Based on consumer concerns over point of impact shifts across temperature ranges after the EOTech debacle, Trijicon has been offering this statement to their customers regarding the new MRO’s performance. As you can see, it was written in late 2015 and hasn’t been out in the public domain. Trijicon wrote it simply to advise customers and not to shine a spotlight on other brands.
Tags: Trijicon
Has anyone done such testing on Aimpoint T1/T2 sights? I wonder if it is comparable for them.
Someone said that Norway did some testing on Aimpoint Comp M4 along with other options (such as Eotech) at the time of the 416 testing, apparently there is a good reason why every 416 in Norway comes with a Aimpoint instead of any other optic out there.
Comp M4, the “Thor’s Hammer” of optics.
There is a thread on m4carbine.net on the MRO vs. T2 where someone tested at T1 in a lab setting and found no shift.
However I believe the temperatures were not as extreme as the equipment could not drop past a certain degree.
Just a wild guess, but I’d wager that lab test fixtures could exceed most if not all temps found in nature.
Aimpoint makes outstanding optics, however after shooting both the Aimpoint Micro’s and the Trijicon MRO, I chose the MRO because of the 25mm objective lens as it makes target acquisition and engagement much faster. I also appreciate that it is submersible, needs no adjuster caps and no special sight adjustment tools. Also being that it is about $200 less than the Aimpoint’s makes it a no brainer.
thanks for sharing the info. I’ve been looking at the MRO.
I am a huge Aimpoint fan, but I never really liked the Micro’s because of the small tube. I run either Pro’s or Comp M4s because of the larger 30mm tube.
I’d be interested in seeing the test results on the PRO.
Trijicon did not state what the standard deviation of their testing is. In other words, the numbers they quote could be their “ideal” set from the test where there were a population of devices that had more drift and some with less drift.
I’m willing to bet, it is little better than EoTech’s outcome. Read through their disclaimers.
I seriously doubt it will be on the same scale as EoTech’s screw up. EoTech claimed their devices had little to no thermal shift for over a decade, stated they did testing to prove it, and sold products to the DoD under such claims. They lied BIG TIME. They actively deceived customers with false advertising all the while doing nothing to try and address the issue they knew about. Hence the settlement with the DoD and the offer to refund any purchase. Because if they hadn’t done that L3 would have been sued into oblivion.
Trijicon’s situation is more “Hey, we’ve got this new product, and people are really worried about Thermal Drift right now so we went ahead and performed testing, and yes it has thermal drift but really not that much so you probably don’t need to worry about”
Can we all stop fanboying over the MRO.
It has a slight magnification to it . so its not a true reddot.
Now with a thermal shift defect – its a bad quality product.
Yes it looks cool, its not a Aimpoint T-1 so the masses will want it because its different.
I loved it, but now realises its truly a inferior product.
If it didn´t have “Trijicon” on it, we wouldn´t have given it a second glance.
“Now with a thermal shift defect-it’s a bad product”
Either you are trolling or you don’t realize every optic in the world has thermal drift. They are all glass, metal, polymer and adhesives and those materials expand and contract when introduced to heat and cold, period. There is no stopping physics. This happens with your $99 red dot and your $5000 scope. The key is reducing the drift as much as possible.
Burdy is right you know
Please contact me to discuss your issues with the slight magnification and thermal drift issues as I’m extremely interested in your feedback. Thanks! Jmoir@trijicon.com
“I’m more Operator”, “NO! I’m more Operator”
If it gets so cold that I need to worry about any of it…I obviously missed my right turn to the beach a long way back!