New Trijicon RMR/SRO Hybrid

[Archer1440]

I do like the little BUIS line on top. Nifty little feature.

Lots of dialed-in RMR users put a skunk stripe along the saddle as a backup indexing aid in case the things ever go down. You can do good work even at extended distances with a properly indexed RMR using that and the "horns". Learned that lesson from Erick Gelhaus, along with many other lessons.

[Trukinjp13]

Lots of dialed-in RMR users put a skunk stripe along the saddle as a backup indexing aid in case the things ever go down. You can do good work even at extended distances with a properly indexed RMR using that and the "horns". Learned that lesson from Erick Gelhaus, along with many other lessons.

I always set the head in the horns lol. Worked well and was fast.

509 mrd the rmr will direct mount. So take a plate like fcd with proper length screws and how the plate sets into factory milled section she will clamp down nice and tight. I have the chpws deal on mine because I got it dirt cheap. Its okay. I’d prefer the steel and girth of the fcd personally.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DaBigBR]

Sticking with the RMR footprint seems like what we should expect. I just don't see them capitulating and using somebody else's pattern. They didn't do it with the MRO, they didn't do it with the RMRcc, and they aren't doing so here at launch. I'm curious if the odd screw system would somehow allow a very thin plate with a Zev post or T-nut or something to allow you to add an Acro, 509T, or other cross-bolt type plate. I just can't see them doing it, though.

We can dream, I guess.

I have to think different dot sizes are coming. The commitment to the 3.25 dot would imply a 1.0/3.25/6.5 array instead of the SRO's 1.0/2.5/5.0. Also curious that the circle/dot from the RMR HD isn't here. I don't have any interest in a circle/dot, but why not include it in both new optics?

I will say that one thing I like about Trijicon on new products is they generally don't tease them super early so hopefully we'll see these in the wild sooner than later.

[Erick Gelhaus]

Regarding footprints - yes, for open emitters most have gravitated to the RMR footprint, even though I’ll see the occasional use of Leupold’s on a new design;
I have not yet anyone duplicate the 509T footprint, no one;
At least six, if not seven, enclosed optics have come out with footprints that match or are pretty damn close to Aimpoint’s.

Regardless, I look for to seeing these on others’ guns.

[stomridertx]

If they’re smart, they’ll come out with an ACRO footprint RCR model down the road. I get why they went RMR footprint and it makes sense. But coming out with an ACRO footprint also makes sense. The top two (I think) footprints out there for their target consumer base.

That means Trijicon essentially admits that Aimpoint, their biggest competitor in the contract space, came out with a better mounting system than them and they will concede and adopt it. Does that sound like Trijicon to you?
When they launched the MRO, it didn't come with a T1 interface and it very easily could have.

[stomridertx]

Regarding footprints - yes, for open emitters most have gravitated to the RMR footprint, even though I’ll see the occasional use of Leupold’s on a new design;
I have not yet anyone duplicate the 509T footprint, no one;
At least six, if not seven, enclosed optics have come out with footprints that match or are pretty damn close to Aimpoint’s.

Regardless, I look for to seeing these on others’ guns.

They should probably rethink that, because the 509t would allow them to make a smaller optic. All of the Acro footprint dots are noticeably larger. Let's put a reduced size pic rail on slides and be done with it.

[Erick Gelhaus]

They should probably rethink that, because the 509t would allow them to make a smaller optic. All of the Acro footprint dots are noticeably larger. Let's put a reduced size pic rail on slides and be done with it.

I only pointed out what the manufacturers are doing. And, who should re-think it?

[stomridertx]

I only pointed out what the manufacturers are doing. And, who should re-think it?

I'm not challenging what you said, you are right. Steiner, CHPWS, and a lot of mid tier dots are coming out with the Acro footprint and no one is copying the 509t. I'm just stating my opinion that I think they are chasing the wrong horse as I think copying the Acro is not going to compete against it. As much as Holosun copies, with the 509t I think they were smart in making their enclosed emitter optics smaller than the Acro at the cost of having to make their own footprint. The 509t has plate and optic cut options just as plentiful as the Acro.

[sparky-kb]

I wonder how you get an accurate torque reading with something like that...

I wonder if it isn't mechanically limited somehow based on the design. I'm guessing it's engineered in a way that following the installation instructions and using loctite will get you into an acceptable torque window without a torque wrench. Something to do with the hole spacing on the screw head, counting rotations or holes used, and hitting that acceptable range once the rod hits the sight body after x amount of turns/holes used would be my guess.

[Tokarev]

Holosun doesn't seem to have any qualms about proprietary footprint. I think they'd actually be smart to intro a 509 that uses the ACRO mount.

With that said, wasn't it in another thread that @GJM or someone was recently talking to Langdon about dots? Whoever it was said the 509 applies more clamping force that the acro clamp.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk