MRO vrs PRO - AR15.COM

AR Sponsor:

Site Notices

Posted: 9/14/2018 6:19:20 PM EDT

Is this a chevy vrs ford comparison? Which is better and why? I have four castle defense AR's and it is time for some upgrades.

Posted: 9/14/2018 8:00:33 PM EDT

[#1]

You have to define "better". What do you want the sight to do that is not being done by your current sights?

What are the scenarios for using the sights?

Posted: 9/15/2018 9:50:30 AM EDT

[#2]

They’re pretty similar. I think the MRO has a crisper dot and it’s smaller. The MRO is like $15 cheaper on amazon. I personally like Trijicon as a company and the MRO is lighter and takes up less room so I would roll with that.

Posted: 9/15/2018 11:12:04 AM EDT

[#3]

I went MRO due to weight. The PRO is chunky.

Posted: 9/15/2018 11:36:42 AM EDT

[#4]

I own both. When comparing the newer MRO to the PRO, the only advantage the Pro has is slightly clearer glass. Overall, I prefer the size and functionality of the MRO. It's been an incredibly robust optic so far.

Posted: 9/15/2018 1:43:38 PM EDT

[#5]

Pro is 7075 t6 aluminum vs Aimpoints 6061 if that matters to you.

Both would be gtg

Posted: 9/15/2018 2:16:59 PM EDT

[#6]

Quote History

Quoted:
I went MRO due to weight. The PRO is chunky.

View Quote

And battery life. Leaps above the Pro.

Posted: 9/15/2018 2:37:31 PM EDT

[#7]

I went with the MRO due to weight and the 7075 Al housing.

10/10, it's great.

Posted: 9/15/2018 3:42:15 PM EDT

[#8]

Maybe it’s just my eyes but it seems like the two MROs I looked through had a SLIGHT magnification. Like 1.015 magnification, it would drive me nuts. Maybe someone else has the seen the same thing?

Posted: 9/15/2018 4:19:57 PM EDT

[#9]

The MRO also has more parallax shift than most any other red dot - about 14" at 100 yards, which obviously would result in a clean miss. Eotechs tested out as close to parallax free, the Aimpoint T-2 was generally the best red dot, and the Pro might be the best choice for the money.
https://www.greeneyetactical.com/2017/07/27/comparative-study-of-red-dot-sight-parallax/

Posted: 9/15/2018 10:26:26 PM EDT

[#10]

I don’t think the MRO will ever get over it’s reputation that the early models gave it,....slight magnification and terrible parallax. I assure you the post 89,xxx serial number models have no magnification and very little parallax.

Posted: 9/15/2018 10:47:56 PM EDT

[#11]

I own both.

I generally prefer the PRO, but the size and weight of the MRO is a big plus.

The lack of lense covers on the MRO definitely detracts from it.

Posted: 9/15/2018 10:58:32 PM EDT

[#12]

Quote History

Quoted:
I own both.

I generally prefer the PRO, but the size and weight of the MRO is a big plus.

The lack of lenses on the MRO definitely detracts from it.

View Quote

Lack of lenses?

Posted: 9/15/2018 11:12:24 PM EDT

[#13]

Quote History

Quoted:

Lack of lenses?

View Quote

I think he meant to say lens covers. Pro comes with them out of the box. Mro need to be added.

Posted: 9/15/2018 11:13:31 PM EDT

[#14]

I have 2 pros but wanna try out a mro. I like the bigger fov on the mro.

Posted: 9/16/2018 1:53:00 AM EDT

[#15]

I own both and prefer the MRO over the PRO for reasons already mentioned. Assuming you get a post 89k serial number, parallax won’t be an issue in the MRO.

Posted: 9/16/2018 1:57:03 AM EDT

[#16]

Quote History

Quoted:

Lack of lenses?

View Quote

Lens covers, I don’t know what I was thinking there.

Posted: 9/16/2018 1:03:25 PM EDT

[#17]

Recently purchased a MRO Patrol well above the 89K serial numbers. Zero noticeable magnification, but the parallax was obscene. With proper cheek weld and the dot centered accuracy was great, but it had HUGE POI shifts shooting with the dot at the edges of FOV. Even shot it from a vice to make sure it wasn't me. Maybe I got a lemon, but it was not good. I really wanted to like it. It was nice in every other way, but the parallax was out of hand. Returned it and got another H2.

Posted: 9/16/2018 1:16:13 PM EDT

[#18]

I bought one of the early bad icky junk MRO's And Honestly if I didn't have access to the internet i wouldn't even notice all the icky bad things that are supposedly wrong with it. Use is close in fast target acquisition and putting rounds in a torso. If there is a parallax which I'm sure there is its not bad enough to make me miss at CQB ranges. And for anything past that I haven't noticed any issues. Center the dot and aim...steel went ting as far as I have shot it. Which is only 200 yards. I also have a rifle with a 1x4 I like it very much...Right tool and all that.......

Posted: 9/16/2018 2:13:57 PM EDT

[#19]

re; the newer MRO's that are supposed to be non-magnified;

has anyone noticed that they still have a slight magnification to them?

i had a 93,500 range one and couldnt get use to it. i loved the size and everything about its design but it messed with my head too much still.

Posted: 9/16/2018 4:22:02 PM EDT

[#20]

Quote History

Quoted:
re; the newer MRO's that are supposed to be non-magnified;

has anyone noticed that they still have a slight magnification to them?

i had a 93,500 range one and couldnt get use to it. i loved the size and everything about its design but it messed with my head too much still.

View Quote

The newer models upgraded lenses or coatings to reduce magnification. There is still high parallax

Posted: 9/17/2018 3:51:53 AM EDT

[#21]

Quote History

Quoted:
Recently purchased a MRO Patrol well above the 89K serial numbers. Zero noticeable magnification, but the parallax was obscene. With proper cheek weld and the dot centered accuracy was great, but it had HUGE POI shifts shooting with the dot at the edges of FOV. Even shot it from a vice to make sure it wasn't me. Maybe I got a lemon, but it was not good. I really wanted to like it. It was nice in every other way, but the parallax was out of hand. Returned it and got another H2.

View Quote

I don't own one, but I haven't seen any information that states the parallax problem was ever corrected in the later serial numbers. That was about the magnification issue.
I've seen it speculated that the problem is in the very short tube length compared to its diameter, meaning you can put your head at an extreme off angle and still see the dot and tsrget, compared to something like a Pro. It would be interesting to repeat the linked experiment but control the viewing angle to see if that was the critical variable in the scopes.

Posted: 9/17/2018 8:27:22 AM EDT

[#22]

Lol.....You have to have your head so far out of center for the MRO parallax issue to happen.....It's just more internet gobbledy gook.....Get your head in a decent position on your rifle with the dot not off on the far edge of the scope, and it'll work like it should.

My pre-89k serial MRO was just ringing 200 yard steel last weekend. Love it. If it weren't for the internet, I wouldn't know my optic had "issues." It's been dead nuts reliable.

Posted: 9/17/2018 11:48:35 AM EDT

[#23]

I have both. The PRO was on my patrol rifle for about 6 years until I wanted to downsize. I opted for the MRO due to cost alone. Had the MRO on my patrol rifle (11.5" BCM) for about 2 years and it has been great. The weight savings compared to the PRO is noticeable, too. The PRO is still a great optic and my bare minimum recommendation for serious duty use if you're on a budget. Mine has been through 6 years of duty use in WI weather, and numerous firearms training classes and has never let me down. I also got WAY more than 30,000 hours of constant-onbattery life, albeit at a setting of 5 because I was mostly working nights. My PRO now sits atop my house gun (16" BCM). I only went with the MRO on my work gun because I wanted something smaller and thought the T1 was overpriced...

Posted: 9/17/2018 3:28:12 PM EDT

[#24]

Quote History

Quoted:

I don't own one, but I haven't seen any information that states the parallax problem was ever corrected in the later serial numbers. That was about the magnification issue.
I've seen it speculated that the problem is in the very short tube length compared to its diameter, meaning you can put your head at an extreme off angle and still see the dot and tsrget, compared to something like a Pro. It would be interesting to repeat the linked experiment but control the viewing angle to see if that was the critical variable in the scopes.

View Quote

I've heard many complain and many say they love it. Either those who love it don't have anything better to compare it to or the parallax varies between individual optics. I've only owned one and it was bad. To pop a prairie dog at 30yds and be confident I'd have to center the dot. I know.. it's not a hunting optic. Sure, it will hit a human torso (somewhere), but if the owner of that torso has a hold of my child the parallax is a big deal. Not an issue with my aimpoints or eotech. The 2nd gen aimpoint micros may have some parallax, but it's significantly less and I think you're right that the smaller diameter limits POI shift.

At first I thought the FOV was great, but it accentuates the problem. Life doesn't always afford the opportunity for centering and a perfect cheek weld. If I have to take time to center the dot, might as well just use irons. If I got a lemon and there are optically "better" specimens, I'd love to have one. It's a nice design in many ways and I have a brand new scalarworks mount that's going to end up on ebay. Not willing to roll the dice at this point. Fool me once....

Posted: 9/17/2018 5:37:17 PM EDT

[#25]

Quote History

Quoted:
I've heard many complain and many say they love it. Either those who love it don't have anything better to compare it to or the parallax varies between individual optics. I've only owned one and it was bad. To pop a prairie dog at 30yds and be confident I'd have to center the dot. I know.. it's not a hunting optic. Sure, it will hit a human torso (somewhere), but if the owner of that torso has a hold of my child the parallax is a big deal. Not an issue with my aimpoints or eotech. The 2nd gen aimpoint micros may have some parallax, but it's significantly less and I think you're right that the smaller diameter limits POI shift.

At first I thought the FOV was great, but it accentuates the problem. Life doesn't always afford the opportunity for centering and a perfect cheek weld. If I have to take time to center the dot, might as well just use irons. If I got a lemon and there are optically "better" specimens, I'd love to have one. It's a nice design in many ways and I have a brand new scalarworks mount that's going to end up on ebay. Not willing to roll the dice at this point. Fool me once....

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

I don't own one, but I haven't seen any information that states the parallax problem was ever corrected in the later serial numbers. That was about the magnification issue.
I've seen it speculated that the problem is in the very short tube length compared to its diameter, meaning you can put your head at an extreme off angle and still see the dot and tsrget, compared to something like a Pro. It would be interesting to repeat the linked experiment but control the viewing angle to see if that was the critical variable in the scopes.

I've heard many complain and many say they love it. Either those who love it don't have anything better to compare it to or the parallax varies between individual optics. I've only owned one and it was bad. To pop a prairie dog at 30yds and be confident I'd have to center the dot. I know.. it's not a hunting optic. Sure, it will hit a human torso (somewhere), but if the owner of that torso has a hold of my child the parallax is a big deal. Not an issue with my aimpoints or eotech. The 2nd gen aimpoint micros may have some parallax, but it's significantly less and I think you're right that the smaller diameter limits POI shift.

At first I thought the FOV was great, but it accentuates the problem. Life doesn't always afford the opportunity for centering and a perfect cheek weld. If I have to take time to center the dot, might as well just use irons. If I got a lemon and there are optically "better" specimens, I'd love to have one. It's a nice design in many ways and I have a brand new scalarworks mount that's going to end up on ebay. Not willing to roll the dice at this point. Fool me once....

The aimpoint T1 isn't going to be much better.

https://www.greeneyetactical.com/2017/07/27/comparative-study-of-red-dot-sight-parallax/

Not super scientific, but interesting results.

You mentioned the larger FOV on the MRO could cause increased error. Very possible. But in a shooting situation where speed is necessary, and you don't have time to think about lining everything up, you would rather have no dot or a dot which is slightly off?

The T2 is definitely a better optic then the MRO or PRO. But also costs twice ass much. The T1 is similar performance to the MRO and PRO, but still costs more.

Posted: 9/17/2018 7:42:17 PM EDT

[#26]

I have both. MRO has a larger field of view and is lighter. Both have long battery lives. I like the MRO better because of weight, view, brightens knob location, turrets and a small foot print on rail. ( Oh, and I have 2 MRO's)

Posted: 9/21/2018 2:20:11 AM EDT

[#27]

All Trijicon dot sights are optically crap basically. Always a dark blue tinted lens to get their crappy LED or tritium dots to show up and have decent battery life. In the dark the optic blinds your dominant eye like wearing sunglasses. They also dont use a propper aspheric lens shape to eliminate parallax and appearant magnification. If a guy is an optics snob he will hate the MRO. If a guy thinks Chinese scopes and red dots look fine, he would be ok with an MRO. Just be honest about which camp you are in and go look through one in a store. Id pick a T2 or M5. If I was poor, an Aimpoint PRO. For a handgun micro red dot, a Leupold Delta Point Pro.

Posted: 9/21/2018 3:49:12 PM EDT

[#28]

Quote History

Quoted:
All Trijicon dot sights are optically crap basically. Always a dark blue tinted lens to get their crappy LED or tritium dots to show up and have decent battery life. In the dark the optic blinds your dominant eye like wearing sunglasses. They also dont use a propper aspheric lens shape to eliminate parallax and appearant magnification. If a guy is an optics snob he will hate the MRO. If a guy thinks Chinese scopes and red dots look fine, he would be ok with an MRO. Just be honest about which camp you are in and go look through one in a store. Id pick a T2 or M5. If I was poor, an Aimpoint PRO. For a handgun micro red dot, a Leupold Delta Point Pro.

View Quote

I only have real time behind the SRS. I won;t speak declaratively of the MRO here, but these negative aspects were prevalent on that RDS

I would also state, as a former owner of five T1's, the T2 is much better. I think the MRO compares favorably in value to the overpriced T1

Posted: 9/25/2018 1:53:52 AM EDT

[#29]

PRO

Posted: 9/29/2018 4:46:14 PM EDT

[#30]

Quote History

Quoted:
Maybe it’s just my eyes but it seems like the two MROs I looked through had a SLIGHT magnification. Like 1.015 magnification, it would drive me nuts. Maybe someone else has the seen the same thing?

View Quote

I concur. I really want to like the optic, but can’t do it.

Posted: 9/29/2018 8:41:01 PM EDT

[#31]

Quote History

Quoted:
I concur. I really want to like the optic, but can’t do it.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
Maybe it’s just my eyes but it seems like the two MROs I looked through had a SLIGHT magnification. Like 1.015 magnification, it would drive me nuts. Maybe someone else has the seen the same thing?

I concur. I really want to like the optic, but can’t do it.

Aimpoints have that much magnification. that's a negligible number. Now 1.05x is more material and as much as I've read some claiming

Posted: 9/29/2018 10:15:11 PM EDT

[#32]

I have both. The MRO is on an 11.5 BCM and the PRO is on a 6720. I lean 60% to 40 in favor of the PRO. It is larger, but I still slightly prefer it. It's easier for me to "look through." I wouldn't be upset if I had two MROs, but on the SBR I would still like a smaller RDS than the PRO, and I like the price point compared to a T2.

I will say, the clear lens covers for the MRO are shit. The minute someone makes a better set than TD/Trij ones, I will buy them in a heart beat.

Posted: 9/30/2018 6:32:09 PM EDT

[#33]

Quote History

Quoted:
I will say, the clear lens covers for the MRO are shit. The minute someone makes a better set than TD/Trij ones, I will buy them in a heart beat.

View Quote

I agree, the Trijicon clear lens covers are complete crap, especially when compared to Aimpoint offerings. If my patrol vehicle wasn’t so dusty, I’d take them off my MRO.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - MRO vrs PRO

AR-15 » Optics, Mounts, and Sights

AR Sponsor:

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us