Page 2 of 22 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 215

Thread: Trijicon SRO--Anyone else had problems?

  1. #11
    I believe that while all the red dots are less reliable than the pistols they are mounted on, 2019 has brought more positive developments in pistol mounted optics than the previous five years combined.

    Trijicon has not marketed the SRO as a duty optic and I think it does exceptionally well for the uses it was designed for.
    Likes pretty much everything in every caliber.

  2. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Tod-13 View Post
    Given we have pages and pages of broken dot discussion and dissection on this site, I think "not ready" is a fair determination. When GJM and his wife can go a year using any of the top brands (say Leupold, Trijicon, and Aimpoint) and not break one, to me that means "ready". You may have a more flexible definition of ready.
    People I am going to trust about red dots:

    Hilton Yam, Scott Jedlinski, Aaron Cowan, and other verified SMEs, who have all demonstrated that the Type 2 RMR is in some cases more reliable than iron sights on a pistol.

    Some random guy on a forum who shoots a little bit? Lol nah.

  3. #13
    Site Supporter Clobbersaurus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Waaaay out west.
    Quote Originally Posted by jetfire View Post
    in some cases more reliable than iron sights on a pistol.
    This is an interesting statement. I would be interested to hear the tests and observations from said SME’s that generated it.
    "Next time somebody says USPSA or IPSC is all hosing, junk punch them." - Les Pepperoni
    --

  4. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Clobbersaurus View Post
    This is an interesting statement. I would be interested to hear the tests and observations from said SME’s that generated it.
    I know Aaron has had people's front sights divorce themselves from their guns during classes and had the dot not fail on those same guns.

    I've had two or three front sights fly off, and one rear sight come the whole way out of its dovetail on various iron sight guns, but I've never had a dot shit the bed.

  5. #15
    That's a pretty solid list of random people who shoot a little that you put up there.

    To the point of reliability, I just had an open emitter dot rendered unusable by rain until I used q tips and hairdryer on it in my hotel that night. Wasn't the RMR, but I doubt it would've done better.
    Last edited by YVK; 10-25-2019 at 08:40 AM.
    Doesn't read posts longer than two paragraphs.

  6. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by YVK View Post
    That's a pretty solid list of random people who shoot a little that you put up there.

    To the point of reliability, I just had an open emitter dot rendered unusable by rain until I used q tips and hairdryer on it in my hotel that night. Wasn't the RMR, but I doubt it would've done better.
    It's also worth noting that the red dot landscape has changed considerably in the last 6-7 years as well. I was having lunch with one of the people on that list about 6 years ago, and we were talking about the concept was good but the technology wasn't quite ready yet, especially with the older Type 1 RMRs.

    Since that time, Loopy and Trijicon have made some really good technological advancements in their dots, with the Type 2 RMR obviously leading the way. But we're now at a point where even some Chinesium dot like the Holosun is getting rave review from Yeti, who's run a gajillion rounds through one with no issues. That matters a lot to me, albeit not enough that I'm selling my RMRs for Holosuns. But it speaks to the general increase in reliability in dots.

  7. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Heading for the hills
    Quote Originally Posted by jetfire View Post
    People I am going to trust about red dots:

    Hilton Yam, Scott Jedlinski, Aaron Cowan, and other verified SMEs, who have all demonstrated that the Type 2 RMR is in some cases more reliable than iron sights on a pistol.

    Some random guy on a forum who shoots a little bit? Lol nah.
    I hope I am misinterpreting something with the above comment. Heh,... back in the days of the 10-8 forum Hilton lead me/us down the Kimber trail. I have very distinct memories of taking receipt of my Kimber Warrior (remember that one?), and then being quite confused and troubled when my $1,000+ pistol would not run; not even with the magazines recommended by Hilton. Was that Hilton's fault? Nope. That was on Kimber. But I have to wonder how much Hilton was compensated (in one form or another) to recommend the Kimber. That carries over to today with these guys - are they being compensated to steer folks toward certain gear?

    More to the point, if GJM is the "random guy on a forum who shoots a little bit" - yeah, I'll trust what he says. All. Day. Long.

  8. #18
    ..

    Deleted due to thread drift.
    Last edited by cornstalker; 10-26-2019 at 08:36 AM.

  9. #19
    @Tensaw, funny you mentioned Yam and Kimber. My first 1911 was a Kimber, also bought because of what Yam wrote on his site, and it also didn't run worth a damn. Yam later removed that stuff, but not before I lost several hundred bucks on a trade. In that case my impression was that he knew a lot less about those guns than he thought he did, not that he received any kickbacks.

    In this particular optics discussion case, the names that Caleb mentioned, I don't think there's much of a commercial bias, and type 2 RMR is an easy recommendation anyway.
    Last edited by YVK; 10-26-2019 at 08:52 AM.
    Doesn't read posts longer than two paragraphs.

  10. #20
    Unless you happen to be the guy that has an emitter lens fall out of a Type 2 in the first 200 rounds. But as I have previously stated, some guys can use a product to hammer in nails and not damage it, I can break it getting it out of the box.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •