Trijicon MRO

[RockIsland]

Of course anything I might be interested in is either OOS or on backorder right now. At least the places that sell stuff below MSRP.

[Justin///M]

I cannot answer that, I am sure justin can since he has more experiance.

InRange Tv is slowly testing all the American made red dot optics and the Romeo 4T is the 4rd or 4th they have done so far. It has 0 shift.

I haven't noticed the parallax issue but I might not know what to look for. One of those, "didn't know it was a problem until I read about it" things. Just googling "MRO parallax" suggests there's something to it since the first page is thread after thread about it. The things I skimmed talk about the extreme edges, which is probably why I never saw it..., why would I be aiming at the extreme edges?

Also, "Trijicon clearly states on their website, "Like all reflex-style optics, the Trijicon MRO is parallax-free when the dot and target are reasonably well centered in the optic's field-of-view, but when the reticle and target are substantially off-axis, there will be some parallax."

For me, both the pre 89K issue and parallax issues were unknown until I read about them. I'm sure different eyes are affected by these things differently, and people use their optics differently. Maybe I'm not training for situations that would exhibit these issues to me..., and I should be. Something to think about for sure.

[Justin///M]

Here you go! This looks like a pretty definitive test proving the parallax issue for the MRO, and others. I just learned something new!!!






We tested parallax on multiple modern rifle optics- including red dots, holographics, and precision rifle scopes. If you are looking to buy scopes, consider this. Almost all of the red dots were labeled "parallax free" but some failed to meet the claims.

Our method: What we did was put each rifle onto heavy bags, and nestled them down, getting them as level and solid as possible. Used a bullseye for reference and same point of aim at 100 yards. The reason we tested this is we read an article from Green Eye tactical about this same issue (they did a better job than we did). We noticed some students missing on certain shots where angles or rifle cant were an issue (say leaning out behind cover rapidly at 100 yards. We would have them flip up their front iron, see how off center their dot is, center it up, and they'd make the hit. So what we did was fire 1 shot straight on target centered with a front post, then put the dot/reticle to the far left, right, high, and low seeing how that changed the point of impact, then averaged the distance. Keep in mind, very rarely in the real world will you have a perfectly centered dot under stress in a dynamic situation, hence why we want "parallax free." Here are the standard deviations at 100 yards for each (keep in mind most of these are done with basic ARs that group 1.5 inches or so, so any 1.5-2 inch groups with 4 shots can be considered darn close to parallax free.) Some really surprised us:

Trijicon ACOG- 2 inches
Lucid Prism 4x- 1.75 inches
Trijicon MRO (1)- 4.9 inches
Trijicon MRO (2)- 6.3 inches
Aimpoint PRO (1)- 2.1 inches
Aimpoint PRO (2)- 2.3 inches
Aimpoint PRO (3)- 2.9 inches
Vortex SPARC AR (1)- 4.2 inches
Vortex SPARC AR (2)- 4.7 inches
Aimpoint T1- 6.7 inches
Eotech XPS1- 1.45 inches
Eotech XPS3- 2.1 inches
Eotech 516- 1.56 inches
Primary Arms red dot- 5.6 inches
Vortex AMG Razor - 3.5 inches
Burris FastFire- 8.9 inches

You will notice how each brand/model act similar when testing more than one of them. Both Sparc ARs, all 3 eotechs, all 3 PROs, etc all yielded very similar results.

Test 2:
Furthermore- we tested this same test on our 6 inch steel gongs at 100 yards. 5 inches being about the size of vital hit areas for deer or self-defense. The goal was doing the same- one center then one right, left, high, and low in the optic. Keeping them all on the circle was the goal- any more and it was a fail. In our classes- that's enough for you to have the rifle stable and locked down and still miss.

Results- Both MROs, the Primary Arms, the Aimpoint T1, one Sparc AR, and the Burris all failed. The rest, passed. What that told us is our paper tests were spot on. The ones that averaged 4.5 or less passed it and stayed within the steel circle, the ones that did worse all failed.

We took it a step further and did the same paper test with our precision rifles. Keep in mind, these are all capable of 1 inch or less.What we were looking for is parallax shifts in regards to optic and eye offset and with eye relief issues.

Leupold Accupoint 3-9x - 3.4 inches
Leupold Mk4- 3.5-10x- 2.75 inches
Sig Whiskey 3- 2.2 inches
Athlon Midas BTR- 2.1 inches
Athlon Talos BTR- .4 inches
Athlon Neos- .78 inches
Athlon Argos BTR- .73 inches
Night force 5-22- .46 inches
Nikon Black FX1000- .53 inches
Nikon 1-4x- 1.9 inches
Primary Arms ARC2- 1.7 inches
Primary Arms DMR- 4.4 inches

We can see some differences here as well.

Conclusion- Think about coming up on a deer, shooting at an angle off a barricade - or coming up quickly on target without centering perfectly. Consider some of these optics as missing even under stable locked down, cradled in sandbags, on a bench, and think about it in your hands, off axis, and breathing. Don't miss due to some of these optics. Test your own and make your own conclusions. I just wanted to pass on our results. Some of them shocked us and others did way better than we anticipated.

-Ryan
www.apexdefensegroup.com


https://www.carolinafirearmsforum.co...testing.39723/

[RockIsland]

They seem to be OOS everywhere except a few places still showing the low mount version in stock. That might not be such a bad thing on a pistol with a brace.

What height mount do yinz prefer on braced pistols?

[Emptymag]

They seem to be OOS everywhere except a few places still showing the low mount version in stock. That might not be such a bad thing on a pistol with a brace.

What height mount do yinz prefer on braced pistols?

Why would it be any different than on a carbine? (asking out loud - not asking you to answer)

I mount my pistols the same way I do my carbines. I never considered doing anything different in terms of sights.
Maybe if you intend to shoot by putting a bare buffer tube against your cheek, or something, but who does that these days?

[Phlyers13]

One of the great features of the MRO is that it’s not big and bulky. It’s compact and light weight. I run one on my DD pistol for these very reasons.

[TooBigToFit]

Here you go! This looks like a pretty definitive test proving the parallax issue for the MRO, and others. I just learned something new!!!






We tested parallax on multiple modern rifle optics- including red dots, holographics, and precision rifle scopes. If you are looking to buy scopes, consider this. Almost all of the red dots were labeled "parallax free" but some failed to meet the claims.

Our method: What we did was put each rifle onto heavy bags, and nestled them down, getting them as level and solid as possible. Used a bullseye for reference and same point of aim at 100 yards. The reason we tested this is we read an article from Green Eye tactical about this same issue (they did a better job than we did). We noticed some students missing on certain shots where angles or rifle cant were an issue (say leaning out behind cover rapidly at 100 yards. We would have them flip up their front iron, see how off center their dot is, center it up, and they'd make the hit. So what we did was fire 1 shot straight on target centered with a front post, then put the dot/reticle to the far left, right, high, and low seeing how that changed the point of impact, then averaged the distance. Keep in mind, very rarely in the real world will you have a perfectly centered dot under stress in a dynamic situation, hence why we want "parallax free." Here are the standard deviations at 100 yards for each (keep in mind most of these are done with basic ARs that group 1.5 inches or so, so any 1.5-2 inch groups with 4 shots can be considered darn close to parallax free.) Some really surprised us:

Trijicon ACOG- 2 inches
Lucid Prism 4x- 1.75 inches
Trijicon MRO (1)- 4.9 inches
Trijicon MRO (2)- 6.3 inches
Aimpoint PRO (1)- 2.1 inches
Aimpoint PRO (2)- 2.3 inches
Aimpoint PRO (3)- 2.9 inches
Vortex SPARC AR (1)- 4.2 inches
Vortex SPARC AR (2)- 4.7 inches
Aimpoint T1- 6.7 inches
Eotech XPS1- 1.45 inches
Eotech XPS3- 2.1 inches
Eotech 516- 1.56 inches
Primary Arms red dot- 5.6 inches
Vortex AMG Razor - 3.5 inches
Burris FastFire- 8.9 inches

You will notice how each brand/model act similar when testing more than one of them. Both Sparc ARs, all 3 eotechs, all 3 PROs, etc all yielded very similar results.

Test 2:
Furthermore- we tested this same test on our 6 inch steel gongs at 100 yards. 5 inches being about the size of vital hit areas for deer or self-defense. The goal was doing the same- one center then one right, left, high, and low in the optic. Keeping them all on the circle was the goal- any more and it was a fail. In our classes- that's enough for you to have the rifle stable and locked down and still miss.

Results- Both MROs, the Primary Arms, the Aimpoint T1, one Sparc AR, and the Burris all failed. The rest, passed. What that told us is our paper tests were spot on. The ones that averaged 4.5 or less passed it and stayed within the steel circle, the ones that did worse all failed.

We took it a step further and did the same paper test with our precision rifles. Keep in mind, these are all capable of 1 inch or less.What we were looking for is parallax shifts in regards to optic and eye offset and with eye relief issues.

Leupold Accupoint 3-9x - 3.4 inches
Leupold Mk4- 3.5-10x- 2.75 inches
Sig Whiskey 3- 2.2 inches
Athlon Midas BTR- 2.1 inches
Athlon Talos BTR- .4 inches
Athlon Neos- .78 inches
Athlon Argos BTR- .73 inches
Night force 5-22- .46 inches
Nikon Black FX1000- .53 inches
Nikon 1-4x- 1.9 inches
Primary Arms ARC2- 1.7 inches
Primary Arms DMR- 4.4 inches

We can see some differences here as well.

Conclusion- Think about coming up on a deer, shooting at an angle off a barricade - or coming up quickly on target without centering perfectly. Consider some of these optics as missing even under stable locked down, cradled in sandbags, on a bench, and think about it in your hands, off axis, and breathing. Don't miss due to some of these optics. Test your own and make your own conclusions. I just wanted to pass on our results. Some of them shocked us and others did way better than we anticipated.

-Ryan
www.apexdefensegroup.com


https://www.carolinafirearmsforum.co...testing.39723/

Here's more data from a different source...

https://www.ar15.com/forums/AR-15/Re...lts/18-714950/

It seems in general that EOTechs are the best for minimal parallax shift. The MRO and T-1 are in the same neighborhood, with an average deviation across all of their tests in excess of 10MOA. I was surprised to see the T-2 do that much better than the T-1 in terms of parallax shift. I thought it was just a lens tint and durability upgrade.

[Justin///M]

Here's more data from a different source...

https://www.ar15.com/forums/AR-15/Re...lts/18-714950/

It seems in general that EOTechs are the best for minimal parallax shift. The MRO and T-1 are in the same neighborhood, with an average deviation across all of their tests in excess of 10MOA. I was surprised to see the T-2 do that much better than the T-1 in terms of parallax shift. I thought it was just a lens tint and durability upgrade.

Nice thanks for the share!

[Royinmontco]

Maybe if you intend to shoot by putting a bare buffer tube against your cheek, or something, but who does that these days?

>raises hand<

I haven't bought in to the pistol brace yet. It reeks of skirting the NFA and I don't ever want to be the poster boy for that prosecution. I also treat AR pistols as more of a range toy than anything else. I'm the opposite of "early adopter".

[RockIsland]

I ended up ordering one (the last one they had in stock) from Midway. Green 2 MOA dot with no mount. Got a Midwest industries full co-witness mount for it.

Free shipping included but I shelled out the extra $1.82 for UPS over the three week Postal Innovations method.