User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 9:42:12 AM EDT
[#1]
I agree that mounting that far to the rear shouldn't be considered a fix for the issue some are having. And if Trijicon is saying they cant find anything wrong with the ones that obviously have issues that isn't a good sign either.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 11:58:40 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryThat appears to be an overcast day. Which minimizes the bright back-light on the optic. And the red ghosting is clearly visible as they move the camera around. To me, it looks like internal reflections from the LED. I'm curious as to whether or not the brightness of the ghosting changes as the dot brightness is changed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 12:15:10 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Mine had the REALLY bad glare, which I would have returned it for anyway, but even if it didn't have glare I couldn't have kept it due to what you're talking about. The magnification/fish eye effect made it to where my eyes strained really bad with both eyes open. To the point it gave me a headache after 10 or so minutes of just walking around with the rifle at my shoulder. I got rid of mine a few weeks ago, but I've been watching this thread. Odd that some guys claim theirs is perfect, but others have unacceptable examples. Large variances in manufacturing? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Follow up to my last post: Still the issue. Paper target of 'diminishing dots' taped up on the wall about 10 feet away. Eyes feel sore. Kinda feel like a headache is coming on. So I quit this until I can get outside and look at something more real at various distances. What sucks; the brain/eye hurt comes on really fast doing this with the MRO. The TRS-25 was fine, and never had any issue like this with any other CCO-type. The optic on my go-to for past 5+ years is a Comp ML3 (2moa). Mine had the REALLY bad glare, which I would have returned it for anyway, but even if it didn't have glare I couldn't have kept it due to what you're talking about. The magnification/fish eye effect made it to where my eyes strained really bad with both eyes open. To the point it gave me a headache after 10 or so minutes of just walking around with the rifle at my shoulder. I got rid of mine a few weeks ago, but I've been watching this thread. Odd that some guys claim theirs is perfect, but others have unacceptable examples. Large variances in manufacturing? Well that sucks. I'll still wait until I can get this outside and do some actual shooting before deciding that it's a no-go, but not hopeful at this point. I do NOT want to return this and have an itch to get a T1/T2... though I did pick up working Thanksgiving and already worked on Black Friday. Those two will be over $600 with the holiday pay at least. Guess I can 'afford' it... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 2:30:50 PM EDT
[#4]
I ordered 2 MRO's with the AD mounts. Great mounts by the way...
LIkes: Controls, clarity, crisp dot, convenient off positions, size, weight. Cons: I could get some red glare if I really tried, it was not an issue for me. What REALLY bothered me, was it was not truly 1x. It has some magnification. My eyes were constantly fighting over which image to focus on. I would get a lot of double images until my brain forced my eyes to focus on the image in the tube. I didnt see fish eye, but there was some magnification. If I focused on the image in the tube, then checked my peripheral, my eyes had to re adjust to the image in the tube when i got back on target. This was unacceptable. The whole idea behind these sights is speed.. I am not the biggest aimpoint T1 fan... I really wanted to have the larger field of view of the MRO. I sent my two units back to Botach and ordered a T2. It suppose to be better than my T1, but i know its the same size. It will be serviceable, but no ideal for me. I am coming from Eotechs and like the large view...but not liking the dependability of eotechs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 5:03:55 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your head is blocking most of the light. That's why you're not getting as much glare when your head is close. I personally wouldn't be happy having to keep my red dot far back on the rail. I want my red dot to be far out front on the receiver. That minimizes the effective size of the optics body, and makes target acquisition faster. Just my preference though. If that works for you then roll with it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
My ghosting is pretty excessive. I'll be sending mine back. Here I was standing in the shade but if in direct sunlight, the ghosting washes out the dot even on setting 6. Hopefully they can get it right with the first replacement they send me or it'll be going back as well for an Aimpoint. <a href="http://s1101.photobucket.com/user/wsenefeld/media/Mobile%20Uploads/6989.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/g432/wsenefeld/Mobile%20Uploads/6989.jpg</a>  This picture is exactly what I saw when I picked one up in my local shop. The dealer suggested bringing it closer to my eye, which solved the problem, maybe this is a read dot that has an eye relief?? i know it sounds strange but the closer it was mounted to the rear the less the ghosting was noticeable... 
Edit to add pic from Sentinel Concepts... https://scontent.fash1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpt1/t31.0-8/12138576_1634897523440608_7918755448565604973_o.jpg Your head is blocking most of the light. That's why you're not getting as much glare when your head is close. I personally wouldn't be happy having to keep my red dot far back on the rail. I want my red dot to be far out front on the receiver. That minimizes the effective size of the optics body, and makes target acquisition faster. Just my preference though. If that works for you then roll with it. I thought the whole point of a short housing and larger objective (same as SRS) was so the RDS body sort of disappear in your FOV, reducing the tube effect, when placed closer to your eye. Putting it farther would seem to offset the design benefit, imo. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 5:43:31 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I thought the whole point of a short housing and larger objective (same as SRS) was so the RDS body sort of disappear in your FOV, reducing the tube effect, when placed closer to your eye. Putting it farther would seem to offset the design benefit, imo. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
My ghosting is pretty excessive. I'll be sending mine back. Here I was standing in the shade but if in direct sunlight, the ghosting washes out the dot even on setting 6. Hopefully they can get it right with the first replacement they send me or it'll be going back as well for an Aimpoint. <a href="http://s1101.photobucket.com/user/wsenefeld/media/Mobile%20Uploads/6989.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/g432/wsenefeld/Mobile%20Uploads/6989.jpg</a> This picture is exactly what I saw when I picked one up in my local shop. The dealer suggested bringing it closer to my eye, which solved the problem, maybe this is a read dot that has an eye relief?? i know it sounds strange but the closer it was mounted to the rear the less the ghosting was noticeable...
Edit to add pic from Sentinel Concepts... https://scontent.fash1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpt1/t31.0-8/12138576_1634897523440608_7918755448565604973_o.jpg Your head is blocking most of the light. That's why you're not getting as much glare when your head is close. I personally wouldn't be happy having to keep my red dot far back on the rail. I want my red dot to be far out front on the receiver. That minimizes the effective size of the optics body, and makes target acquisition faster. Just my preference though. If that works for you then roll with it. I thought the whole point of a short housing and larger objective (same as SRS) was so the RDS body sort of disappear in your FOV, reducing the tube effect, when placed closer to your eye. Putting it farther would seem to offset the design benefit, imo. Put your thumb 6 inches in front of your eye. Now put your thumb 12 inches in front of your eye. The thumb that's 12 inches from your eye appears smaller. Same thing for the body of the optic. Why in the world would you want to put it closer to your eye, effectively making it take up more of your field of vision? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 6:02:20 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Put your thumb 6 inches in front of your eye. Now put your thumb 12 inches in front of your eye. The thumb that's 12 inches from your eye appears smaller. Same thing for the body of the optic. Why in the world would you want to put it closer to your eye, effectively making it take up more of your field of vision? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
My ghosting is pretty excessive. I'll be sending mine back. Here I was standing in the shade but if in direct sunlight, the ghosting washes out the dot even on setting 6. Hopefully they can get it right with the first replacement they send me or it'll be going back as well for an Aimpoint. <a href="http://s1101.photobucket.com/user/wsenefeld/media/Mobile%20Uploads/6989.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/g432/wsenefeld/Mobile%20Uploads/6989.jpg</a> This picture is exactly what I saw when I picked one up in my local shop. The dealer suggested bringing it closer to my eye, which solved the problem, maybe this is a read dot that has an eye relief?? i know it sounds strange but the closer it was mounted to the rear the less the ghosting was noticeable...
Edit to add pic from Sentinel Concepts... https://scontent.fash1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpt1/t31.0-8/12138576_1634897523440608_7918755448565604973_o.jpg Your head is blocking most of the light. That's why you're not getting as much glare when your head is close. I personally wouldn't be happy having to keep my red dot far back on the rail. I want my red dot to be far out front on the receiver. That minimizes the effective size of the optics body, and makes target acquisition faster. Just my preference though. If that works for you then roll with it. I thought the whole point of a short housing and larger objective (same as SRS) was so the RDS body sort of disappear in your FOV, reducing the tube effect, when placed closer to your eye. Putting it farther would seem to offset the design benefit, imo. Put your thumb 6 inches in front of your eye. Now put your thumb 12 inches in front of your eye. The thumb that's 12 inches from your eye appears smaller. Same thing for the body of the optic. Why in the world would you want to put it closer to your eye, effectively making it take up more of your field of vision? Unlike your analogy, my thumb doesn't have hole in it. Try this instead. Get a piece of paper, make a funnel out of it and look through both ends, now which end can you see better with? The big end or the little end? You'll see better looking through the small end. Now move it closer to your eye, the cone almost disappears while the FOV gets larger and your peripheral vision is unaffected. Flip it around and the opposite is true. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 7:35:23 PM EDT
[#8]
Runs yours how you see fit. I prefer to see less of the optic body, which is what you said initially. Moving the optic further out will make the body appear smaller, period. Funnels aside.
You also said to "reduce tube effect." Go grab yourself a toilet paper tube and stick it close to your eye, then further away. The one further away will have way less of a tube like appearance than the one right close to your eye. That's the whole reason red dot sights are traditionally put further out on the receiver. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 9:13:31 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Put your thumb 6 inches in front of your eye. Now put your thumb 12 inches in front of your eye. The thumb that's 12 inches from your eye appears smaller. Same thing for the body of the optic. Why in the world would you want to put it closer to your eye, effectively making it take up more of your field of vision? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
My ghosting is pretty excessive. I'll be sending mine back. Here I was standing in the shade but if in direct sunlight, the ghosting washes out the dot even on setting 6. Hopefully they can get it right with the first replacement they send me or it'll be going back as well for an Aimpoint. <a href="http://s1101.photobucket.com/user/wsenefeld/media/Mobile%20Uploads/6989.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/g432/wsenefeld/Mobile%20Uploads/6989.jpg</a> This picture is exactly what I saw when I picked one up in my local shop. The dealer suggested bringing it closer to my eye, which solved the problem, maybe this is a read dot that has an eye relief?? i know it sounds strange but the closer it was mounted to the rear the less the ghosting was noticeable...
Edit to add pic from Sentinel Concepts... https://scontent.fash1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpt1/t31.0-8/12138576_1634897523440608_7918755448565604973_o.jpg Your head is blocking most of the light. That's why you're not getting as much glare when your head is close. I personally wouldn't be happy having to keep my red dot far back on the rail. I want my red dot to be far out front on the receiver. That minimizes the effective size of the optics body, and makes target acquisition faster. Just my preference though. If that works for you then roll with it. I thought the whole point of a short housing and larger objective (same as SRS) was so the RDS body sort of disappear in your FOV, reducing the tube effect, when placed closer to your eye. Putting it farther would seem to offset the design benefit, imo. Put your thumb 6 inches in front of your eye. Now put your thumb 12 inches in front of your eye. The thumb that's 12 inches from your eye appears smaller. Same thing for the body of the optic. Why in the world would you want to put it closer to your eye, effectively making it take up more of your field of vision? You put the RDS closer to your eye to increase the FOV inside of the optic. The closer the RDS, the more visible range of the dot. Put a RDS on the end of a free float rail (muzzle end) and see how much you can move your head around and still see the dot. Now put the RDS back by the charging handle and you can move your head all over the place and still see the dot. This helps when you're shooting from awkward positions. You don't always get to pick what kind of cover you're able to get behind. While I prefer my RDS centered on the upper receiver, I do not feel I should be required to put it further forward or closer in. Mine is going back to Optics Planet for an exchange. If the replacement comes back without issues, I'll keep it. Otherwise it'll be going back as well for an Aimpoint. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2015 10:49:39 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Runs yours how you see fit. I prefer to see less of the optic body, which is what you said initially. Moving the optic further out will make the body appear smaller, period. Funnels aside. You also said to "reduce tube effect." Go grab yourself a toilet paper tube and stick it close to your eye, then further away. The one further away will have way less of a tube like appearance than the one right close to your eye. That's the whole reason red dot sights are traditionally put further out on the receiver. That's true, if it's a straight tube, like a typical RDS. The MRO isnt a straight tube and is designed with FoV in mind. However works best for you though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2015 10:39:44 PM EDT
[#11]
Anyone has news about trijicon support?
Anyone has allready changed his MRO for a new one from Trijicon support? thx |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/15/2015 9:59:58 AM EDT
[#12]
Got #2 in. I was able to get the red ghosting others have talked about when holding the optic at arms length with a bright light source directly behind me and looking through the optic at an angle. Both with the dot turned off and on.
A couple of observations: The red ghosting is the lens coating reflecting light back. Without this the LED would not work. Any angle that I can see the dot the ghosting disappears. I can not reproduce the ghosting with the optic mounted and the weapon shouldered. So for my uses it is a non issue. The MRO was designed to have a wider FOV, the reason for the bigger objective. It was engineered to look through, not around like other RDS. I think the MRO probably works directly as designed, which is not necessarily what people expected. Ymmv, Rob |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/15/2015 10:19:29 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Got #2 in. I was able to get the red ghosting others have talked about when holding the optic at arms length with a bright light source directly behind me and looking through the optic at an angle. Both with the dot turned off and on. A couple of observations: The red ghosting is the lens coating reflecting light back. Without this the LED would not work. Any angle that I can see the dot the ghosting disappears. I can not reproduce the ghosting with the optic mounted and the weapon shouldered. So for my uses it is a non issue. The MRO was designed to have a wider FOV, the reason for the bigger objective. It was engineered to look through, not around like other RDS. I think the MRO probably works directly as designed, which is not necessarily what people expected. Ymmv, Rob My ghosting was the worst when I was looking through the optic, so there appears to be a large variation somewhere. I'm betting that the angled front lens is placed in by hand. I'm also willing to bet the angle of this lens is what either causes or prevents the ghosting/glare. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/15/2015 11:26:31 AM EDT
[#14]
I got mine in yesterday. First impressions:
first, i immediately was able to reproduce the red glare issue. Though i don't find it very distracting, much less making the sight unusable, i'd prefer it wasn't there. My aimpoints and eotech don't do this. Fingers crossed they'll have a recall and correct this. magnification (almost unnoticeable) and blue tint are there as well, but once again, not distracting or a deal breaker. The dot is very t-1-ish. which is good. I love the control position being on top. I might be doing something wrong here, but i don't really notice an improvement in "fov" over my t-1s or eotech. both eyes open, the housing on all these optics becomes a blur. i superimpose the dot over the target and that's where the bullet goes. This is something i've never understood even in the aimpoint vs. eotech debates, and the same holds true with the MRO. I just don't see, with both eyes open, that any of these sights holds an FOV advantage over another. If i'm missing something, help me understand. Given the $490 price i paid for it (with lower 1/3 mount) i'd say it's a pretty good optic if it holds up. It gives up a little weight to the t-1, and has the red glare (while i don't think it's that bad), but comes in significantly cheaper than the t-1/2, and even the h-1 as well. I think you could argue either way in a vs. comparison. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/15/2015 3:33:25 PM EDT
[#15]
I think the Aimpoint killer label is wrong. I think a better comparison may be the 1.5x ACOG. Either way I am happy with what I got and have no issues. That may change after a couple of months/years of use.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/15/2015 5:42:35 PM EDT
[#16]
"Aimpoint Killer"
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2015 9:38:53 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Got #2 in. I was able to get the red ghosting others have talked about when holding the optic at arms length with a bright light source directly behind me and looking through the optic at an angle. Both with the dot turned off and on. A couple of observations: The red ghosting is the lens coating reflecting light back. Without this the LED would not work. Any angle that I can see the dot the ghosting disappears. I can not reproduce the ghosting with the optic mounted and the weapon shouldered. So for my uses it is a non issue. The MRO was designed to have a wider FOV, the reason for the bigger objective. It was engineered to look through, not around like other RDS. I think the MRO probably works directly as designed, which is not necessarily what people expected. Ymmv, Rob Agreed. I think some of these glare or ghosting reports may be people looking for something to complain about. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2015 10:09:09 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Agreed. I think some of these glare or ghosting reports may be people looking for something to complain about. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Got #2 in. I was able to get the red ghosting others have talked about when holding the optic at arms length with a bright light source directly behind me and looking through the optic at an angle. Both with the dot turned off and on. A couple of observations: The red ghosting is the lens coating reflecting light back. Without this the LED would not work. Any angle that I can see the dot the ghosting disappears. I can not reproduce the ghosting with the optic mounted and the weapon shouldered. So for my uses it is a non issue. The MRO was designed to have a wider FOV, the reason for the bigger objective. It was engineered to look through, not around like other RDS. I think the MRO probably works directly as designed, which is not necessarily what people expected. Ymmv, Rob Agreed. I think some of these glare or ghosting reports may be people looking for something to complain about. I was the first one to report it, and mine was awful. It was the worst when you had a cheek weld, without a doubt. I posted numerous pics, even from directly behind the optic as if you had a cheek weld. I think it has to do with the angle on the front lens. Maybe some are angled too much, or too little, and it causes the glare. This is literally directly behind the optic. If that is acceptable to some then great, but to me that is way, way worse than I've seen ANY red dot. Even 150 dollar vortex optics.
And this is how bad it was with a little bit of angle. I already got rid of mine, just posting to make the point that just because YOU don't see it, doesn't mean other people are just "trying to find things to complain about." 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2015 11:24:30 AM EDT
[#19]
That looks pretty bad in the photos. Did you ever take it outside and was it like that all the time? Did you send it back to Trijicon CS and get a response?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2015 11:33:01 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That looks pretty bad in the photos. Did you ever take it outside and was it like that all the time? Did you send it back to Trijicon CS and get a response? It was worse outside, because there was more light. As long as there was ZERO light source behind the optic, I didn't see a glare. But basically the only time that would happen is if I'm shooting into the sun at sunrise or sunset. As long as there was a very bright light source in front of me, and no light source behind me, I didn't have the glare. I didn't send it in to trijicon. I took it back to the shop I got it from and got a T2 instead. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2015 2:08:46 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I was the first one to report it, and mine was awful. It was the worst when you had a cheek weld, without a doubt. I posted numerous pics, even from directly behind the optic as if you had a cheek weld. These seem to be hit and miss. Out of the 10 or so i handled a few did show the signs of glare (not as bad as yours ) blue tint, and slight magnification. The one I am currently using only displays a tiny amount of these issues, and is acceptable, to me at least for the optic. I'm going to take it out this weekend and pound the piss out of it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2015 3:04:26 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Put your thumb 6 inches in front of your eye. Now put your thumb 12 inches in front of your eye. The thumb that's 12 inches from your eye appears smaller. Same thing for the body of the optic. Why in the world would you want to put it closer to your eye, effectively making it take up more of your field of vision? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
My ghosting is pretty excessive. I'll be sending mine back. Here I was standing in the shade but if in direct sunlight, the ghosting washes out the dot even on setting 6. Hopefully they can get it right with the first replacement they send me or it'll be going back as well for an Aimpoint. <a href="http://s1101.photobucket.com/user/wsenefeld/media/Mobile%20Uploads/6989.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/g432/wsenefeld/Mobile%20Uploads/6989.jpg</a> This picture is exactly what I saw when I picked one up in my local shop. The dealer suggested bringing it closer to my eye, which solved the problem, maybe this is a read dot that has an eye relief?? i know it sounds strange but the closer it was mounted to the rear the less the ghosting was noticeable...
Edit to add pic from Sentinel Concepts... https://scontent.fash1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpt1/t31.0-8/12138576_1634897523440608_7918755448565604973_o.jpg Your head is blocking most of the light. That's why you're not getting as much glare when your head is close. I personally wouldn't be happy having to keep my red dot far back on the rail. I want my red dot to be far out front on the receiver. That minimizes the effective size of the optics body, and makes target acquisition faster. Just my preference though. If that works for you then roll with it. I thought the whole point of a short housing and larger objective (same as SRS) was so the RDS body sort of disappear in your FOV, reducing the tube effect, when placed closer to your eye. Putting it farther would seem to offset the design benefit, imo. Put your thumb 6 inches in front of your eye. Now put your thumb 12 inches in front of your eye. The thumb that's 12 inches from your eye appears smaller. Same thing for the body of the optic. Why in the world would you want to put it closer to your eye, effectively making it take up more of your field of vision? Because if you shoot with both eyes open, the body of the optic disappears. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2015 11:25:32 PM EDT
[#23]
Just got mine from Optics Planet today.
Serial # 43XX Mine is clearly magnified. I now see the red glare as well, and I think the magnification issue is going to be a headache. Not sure what to do. I may send it back to OP. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2015 10:04:52 AM EDT
[#24]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2015 10:17:47 AM EDT
[#25]
Crimson you were not the person I was talking about. Obviously you have some serious issues with that one. No denying that.
With almost 5,000 of these things rolling off the line now I would think there would be some more reports. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2015 12:01:46 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Here is what I am seeing with ambient light behind me. <a href="http://s3.photobucket.com/user/MS4764/media/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zps5jeumrqy.jpeg.html" target="_blank">http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y95/MS4764/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zps5jeumrqy.jpeg</a> Aimpoint T1 Micro under same conditions. http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y95/MS4764/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsrwdjxibs.jpeg I give up! I can't get these pictures to post directly. Ya that ain't good... Maybe I'll just buy an AP Pro and hope trijicon revises the MRO in the near future. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2015 12:42:39 PM EDT
[#27]
Now that the sun has come up, I am getting the same red glare with ambient daylight behind me.
I am sending it back to Optics Planet on Monday. I am not even going to try to deal with Trijicon. I want my money back. The documentation say this is 1X which is a flat out lie. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2015 10:28:14 PM EDT
[#28]
Wow this thread is a downer.
I just sold a T1 to fund another project short term and was going to replace it with one of these. I imagine they will get this fixed so maybe in a few months we can see what's coming off the line. The Aimpoint PRO looks like such a good deal these days |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2015 12:28:33 AM EDT
[#29]
I think the MEPRO RDS is the best value, with the AP PRO a close second (due to the odd battery, and shorter battery life).
I'm bummed about these....sold stuff to grab one, but definitely hate any magnification much less glare. Reviews have been too spotty, and my experience in a store with one stunk. I doubt Trijicon will uograde/update these. They seem to think they're okay as is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2015 12:53:24 AM EDT
[#30]
How could TRIJICON not see these issues?????
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2015 9:53:30 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How could TRIJICON not see these issues????? If you want one of these, I think you have to see it in person first to make sure yours is GTG. There are only two options; many of these units are flawed from the factory and they have a quality control problem, or they are liars. I don't know any of the people who own Trijicon personally, but they make it a point to put bible verses on their products. I will give them the benefit of the doubt and say that they have a QC problem that they are unaware of. I am sending mine back. If they fix these issues, I might buy one again. I wanted this to be a "go to" optic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2015 9:57:36 AM EDT
[#32]
MRO, SRS, VCOG...seriously, Trijicon is an American company, and these "polarizing products" make me sad. I want to see them put out a Glock 19. A Smallblock 350. A Toyota Camry. Something that people associate with "works every time, all the time, just buy it you'll love it if it fits your bill, and no need to try it, it's G2G!"
They haven't done that since the ACOG/nightsights and later the RMR, in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2015 11:11:12 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: MRO, SRS, VCOG...seriously, Trijicon is an American company, and these "polarizing products" make me sad. I want to see them put out a Glock 19. A Smallblock 350. A Toyota Camry. Something that people associate with "works every time, all the time, just buy it you'll love it if it fits your bill, and no need to try it, it's G2G!" They haven't done that since the ACOG/nightsights and later the RMR, in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2015 12:55:25 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
+10. I truly wish we could buy a quality, American made RDS that would fill the same mission as an Aimpoint. Until then, Aimpoint is the only reliable, military grade RDS in the market today. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
MRO, SRS, VCOG...seriously, Trijicon is an American company, and these "polarizing products" make me sad. I want to see them put out a Glock 19. A Smallblock 350. A Toyota Camry. Something that people associate with "works every time, all the time, just buy it you'll love it if it fits your bill, and no need to try it, it's G2G!" They haven't done that since the ACOG/nightsights and later the RMR, in my opinion. ?? Trijicon has a multitude of other reflex sights. Military grade. Mepro has 3 different reflex options (2 of which are bombproof, I cannot speak to the 3rd option). Military grade. Zeiss has a nice MRDS Burris Fastfire III is a VERY nice MRDS. Insight has a VERY nice MRDS. Military grade. Doctor has a VERY nice MRDS. Military grade. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2015 1:03:11 PM EDT
[#35]
I love this thread. I should be able to get my third MRO for under $400 after all the negative reviews in here from people that have actually taken them out and used them. So far I keep winning the "lottery" and got 2 good ones.
On a serious note has anyone yet to return one to Trijicon and gotten a repair/replacement from Trijicon CS? I know there are several people that have returned them to Optics Planet but don't remember any going back to Trijicon. It is entirely possible that there has been a QC slip in the rush to meet initial demand. Without units going back to CS then Trijicon may not even be aware of the issue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2015 1:13:28 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I love this thread. I should be able to get my third MRO for under $400 after all the negative reviews in here from people that have actually taken them out and used them. So far I keep winning the "lottery" and got 2 good ones. On a serious note has anyone yet to return one to Trijicon and gotten a repair/replacement from Trijicon CS? I know there are several people that have returned them to Optics Planet but don't remember any going back to Trijicon. It is entirely possible that there has been a QC slip in the rush to meet initial demand. Without units going back to CS then Trijicon may not even be aware of the issue. There was one report of a guy sending his back only for trijicon to tell him it's good to go. :/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2015 6:36:00 PM EDT
[#37]
I sent mine back due to the optical shift to the left and magnification. Haven't heard anything back from them yet.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2015 8:42:32 AM EDT
[#38]
Thread discussing the tilt http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_18/682859_Trijicon_MRO_lens_tilt_.html&page=1&anc=6995102#i6995102
People with units that have little to no glare - what angle (axis) is your lens tilted? is it straight up and down or tilted a little to the side? How about those with magnification? Optical Shift to one side? I had magnification and optical shift and mine was tilted a little to one side, say 5 or 7 o'clock axis. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2015 8:52:47 PM EDT
[#39]
Actually took mine out and shot with it. A lot of the issues went away not trying to focus on something small that was really close.
Starting to wonder if many of us weren't worrying too much about stuff we noticed in the living room vs the range... But I still need more time with it to figure out if it's good to go for me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2015 9:50:28 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Actually took mine out and shot with it. A lot of the issues went away not trying to focus on something small that was really close. Starting to wonder if many of us weren't worrying too much about stuff we noticed in the living room vs the range... But I still need more time with it to figure out if it's good to go for me. Why rationalize and put up with any issues??? Until Trijicon "gets it" there is only Aimpoint. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2015 2:07:44 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Here is what I am seeing with ambient light behind me. <a href="http://s3.photobucket.com/user/MS4764/media/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zps5jeumrqy.jpeg.html" target="_blank">http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y95/MS4764/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zps5jeumrqy.jpeg</a> http://<a href=http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y95/MS4764/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsrxazfcvx.jpeg</a>" /> Aimpoint T1 Micro under same conditions. http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y95/MS4764/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsrwdjxibs.jpeg I give up! I can't get these pictures to post directly. Wow. So when I look at these red dots in a pic, like above, the dot looks perfectly round to me. When I look through mine, it's more of a starburst. I know I have an astigmatism but why would the dot look perfect in a pic but starburst in real life?!! Crazy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2015 6:41:23 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wow. So when I look at these red dots in a pic, like above, the dot looks perfectly round to me. When I look through mine, it's more of a starburst. I know I have an astigmatism but why would the dot look perfect in a pic but starburst in real life?!! Crazy. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Here is what I am seeing with ambient light behind me. <a href="http://s3.photobucket.com/user/MS4764/media/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zps5jeumrqy.jpeg.html" target="_blank">http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y95/MS4764/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zps5jeumrqy.jpeg</a> http://<a href=http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y95/MS4764/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsrxazfcvx.jpeg</a>" /> Aimpoint T1 Micro under same conditions. http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y95/MS4764/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsrwdjxibs.jpeg I give up! I can't get these pictures to post directly. Wow. So when I look at these red dots in a pic, like above, the dot looks perfectly round to me. When I look through mine, it's more of a starburst. I know I have an astigmatism but why would the dot look perfect in a pic but starburst in real life?!! Crazy. Wait, are you being serious? Because the camera lens "saw" the dot perfectly and captured it in a photo, while your eye (lens) has astigmatism and can't see the dot as perfectly as the camera can. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2015 11:18:44 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wait, are you being serious? Because the camera lens "saw" the dot perfectly and captured it in a photo, while your eye (lens) has astigmatism and can't see the dot as perfectly as the camera can. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Here is what I am seeing with ambient light behind me. <a href="http://s3.photobucket.com/user/MS4764/media/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zps5jeumrqy.jpeg.html" target="_blank">http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y95/MS4764/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zps5jeumrqy.jpeg</a> http://<a href=http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y95/MS4764/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsrxazfcvx.jpeg</a>" /> Aimpoint T1 Micro under same conditions. http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y95/MS4764/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsrwdjxibs.jpeg I give up! I can't get these pictures to post directly. Wow. So when I look at these red dots in a pic, like above, the dot looks perfectly round to me. When I look through mine, it's more of a starburst. I know I have an astigmatism but why would the dot look perfect in a pic but starburst in real life?!! Crazy. Wait, are you being serious? Because the camera lens "saw" the dot perfectly and captured it in a photo, while your eye (lens) has astigmatism and can't see the dot as perfectly as the camera can. Yes. Internet. Serious business. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2015 12:45:19 PM EDT
[#44]
I personally think that some of these negative posts are strictly to stir shit up, didn't really want to spend 500 bucks and should have got a Sparc II, make a good product not have sales or just be a pain in the ass. If you watch reviews on Youtube by large subscribed channels, the MRO is getting very good feedback by people that shoot competitively and review A LOT of products.
- Military Arms Channel - HaleyStrategic - Practically Tactical |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2015 1:00:02 PM EDT
[#45]
I have 3 of them sitting right here as I type this post. All 3 lens have a slight can't to them in the same direction. We should all know this is normal as its for the dot to be reflected back on the lens. All 3 have a slight blueish tint to them about the same. I have no fish eyeing on any part of the lens. When holding them in my hand it appears that all 3 have a slight magnification, but in the pictures you can see the pegboard wholes are all about the same size. When mounted to a rifle and looking outside it is much better and hardly able to see any magnification. I spoke with Trijicon's C.S. in the repair department and the gentleman I spoke with was well aware of this thread here. I asked about is this an issue, He said due to the size of the front lens, that there maybe a slight magnification but nothing that should cause the shooter any issues when shooting both eyes open. He also said as of 2 days ago their was nothing that he heard of with a change in design or them stopping assembly to change something. They are shipping them as fast as they can make them. He also acknowledged the SRS was a turd, and Trijicon made sure the MRO had gone through its paces. The only red dot site to me that appears to be 100% 1x are the Eotechs. Which is my personal favorite, but I'll admit I have a tiny bit of doubt that it may fail (that's what happens when you read the internet too much, even though 3 years worth of use it has not happened)
unlike A T1 or even the MRO, I do get some tunneling with T-1 and the Sparc etc and some blueish tint as well with them. Just relaying the info that I was given and my opinion on the 3 that i have in front of me. YMMV Serials are in the 3300-3600 range 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2015 1:03:43 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I personally think that some of these negative posts are strictly to stir shit up, didn't really want to spend 500 bucks and should have got a Sparc II, make a good product not have sales or just be a pain in the ass. If you watch reviews on Youtube by large subscribed channels, the MRO is getting very good feedback by people that shoot competitively and review A LOT of products. - Military Arms Channel - HaleyStrategic - Practically Tactical I would tend to agree if I didn't have a MRO and witnessed most of the issues that others are complaining about. There are some we'll know people that are not impressed with the MRO. Advertised as 1x....not even close. My Accupower was closer to true 1x, as was my Aimpoint M3. Optical Shifting. Look over the optic then move it into view and the object you were looking act shifts to one side. Glaring...wasn't a big issue for me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2015 1:06:31 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have 3 of them sitting right here as I type this post. All 3 lens have a slight can't to them in the same direction. What direction was the tilt (12 to 6 o'clock or 11 to 5 etc)? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2015 1:26:36 PM EDT
[#48]
Facing the lens it looks to me like it cants towards the 6-7 oclock position.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2015 2:06:47 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes. Internet. Serious business. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Here is what I am seeing with ambient light behind me. <a href="http://s3.photobucket.com/user/MS4764/media/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zps5jeumrqy.jpeg.html" target="_blank">http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y95/MS4764/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zps5jeumrqy.jpeg</a> http://<a href=http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y95/MS4764/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsrxazfcvx.jpeg</a>" /> Aimpoint T1 Micro under same conditions. http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y95/MS4764/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsrwdjxibs.jpeg I give up! I can't get these pictures to post directly. Wow. So when I look at these red dots in a pic, like above, the dot looks perfectly round to me. When I look through mine, it's more of a starburst. I know I have an astigmatism but why would the dot look perfect in a pic but starburst in real life?!! Crazy. Wait, are you being serious? Because the camera lens "saw" the dot perfectly and captured it in a photo, while your eye (lens) has astigmatism and can't see the dot as perfectly as the camera can. Yes. Internet. Serious business. Lol, nice cover. Your response doesn't make sense unless you really thought what you just said. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2015 3:19:27 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I personally think that some of these negative posts are strictly to stir shit up, didn't really want to spend 500 bucks and should have got a Sparc II, make a good product not have sales or just be a pain in the ass. If you watch reviews on Youtube by large subscribed channels, the MRO is getting very good feedback by people that shoot competitively and review A LOT of products. - Military Arms Channel - HaleyStrategic - Practically Tactical Yeah I thought the same thing until I handled one in person. It sucks. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
