https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2019/04/25/trijicon-sro
It will be interesting to see how this and the ACRO C-1/P-1 battle it out.
Trijicon SRO review (link below). Looks like both of them have some Pro’s and Con’s to me. I do like the thinner window fame on the SRO compared to the ACRO, but like the flush to the housing mounted lens more on the ACRO. I will check both the ACRO and the SRO out Friday morning at the NRA Show. May the best * overall* sight win. IMHO, at this point in time, these are the only two offerings I would have on a pistol.
In a OWB duty gun it looks like it may be a good option. It looks huge compared to an RMR which may not be the case in if you had them in front of you. If it’s that much taller it may be a hindrance for concealed carry. I do appreciate the battery up top. Something they should have done with the gen 2 RMRs.
The footprint won’t allow it.
I am definitely interested in this. We will see how much more durable it is than the current RMR.
An early report from the web says it’s much easier to find the dot in the larger window.
Is it supposed to be more durable? It “looks” less durable from a protection standpoint than the rmr, but also looks like a great carry-optics option for uspsa.
Yeah I was really just talking out loud. It does appear less durable, but we will see once people get their hands on it and start testing it out. Currently the RMR is the most durable on the market, so to top that would be impressive.
I looked through both at the Glock, Aimpoint and Trijicon booths today. The ACRO is a nice little rugged sight no doubt, but the FOV of the SRO makes sight acqusition easier when mounted to a pistol. The downside of the SRO is the size, especially when manipulating the weapon: You can easily manipulate the slide using the rear slide grooves, but with the SRO, this is more difficult. Time will tell I guess
IMHO, when talking about the window size differences between brands or models, what sizes are available now is probably all we will ever see size wise. There is only so much room to work with when mounted on the back of a pistol slide. Also the thinner the housing is around the lens, the weaker it becomes. It’s all about tradeoffs and compromises.
I absolutely agree with this. It’s definitely a balancing act with red dots on pistols.
Any idea if the SRO will work with an Atom slide?
According to Trijicon, the SRO has the same footprint or base as the RMR. So using the Unity RMR adaptor plate, Other than a possible rear sight clearance issue, it should work fine with the Unity Atom slide.
It will work but you’ll likely have to remove the rear sight to make room for the forward protrusion of the SRO.
Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
That’s what I was afraid might be the case.
So it’s good for duty use? :jester:
I wonder why Trijicon doesn’t just make the RMR window a tad wider and a tad taller, but same window exterior dimensions. This sight looks great, similar to my DP Pro, but the bevel in the front kills the idea for irons in front of the sight like I want to do on my carry pistol. I don’t mind racking the pistol off the RDS, but racking off suppressor height irons is a cheaper item to fix than the red dot itself.
Looking at my RMR’s I would think if Trijicon were to make the window big enough to even notice the difference (more then a tad) and not change the outside dimensions, the housing would have to be very, very thin. I am not saying paper thin but thin enough that it would no longer be a “Ruggedized” Miniature Reflex, hence RMR.
I would not recommend this sight… I decided to function test my SRO prior to mounting it to my optics-ready VP9.
It worked fine just on the table (testing buttons / modes etc.), until I function tested the process of removing and installing a new battery. The battery cap removed fine. But the battery cap stripped the screw threads that are part of the body of the sight, as I was screwing it back in. Now it won’t screw down fully and the sight will no longer turn on. And since the damage is on the sight body (not the cap’s threads), I can’t just buy a replacement cap.
FWIW, this was clearly not user error but a fundamental design flaw as I was testing this. I’d first read the manual, which made a weirdly big deal out of “don’t cross-thread the cap” in a way I found overstated and odd. So I was being hyper-careful when I was replacing the cap. First, the cap just spun and spun without tightening down as I turned my screwdriver, and I realized that the rubber O-ring was thick enough that the threads won’t even engage unless you apply more-than-mild downward force with your screwdriver. So I pushed down moderately with my screwdriver, but BEFORE I turned it, I was already nervous for 2 reasons:
-
The cap is mostly UNDER the aluminum housing surrounding the glass, and any screwdriver you use cannot extend straight up. You are off at least at a 15 degree angle with the screwdriver when it’s engaged. So the part of the cap that is oriented under the direction of tilt of your screwdriver is unavoidably going to be receiving more downward pressure by the screwdriver. In other words, you can’t help but tilt the cap when pushing down on it with your screwdriver, because the overhanging aluminum surrounding the glass blocks your screwdriver from going straight up / perpendicular to the cap.
-
Making #1 even worse, I tried to use my fingers to push down on the cap to compensate for the screwdriver creating an inevitable tilt when you have to push down at an angle. But it’s impossible unless you have the fingers of a very small child, because the aluminum body surrounds the cap on the sides as well, and there is just no room to get your finger in there with a screwdriver engaged.
So I took some comfort initially when the manual said that cross-threading would be “obvious” by increased resistance when turning the cap. So I held my breath and began turning the cap with my tilted screwdriver, pushing down with moderate force to overcome the O-ring, VERY SLOWLY, and was relieved that it felt like there was zero resistance whatsoever. The little bit of initial tilt BEFORE turning appeared to resolve once the threads engaged.
After about 4 rotations of no resistance, and with the cap clearly getting lower as it was screwing down (and to my eye looked perfect - flat and flush with the body), I was feeling really good. Then I felt MILD resistance for 20 degrees of rotation (again, AFTER 4 full rotations of the cap visibly screwing down resistance-free) and felt a “pop,” and all the resistance went away. Now turning the cap was resistance-free for 340 degrees, except for the 20 degrees where the “pop” would occur as it reached the same point in the rotation. = obviously broken.
I removed the cap to visually confirm that the threads were damaged on the sight body, and the only explanation for how this happened is that the cap was cross-threaded. And now the sight doesn’t work as the cap cannot tighten properly, so the battery cannot make contact with the body.
So this sight is designed to break itself in a way you can’t avoid except by total luck. And every time you put the cap back on, you are playing this unavoidable Russian roulette game every time. I’m happy I just got the sight yesterday, as I’m returning it for a refund and would never buy another.
I say “total luck” above, because:
-
It is physically impossible to push directly down on the cap while installing it due to the overhanging housing. You have to be pushing at an angle, and that inevitably tilts the cap before the threads engage. Which dramatically increases the odds of cross-threading.
-
There is ZERO resistance if you are cross-threaded (contrary to what the manual claims), and you cannot see this either (again, I was HYPER paranoid as I was doing this, as I was extremely uncomfortable that I was having to angle my screwdriver). The first and only feedback you get that you’ve cross-threaded the cap is the “pop” of you just broke the body of your sight. So if you’re doing anything wrong (which is very high risk), you will figure it out only the moment your sight breaks.
No wonder it’s not for duty use. I knew (and had chosen to be ok with the fact) that this sight is destroyed if you drop it (which is why it’s not for duty use). I just figured I would be really careful and not drop mine. But if you Russian roulette break the sight the first time (or 2nd time, or whenever you get unlucky) the battery needs changing, then it’s not fit for any use at all.
Btw, I have 2 x RMRs installed on ACOGs and love them, but imo they are annoyingly small for use on a pistol to the point where I would rather use iron sights. I’d hoped the SRO would be the answer, but definitely not.
I have a theory on this problem - since all the sights ship with a new CR123 installed, and the battery lasts 1-3 years, and this sight is only like 1 year old, I bet the vast majority of owners have never touched their battery cap.