I had the chance to put a few rounds through a G14 gen 4 MOS with a Trijicon SRO yesterday, i really like it. For a very short period of time a had a RMR on my G17 MOS and like it but the SRO in my opinion is easier to use, some people say there is little difference but I disagree (everybody's perception is different).

The SRO has a bigger field of view, which is nice, but it's also less durable than the RMR.

For a fun gun, or competition gun, the SRO is probably fine. For a serious use defensive pistol, go with something that is proven to be more durable, like the RMR or Deltapoint Pro.

There was another recent thread on the SRO where another member posted this video, in which the SRO's glass shattered after only minimal rough handling: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzjgOq60vFE

Whereas the RMR and DPP both stand up to repeated abuse throughout years of hard testing and field use, and are the top options for duty optics.

In my opinion, the bigger the field of veiw, the better

I have two. One went on one of my competition CZ slides, and one went on of my carry Glocks. I also have three DPPs and I would not use one on a carry gun at this point.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
The SRO has a bigger field of view, which is nice, but it's also less durable than the RMR.

For a fun gun, or competition gun, the SRO is probably fine. For a serious use defensive pistol, go with something that is proven to be more durable, like the RMR or Deltapoint Pro.

There was another recent thread on the SRO where another member posted this video, in which the SRO's glass shattered after only minimal rough handling: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzjgOq60vFE

Whereas the RMR and DPP both stand up to repeated abuse throughout years of hard testing and field use, and are the top options for duty optics.

Can anyone with a real knowledge of structural mechanics explain what the guy in YouTube rambles about the glass on the SRO is weaker than the RMR's because of the shape / the way the housing is constructed? Weaker because it's rounded?

^^
Who knows. Probably a paid shill.

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:
^^
Who knows. Probably a paid shill.

It would make sense, if it were Trijicon against, say, Aimpoint. But, this is the SRO againt the RMR, both Trijicon products. If the market had been flooded with complaints of the SRO glass breaking, I might believe the guy. But, you have a sample of one that breaks, and suddenly you are the authority on structural mechanics?

Btw, I have no dog in this RMR vs SRO fight. Never have owned either one. Just wanted to know facts vs BS.

^^^
Yeah it is hard to get the real facts on some of the optics. We are talking pretty expensive stuff here. Will be waiting to see how it shakes out.

I also don’t think dropping it from height straight onto the glass edge onto bricks is “minimal rough handling”.

I’m 52 and never dropped a gun, or a slice of pizza in that manner. Under duress, who knows, but I think the durability argument is overplayed for ccw. My opinion.

I have a SRO on my Gen 5 Glock 17 and I absolutely love it. It is so easy to use you feel like you are cheating. Wherever you put that easy to see and fast to acquire red dot is where the bullet goes and you can shoot fast with it. It is also easy to find the red dot from the draw. I tried to use the Romeo equipped Sig 320 and I find it very slow compared to the SRO sight. I have read several articles on the SRO where the author has abused the sight by using it to rack the slide and it held up well. It is not supposed to as tough as the RMR which is designed for duty use; but I would bet Trijicon will come out with a SRO for duty use next.
I sent a Sig 320 carry slide off to Jagerwerks to have the slide milled for the SRO.

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
I also don’t think dropping it from height straight onto the glass edge onto bricks is “minimal rough handling”.

I’m 52 and never dropped a gun, or a slice of pizza in that manner. Under duress, who knows, but I think the durability argument is overplayed for ccw. My opinion.

I am with you. I am not planning on running after bad guys or standing on sand dunes so i dont think i need a duty sight on my ccw.

I am 50 and I've dropped guns enough. If I drop it and it breaks, it's on me.

As far as durability: as far as I understand, the durability of the glass itself relates to presence of surface cracks, defects etc, and statistical possibility of heterogeneity of a piece of glass is higher with its size. However, in case of SRO vs RMR, apparently it is RMR's housing shape that's patented and provides that special sauce. To me personally that doesn't matter, I don't hit my carry guns against wood on purpose, if I drop it and it breaks - I get another. Window advantage of SRO vs RMR is tangible enough to take my chances,

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
The SRO has a bigger field of view, which is nice, but it's also less durable than the RMR.

For a fun gun, or competition gun, the SRO is probably fine. For a serious use defensive pistol, go with something that is proven to be more durable, like the RMR or Deltapoint Pro.

There was another recent thread on the SRO where another member posted this video, in which the SRO's glass shattered after only minimal rough handling: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzjgOq60vFE

Whereas the RMR and DPP both stand up to repeated abuse throughout years of hard testing and field use, and are the top options for duty optics.

Can anyone with a real knowledge of structural mechanics explain what the guy in YouTube rambles about the glass on the SRO is weaker than the RMR's because of the shape / the way the housing is constructed? Weaker because it's rounded?

Since the top is rounded that edge is subject to direct force being readily transferred through that edge into the top edge of the lens. The RMR has thick raised points on the top two corners of a more rectangular opening. That material and design can absorb much more force without transferring that force through the metal frame into the lens. If you watch his other videos of him beating the shit out of RMRs you can see how much more abuse they can take. He does like to hear himself yammer though.

Ever since I had my first aimpoint on a rifle I've been working on getting a red dot on a pistol in a workable universal setup (range and carry). that's included frame mounted, dovetail mounted, slide mounted etc over time. And at this point an RMR on a milled slide is pretty close to something that works for me. The issues are more electronics (like the dot intensity reset) than physical. And after like a zillion rounds and some incredibly stupid stuff on the couple of dozen I own I'm pretty comfortable the RMR is reliable enough.
But in all that I have never noticed any difference in the size/shape of the housing holding the dot while shooting. At the moment I'm regularly switching between an RMR, an SRO (under testing for me since its new) and an ACRO (under testing for me since its new to me) and when I'm running the gun I can't tell which it is. Its a dot and I use it to aim.
Of course if I just sit here and casually look at these options the SRO seems much nicer to find the dot, but using it under time pressure no difference to me at least.
Time will tell if the SRO holds up. Same for the ACRO. Both have issues in my testing that make it seem unlikely I will switch from the RMR at this point.

No disrespect intended but I find that hard to believe. I have an original Deltapoint, the Deltapoint Pro, RMR, and SRO. I can’t imagine switching between the various size windows without noticing a difference in picking up the dot and therefore affecting your times.

I am not saying you are wrong but I think you are an outlier. Your experience won’t generally be typical. The vast majority of people will improve with the bigger clearer window.

The couple of shooters I've talked to that have gone from RMR/deltapoint to SRO said they love the larger window and can track the dot all the way through recoil now. FWIW

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
The SRO has a bigger field of view, which is nice, but it's also less durable than the RMR.

For a fun gun, or competition gun, the SRO is probably fine. For a serious use defensive pistol, go with something that is proven to be more durable, like the RMR or Deltapoint Pro.

There was another recent thread on the SRO where another member posted this video, in which the SRO's glass shattered after only minimal rough handling: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzjgOq60vFE

Whereas the RMR and DPP both stand up to repeated abuse throughout years of hard testing and field use, and are the top options for duty optics.

I know a ton of guys that have had issues with the DPP, fwiw. Mainly the battery contact starts sliding backwards and you eventually lose power. It’s more durable than most, I guess... still not a no-brainer fool proof solution. I’ve had no issues with mine, knock on wood. Probably have 15k through my most used one.

The SRO is too new to say how bad it is,but initial results puts it a lot less durable than the rmr. Also seeing reports of the adjustments moving in recoil, which is no bueno.

Out of my group I shoot USPSA with 6 have the SRO mounted on CZ's or 2011's.
Since this is an optic I have my eye on I've been keeping up on their thoughts and looking for any problems. So far they have all been 100% and the guys using them say it's the best dot they have ever shot with. Several have either been dropped or banged around but in typical Trijicon fashion they just keep working like nothing happened.

From my observations I'd say buy with confidence.