I'm trying to decide between the two to mount on my G17 Gen 5 MOS. Most of the reviews I've seen elsewhere are ambivalent about the SRO. I haven't seen one up close, but like the idea of a bigger lens. If anyone has both, I'd me interested in reading your thoughts. Thanks.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Micropterus,

The SRO has proven to be less durable in testing. Even Trijicon states that it's not for duty-level use.

If it's just a range/competition gun, the SRO may be worth it for the greater field of view. (I just got one and am still putting mine through the paces, so I don't have enough experience with it yet to have a solid opinion, but the large field of view is nice at first blush.)

If it's for carry/defensive/duty use, the RMR is the better, more rugged choice.

What will you use it for? The SRO isn’t for hard use. Aside from that for recreational use, if you want a larger window, get the SRO.

I don't have both, but I have used both. I have an RMR mounted on my P320 X Compact and a buddy has an SRO on his P320 X5 and the SRO has a much larger window. Does this help? Yes. But the trade-off, like the others mentioned, is that the SRO is less durable. That is why I have an RMR on my P320 Compact and my buddy put an SRO on his X5 that only a range toy.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
The SRO has proven to be less durable in testing. Even Trijicon states that it's not for duty-level use.

If it's just a range/competition gun, the SRO may be worth it for the greater field of view. (I just got one and am still putting mine through the paces, so I don't have enough experience with it yet to have a solid opinion, but the large field of view is nice at first blush.)

If it's for carry/defensive/duty use, the RMR is the better, more rugged choice.

It would be a carry gun. Where does Trijicon says its not for duty use? I haven't seen or heard that, yet. Their website says it excels at competetive shooting, but I can't find where is says its not for duty use.

Now that you wrote that, I Googled it and see a couple of anecdotal comments from some people that say it failed drop-testing, but I can't find backup for that.

I'm not sold on the SRO, its just that as I get older, a bigger window is attractive. And the RMR is over $100 less expensive. But I'd like to know where this comes from that the SRO isn't for duty use.

quote:

Originally posted by Micropterus:
I'm trying to decide between the two to mount on my G17 Gen 5 MOS. Most of the reviews I've seen elsewhere are ambivalent about the SRO. I haven't seen one up close, but like the idea of a bigger lens. If anyone has both, I'd me interested in reading your thoughts. Thanks.

At one time I was looking to put a SRO on one of my pistols, in doing the research I found that the SRO has to sit back slightly farther from the ejection port as the lens is slightly farther forward than on the RMR. My pistol's RDS mounting location didn't meet the set-back required for the SRO so I went with a RMR instead (been a solid performing red dot since day one).

Go to the SRO spec & mounting info page then make sure that your gun meets the mounting distance from the ejection port before considering going that way.

quote:

Originally posted by Micropterus:
Where does Trijicon says its not for duty use?

You know what, I can't find a specific reference. They may have changed some of their wording, or I may have simply imagined that they had blatantly stated it.

Still, if you read between the lines, the SRO's marketing references "competition and target shooting", versus the RMR's that references "military, law enforcement, concealed carry, self-defense" etc. So if nothing else, they're not marketing it as being for duty/defensive use.

And durability testing reinforces that, with the SRO failing when subjected to abuse. There are several, but the primary example is Aaron Cowan with Sage Dynamics, who's a well-known firearms trainer and kind of the "godfather" of mini red dot reliability testing for duty use. (He wrote a white paper based on extensive red dot testing over several years that is widely used in LE circles when authorizing handgun red dots for duty use.) Here's his video on the SRO:

I have both, I run the RMRs on Sigs and Glocks, I have an SRO on a 629 44 Magnum.

I absolutely love the RMR on those Sigs and Glocks, it is terrific.

I really enjoy the SRO on the 629, big sight picture, recoil doesn't seem to bother it. I only have a couple hundred 296 level loads through it though, can't speak to the durability yet.

When we were nearing allowing RMRs on duty guns, our Trijicon rep did not mince words in saying that the SRO is not for duty use.

Proceed beyond that at your own risk.

Well, there ya go.

From a devil's advocate standpoint, wouldn't a competition gun be subject to hard use, too? It seems to me that some of these race guns will see far harder use and far more rounds than a lot of, and probably most, duty guns. They tend not to be treated gingerly, either.

I will likely go with the RMR if only for the size. I like the idea of a bigger piece of glass, but I'll have to carry it, too, and it's as wide or wider than the slide it will be on. That's a huge consideration.

quote:

From a devil's advocate standpoint, wouldn't a competition gun be subject to hard use, too?

When is the last time you saw this at an IDPA or USPSA match? (Just a random, quick Google search to show fighting for your gun.)




Granted, the pistol wasn't a red dot - but in that example, a RMR is more likely to stay functional vs. the SRO.
Folks in matches generally aren't dropping guns, racking the slide with the optic, banging it into things, etc.

The RMR is simply in another category when it comes to ruggedness. There is nothing that comes close right now. The "owl" shape of the outer frames makes sure the lens does not get shattered when you drop your gun directly on the optic. There is nothing that matches it. If you're not going to drop your gun directly on the shroud, I don't think you'll ever notice the difference in ruggedness between the SRO and RMR.

So, is the SRO as durable? No, because it doesn't have the owl shaped hood, but that's what makes the window so much larger. So it's a trade off.

I have both an SRO and an RMR mounted on the same gun. There is no doubt the SRO is nicer for me because I don't ever lose the dot as the slide cycles. It's also easier to pick up on the draw, but you get good at the picking up the dot on the RMR with practice, so that's not a big deal.

People will say the SRO isn't meant for duty and then slap a Romeo zero or a Shield red dot on their 365, go figure. The SRO is still better and more rugged than a vortex, a sig optic, a shield, a delta point...whatever you want to put it up against, it's basically only second place to the unrivaled RMR. (note, I haven't experienced the Aimpoint ACRO as it's like a 1962 television on top of the slide).

If you'd put anything other than an RMR on your gun, the SRO won't give anything up to those optics at all.

Having said all that, I've gotten very comfortable with my RMR, so I don't really need the larger window of the SRO, but it is nicer to not lose the dot during recoil. I'd carry either personally.

I've both on glocks, shot both a lot. For carry get the RMR. I for one don't find the SRO does anything for speed or accuracy really. And its annoying to carry because of its shape. And its visibly and demonstrably less durable.

I did notice to consistent concerns about reliability and battery cover issues with the SRO. Maybe the greater mass of the SRO, albeit small, contributes to the reliability issues.


I'm 99% sure I will go with the RMR.

The explanation I got from them on the RMR being for duty and the SRO not being for duty is that the design of the hood was the issue.

The RMR has the "batman" profile with the pointed ears and dip in the middle. That is better for absorbing shock than the SRO which has the pronounced almost circular hood. That design doesnt take shock or crush as well, though it leaves you with larger glass.

As it looks like atleast 3 of us got that explanation directly from the horses mouth I'd say give them a call, they dont seem to be shy about talking about it.

If you are worried about not being able to pick up the dot in a smaller window I'd say its far more of a presentation issue than a size of the window issue. When your draw stroke is good you'll just see the dot magically pop into view. I'd go RMR for a CCW without any issue. The SRO is more focused for competition. Good luck on whatever you choose.

There is a difference between "duty" and "carry" that is worth mentioning. There are lots of things that are appropriate for concealed carry or even open civilian carry that simply do not stand up to the rigors of law enforcement and military duty use. That isn't to say that the item is used that roughly, but the method of carry, and environment of exposure is significantly different when working in and out of vehicles, in scenarios where a physical fight is more likely, etc. That said, I don't know that I'm in love with the SRO as a carry optic because the design is considerably more prone to damage than most others. I certainly would not use one as a duty optic.

I'd previously seen that video review. Conclusion: don't drop your gun, don't use it as a hammer...you should be just fiiiiinnneee...

People have just become accustomed to the toughness of Trijicon products and were expecting (or at least hoping for) more of the same with SRO. That humongous round window, the relatively thin aluminum surround...yes, it turns out to be a no-brainer that it didn't go well in drop tests. To me it does seem like a serious oversight given that their designers decided to include NV settings, as if there was the pretense in its initial design objectives that this would be intended for duty use. Oh well, that didn't quite work out.

Perhaps Trijicon (or someone else) could convince Corning to come up with an optic-quality version of Gorilla Glass that's far more shatter-resistant than what's being used now. Or they could just thicken up the housing. Or invest in a more shock resistant synthetic surround like carbon fiber (yes I know CF can shatter, but here we're talking about gravity drops from 5 or 6 feet or as an impromptu bludgeoning tool, not a 175mph crash into a guardrail). The SRO's viewport is virtually the polar opposite of the RMR's, and I've seen the appeal in the eyes of our customers. Trijicon has a great scheme; it just needs some toughening up to make it right.

I can't dispute any of the previous posts as I'm a newbie with red dot sights on a pistol. I do have a RMR mounted on a P227 and I just mounted a SRO on a Beretta LTT Centurion. For the sake of a one visual perspective.....here's what it looks like.

For a new red dot shooter there is no question about the pace of the learning curve IMO. The SRO is a great product from Trijicon.

Other things to note about the SRO:

First, while it shares the RMR's mounting holes, the base is taller/thicker than the RMR. This limits your BUIS options. I put the tallest set of Meprolight suppressor sights I could find on my G45 with SRO, and they still just barely cleared the base. I like it, because I don't want irons blocking any more of that big window than necessary, but I know some folks rely on their iron sights as a crutch for acquiring the dot and may want a taller/more prominent sight picture.

Second, it also protrudes further forward than the RMR and other similar red dots, nearly to the breech face on a Glock, which limits holster fit. A number of "optic cut" holsters designed for guns with a RMR/DPP/Romeo/etc. do not fit the SRO, though it's usually relatively easy to make the necessary modifications with a Dremel to a kydex holster to make the SRO fit.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: RogueJSK,