations with other brands and slap a logo on an existing product, so that’s what the majority of people, outside of the Rokslide/S2H universe will assume.

Maybe ZeroTech wanted the success of what they knew was going to be a properly functioning and durable scope to raise the water under all of their optics, but really in the end that is a bad decision, since it’s already been shown that their other scopes, while doing ok, do not pass drop/durability testing like the S2H scope does, which will cause heartburn to customers when they find out their new scope doesn’t perform like they thought they’d been promised.

Not throwing shade at ZT at all, because we are all extremely grateful to have them work with S2H, but that doesn’t mean we cannot point out what is going to be a marketing mistake, or at the very least, cause marketing confusion as shown already with the thread on Snipershide.

@ZeroTech Optics

 

[omicron1792]

Definitely, since the vast majority of people are very much ignorant when it comes to gear, optics, guns etc. Not in a derogatory way, it’s just that they don’t have the interest in knowing.

ZeroTech naming the scope the same as their previous Trace Advanced line was a marketing mistake. As Form has repeatedly said, it’s an entirely new erector system, so it really is a new scope, not a new model in an existing line. It’s going to make product differentiation very difficult. Lots of companies have collaborations with other brands and slap a logo on an existing product, so that’s what the majority of people, outside of the Rokslide/S2H universe will assume.

Maybe ZeroTech wanted the success of what they knew was going to be a properly functioning and durable scope to raise the water under all of their optics, but really in the end that is a bad decision, since it’s already been shown that their other scopes, while doing ok, do not pass drop/durability testing like the S2H scope does, which will cause heartburn to customers when they find out their new scope doesn’t perform like they thought they’d been promised.

Not throwing shade at ZT at all, because we are all extremely grateful to have them work with S2H, but that doesn’t mean we cannot point out what is going to be a marketing mistake, or at the very least, cause marketing confusion as shown already with the thread on Snipershide.

@ZeroTech Optics

If I had to guess, the ZT people probably will downplay the differences between this scope and their current ZT TA line.

 

[JF_Idaho]

@B_Reynolds_AK

A marketing mistake for S2H. Not for Zerotech. Hopefully zt will realize how much durability matters and implement it throughout their lineup.

 

[Formidilosus]

If I had to guess, the ZT people probably will downplay the differences between this scope and their current ZT TA line.

Not correct. They are very open about it being different.

@B_Reynolds_AK

A marketing mistake for S2H. Not for Zerotech.

Not really. S2H’s stance was to make it a separate line, however ZT already has too many lines, and Trace Advanced is their highest quality line. They have already adjusted some of the 2026 scopes to be more reliable. Eventually as they can work through them, their goal is all of their optics become suitable aiming devices.

Hopefully zt will realize how much durability matters and implement it throughout their lineup.

They do, and already are making adjustments to their other scopes to move towards reliability and durability. Only Japan really knows how to make durable scopes for the most part, the others are having to learn- ZT is actively working with their other OEM’s to get them making more reliable scopes.

 

[HuntHarder]

Not correct. They are very open about it being different.

You think they will say, " this is the only scope we have that will pass drop tests, our other scopes will lose zero if dropped."

 

[Formidilosus]

You think they will say, " this is the only scope we have that will pass drop tests, our other scopes will lose zero if dropped."

Yes. They already have publicly. They are not Maven or anyone else.

 

[HuntHarder]

Yes. They already have publicly. They are not Maven or anyone else.

Respect. Be interesting to see if they can release lower priced options, that still function as they should.

 

[Formidilosus]

Respect. Be interesting to see if they can release lower priced options, that still function as they should.

They are actively working on it. I’m not a fan of Chinese scopes, but I will say some of the prototypes that I saw from them were wildly good in hand, and they are working with that OEM to get durability up. Same to the Philippine ones.

 

[freddyG]

Yes. They already have publicly. They are not Maven or anyone else.

Then the only logical choice would have been to create a new line of scopes, that function correctly, starting with the s2h scope. Shortly thereafter discontinuing the scope lines that don’t hold zero. The way they went about it only creates confusion, and assumptions, as previously stated.

 

[omicron1792]

Then the only logical choice would have been to create a new line of scopes, that function correctly, starting with the s2h scope. Shortly thereafter discontinuing the scope lines that don’t hold zero. The way they went about it only creates confusion, and assumptions, as previously stated.

Agreed.

 

[catorres1]

They are actively working on it. I’m not a fan of Chinese scopes, but I will say some of the prototypes that I saw from them were wildly good in hand, and they are working with that OEM to get durability up. Same to the Philippine ones.

A smart way to do this would be to roll out the reliability changes asap to all scopes made for them by LOW. I don't know anything about ZT, but perhaps their Trace line are all LOW scopes? If so, that would make sense for them wanting to put the S2H scope in that line and then make inline changes to the rest of the Trace line to bring them all into conformity. Then they would be able to advertise that the whole line is built to the same durability specs. Basically, that would make the whole Trace line (if they are all LOW scopes), their demonstrated premium offering.

Do you know which of their other scopes are LOW manufactured, and from what you know of the design of the S2H scope, do you think it would be possible to roll those same changes out to the rest of their LOW line?

 

[B_Reynolds_AK]

The TLDR of my previous post:

The best marketing practices clearly present a product without putting it on the consumer to do work.

-What are you selling.
-What are the features.
-What differentiates it from other products.
-Why should you buy it.

UM could certainly do this with their website. The Rokstok is probably the leading reason people go to the home page. No Rokstok there. No mention of it. Click throughs to “Rifle Parts” then to “Stocks and Chassis” and finally you see mention of the Rokstok.

Don’t frustrate customers by making them work for information or go into multi hundred page threads on forums to find answers.

 

[Chris in TN]

Then the only logical choice would have been to create a new line of scopes, that function correctly, starting with the s2h scope. Shortly thereafter discontinuing the scope lines that don’t hold zero. The way they went about it only creates confusion, and assumptions, as previously stated.

I want to agree....but I have the luxury of not being a CEO of a company sitting on thousands of scopes ranging from mid-production to dealer's shelf stock.

 

[Axlrod]

The TLDR of my previous post:

The best marketing practices clearly present a product without putting it on the consumer to do work.

-What are you selling.
-What are the features.
-What differentiates it from other products.
-Why should you buy it.

UM could certainly do this with their website. The Rokstok is probably the leading reason people go to the home page. No Rokstok there. No mention of it. Click throughs to “Rifle Parts” then to “Stocks and Chassis” and finally you see mention of the Rokstok.

Don’t frustrate customers by making them work for information or go into multi hundred page threads on forums to find answers.

I agree this would be a best practice for a retailer, but Rokstoks sell way faster than they can make them, so people are doing the work to find them. I also think UM's website could be better, but I still manage to spend money there.
As far as the S2H scope goes, I agree on the name issue, but they are not being sold by ZT, so it may be a wash there. I had never heard of ZT, and my only hoby is shooting/hunting. I ordered 2 scopes based on Form dropping it from shoulder height, and reading everything on the reicle.

The biggest takeaway I have from this entire scope evolution, is when Form said "LOW knows how to make a drop proof scope". And still most of LOW's customers don't ask, don't want, don't care. I get the corporate mentality of people making the decisions are not shooting guns ever, and I get a lot of hunters have no idea what a good scope is. But WOW just freaking WOW.