New Trijicon SRO pistol optic; RMR footprint, top-loading battery, full-circle lens

David Mayeur

Regular Member
While I don't want to be one of those people who comments on a product I haven't used yet, I did think of this when looking at the SRO. A while back I noticed how the lower portion of the RMR's window is blocked by the back of the optic body. I never thought about why until I recalled that the RMR was never originally intended for use on handguns. It was to be used on rifle, supplementing optics like the ACOG for example. So when held 3-4 inches from your eye, the bottom of the window is visible. Not so when held at arms length. Looking at the SRO, I noticed that the window is raised up. So not only is the actual window taller, it's less obstructed as well. Neat. I made a (totally not to scale) graphic to illustrate my point. Not saying one is superior to the other, just an observation.

View attachment 4187

Iron sights negate that factor on both.
 

Earl An

Amateur
Iron sights negate that factor on both.
With irons rearward of the optic, the irons block the same amount, but in addition to the ~25% lost on the RMR from the optic body. With irons forward, the bottom of the RMR window is still blocked by the optic body, but at least the dot can be seen superimposed through the irons like an occluded sight. With the SRO, irons forward isn't really an option. But since the window is elevated, the iron sight blockage is even lower relative to the window. Sort of like going from a lower 1/3 to a taller optic mount on an AR. It does make me wonder why Trijicon didn't just reuse the RMR window on the SRO and simply raise the "owl ears" for the top load battery. More usable window with RMR durability seems like it'd be a win-win.
 

David Mayeur

Regular Member
With irons rearward of the optic, the irons block the same amount, but in addition to the ~25% lost on the RMR from the optic body. With irons forward, the bottom of the RMR window is still blocked by the optic body, but at least the dot can be seen superimposed through the irons like an occluded sight. With the SRO, irons forward isn't really an option. But since the window is elevated, the iron sight blockage is even lower relative to the window. Sort of like going from a lower 1/3 to a taller optic mount on an AR. It does make me wonder why Trijicon didn't just reuse the RMR window on the SRO and simply raise the "owl ears" for the top load battery. More usable window with RMR durability seems like it'd be a win-win.

Having used and trained with an RMR equipped pistol for the past 1.5 years, I have no "need" for a larger window. I don't foresee Trijicon altering the window size of the RMR or replacing the RMR with the SRO. Trijicon representatives have stated that the RMR will continue to be the proven duty optic and the SRO is marketed towards competitors. Trijicon did what they did for a reason. Like it or don't, they probably don't care. I feel like the SRO being released is the 19X debacle all over again. Remember what/who it was designed for and use it if you wish.
 

spinmove_

Member
Iron sights negate that factor on both.
With irons rearward of the optic, the irons block the same amount, but in addition to the ~25% lost on the RMR from the optic body. With irons forward, the bottom of the RMR window is still blocked by the optic body, but at least the dot can be seen superimposed through the irons like an occluded sight. With the SRO, irons forward isn't really an option. But since the window is elevated, the iron sight blockage is even lower relative to the window. Sort of like going from a lower 1/3 to a taller optic mount on an AR. It does make me wonder why Trijicon didn't just reuse the RMR window on the SRO and simply raise the "owl ears" for the top load battery. More usable window with RMR durability seems like it'd be a win-win.

How do you know the SRO isn’t as durable as the RMR?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Earl An

Amateur
How do you know the SRO isn’t as durable as the RMR?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I didn't say the SRO wasn't as durable, just that the RMR is proven to be durable. A round top housing allows forces to transmit from the impact point straight through the window. The RMRs "owl ears" by being the tallest point on the optic, mean the impact area will be on the edges of the glass, so the shock travels through to the body instead of the window. While physics will always give the advantage to the RMR' shape, the SRO shroud is about twice as long as other designs so it looks to make up for it by adding more forged aluminum.

To be clear I'm not complaining about nor trying to prove the superiority of either optic.

I have 5 RMR'd pistols, 3 of which I'll stake my life on and those aren't changing anytime soon. My competition guns will be getting SROs because I want the advantage of the more forgiving window size. I still sometimes hunt for the dot when transferring to weak hand only, especially from austere positions for example.
 

tact

Regular Member
Iron sights negate that factor on both.
With irons rearward of the optic, the irons block the same amount, but in addition to the ~25% lost on the RMR from the optic body. With irons forward, the bottom of the RMR window is still blocked by the optic body, but at least the dot can be seen superimposed through the irons like an occluded sight. With the SRO, irons forward isn't really an option. But since the window is elevated, the iron sight blockage is even lower relative to the window. Sort of like going from a lower 1/3 to a taller optic mount on an AR. It does make me wonder why Trijicon didn't just reuse the RMR window on the SRO and simply raise the "owl ears" for the top load battery. More usable window with RMR durability seems like it'd be a win-win.

How do you know the SRO isn’t as durable as the RMR?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

One could surmise durability differences when the Trijicon rep on YouTube suggests RMR should be used for SD, military, and LE and SRO mainly competition.
 

Sunshine_Shooter

Established
I don't know if this is off-topic or not, but it seems relevant. TFB published a post about Doctor Optics' new Noblex sight. It's got a top-loading battery, fits the MOS cut, and co-witnesses with stock irons.

9C36AEE1-6975-43A3-B694-A03FA8D993EB-660x355.jpeg
07F7F66C-258A-4F24-87B8-9E329C9AEC89.jpeg
1A54440A-1382-4DA2-BB8B-26E56C403014.jpeg


My initial impressions of it aren't favorable, and I don't plan on getting one in to see if there's something to it. It seems to be going the wrong direction in all the ways that really matter. I think the lack of adapter plate for Glocks is a good move, as is the top-loading battery, but a viewing windw half-or-less the size of an RMR's seems like a choice made by someone who's never held a red dot equipped pistol before.

Then again, maybe Doctor is building it to sell to people who are put off by the RMR/SRO/DPP/ACRO's size, even though they know it's a poor design choice.
 

tact

Regular Member
The Trijicon rep states so when the sight first came out, and still recommends the RMR for duty use.
 

Bowers

Newbie
I don't know if this is off-topic or not, but it seems relevant. TFB published a post about Doctor Optics' new Noblex sight. It's got a top-loading battery, fits the MOS cut, and co-witnesses with stock irons.

9C36AEE1-6975-43A3-B694-A03FA8D993EB-660x355.jpeg
07F7F66C-258A-4F24-87B8-9E329C9AEC89.jpeg
1A54440A-1382-4DA2-BB8B-26E56C403014.jpeg


My initial impressions of it aren't favorable, and I don't plan on getting one in to see if there's something to it. It seems to be going the wrong direction in all the ways that really matter. I think the lack of adapter plate for Glocks is a good move, as is the top-loading battery, but a viewing windw half-or-less the size of an RMR's seems like a choice made by someone who's never held a red dot equipped pistol before.

Then again, maybe Doctor is building it to sell to people who are put off by the RMR/SRO/DPP/ACRO's size, even though they know it's a poor design choice.


I think the noblex tech could easily fill a currently unrealized demand if adapted for use with other non rmr conducive weapons (beretta 92, fn five seven etc)... hopefully including rear/front sight replacement with cowitness.
 

rudukai13

Pro Internet User
I think the noblex tech could easily fill a currently unrealized demand if adapted for use with other non rmr conducive weapons (beretta 92, fn five seven etc)... hopefully including rear/front sight replacement with cowitness.

Agreed, although I think there would still be concern about the depth that you’d need to drill and tap into the slide of some of those pistols to get a solid bite on the mounting screws, regardless of the thickness of the optic.

As far as the Beretta 92 in particular though, I’ve heard rumors Ernest Langdon is working on a solution...
 
Top