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
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.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.
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.Iron sights negate that factor on both.
How do you know the SRO isn’t as durable as the RMR?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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.Iron sights negate that factor on both.
How do you know the SRO isn’t as durable as the RMR?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sage Dynamics review of the SRO. Great for competition. Not rated for duty.
And it broke.....Wait, it’s NOT rated for duty use?
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.
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.
As far as the Beretta 92 in particular though, I’ve heard rumors Ernest Langdon is working on a solution...
Don't go playing with my emotions! Lack of optic mounting capability is the only thing keeping the M9A3 off my to-buy list!