Harder on electronics due to G load of the slide. But not physically harder on the optic body/lens.
Harder on electronics due to G load of the slide. But not physically harder on the optic body/lens.
Everything this a compromise I guess, Trijicon knew probably going for the larger window is going to sacrifice the raw ability to shurg off blunt force to the body of the SRO.
But if they beefed the electronics up to give the SRO a longer round service life. I'll scratch that as a win in my book.
I am yet to break the body or lens of a pistol mounted optic, although I am well north of 20 failures of the electronics from shooting them.
I take manufacturer claims with a grain salt, because they may be biased or their testing program just does not simulate the forces shooting places on the optic.
I think 6-12 months into service, we will have a good idea how the SRO (and Acro) hold up to impact and shooting.
Likes pretty much everything in every caliber.
I must have missed the brightness lock feature in previous videos or posts. Man someone was definitely thinking there.
I still remember when MagPul introduced the PMAG it was supposed to be a cheap training alternative to USGI aluminum magazines. That was the initial marketing - and I think it was smart. Trijicon may be doing the same thing with the SRO.
![]()
Still totally excited to put this on a pistol, my LGS/range has one of their first shipped with my name on it.
The stupidity of some people never ceases to amaze me.
Humbly improving with CZ's.