Anyone running an MRO HD???

[SJBriggs]

Hi all,

 

I have a JP GMR-15 on order and I'm currently looking into optics. I see that a popular option is the Holosun 510c with the circle/dot reticle, but is anyone here running the new Trijicon MRO HR? It looks like it has a reticle pretty similar to the Holosun, but at price consistent with what you would expect from Trijicon. I'm not particularly brand loyal, but Trijicon has always been a pretty damn reliable choice. As they say: Buy once, cry once.

 

Thanks in advance!

[jnr88]

I ran a MRO on a JP. It’s a great sight. I’m presently running one on a open gun. It’s great for that also.

[ltdmstr]

Pretty sure most people running the Holosun are using just the dot, not the dot/circle.  So the regular MRO would be comparable.  I've tried the dot/circle on the Holosun and found it too big and distracting.  I also don't care for the green dot.  I have several of the regular MROs on rifles and like it a lot.  I bought the 510C for a new JP PCC but am probably going to sell it and run an MRO.

[CHA-LEE]

If you are into shooting beyond 100 yards make sure that the new MRO HD doesn't have the same parallax issues that the original MRO did. I had a couple of MRO's and used them for 223 carbine matches which normally has 6 - 8 inch steel targets out to 200 yards. The Parallax was so bad on the MRO's that if the dot wasn't in the center of the glass while engaging full size USPSA targets at 200 yards the point of impact shift was completely off target. So trying to hit a 6 - 8 inch steel plate at 200 yards with the dot not in dead center of the glass was a misery of endless misses. This match usually puts the competitors in funky shooting positions for the 200 yard steel and this wouldn't always afford the opportunity of putting the dot in the middle of the glass while it was still on target and in a steady hold. The MRO was great for aggressive shooting within 100 yards and using a normal shooting position/cheek weld on the stock. But it was useless for the distance precision shots unless the dot was dead center in the glass. 

 

I sold all of my MRO's and switched to the EOTech XPS2-1 which is the 1MOA only reticle. The XPS and EXPS EOTech sights have very little parallax shift at distance. In my testing the parallax shift was only 5 - 6 inches at 200 yards with the red dot at the extreme outer edges of the glass. If the red dot is anywhere in the middle "Meat" of the glass the parallax point of impact shift is only an inch or two at the most which is really impressive. The other huge advantage the EOTech sights have over most other red dot sights on the market is mega brightness of the dot and 20 brightness levels. Not to mention the much smaller 1 MOA dot which makes distance shots that much easier because the dot is consuming less of the target.

 

I also tried the Holosun 510C which has much less Parallax POI shift than the MRO, but was still worst than the EOTech XPS2. I had three functionality/feature issues with the 510C. The first was that the adjustment clicks were not granular enough to get it sighted in dead on at 50 yards, much less 200. It was always off by at least half an inch at 50 yards which is exponentially worse at 200 yards. The second issue was the "Postage Stamp" reticle glare issue, that is as big as the 60MOA circle, in certain lighting conditions. When the "Postage Stamp" glare issue happens its mega distracting as the retical is a blotchy red mess. The final issue is that at the upper end of the brightness settings the steps in brightness are too big. When engaging the 200 yard plates I always found myself forced into using a brightness level that was too low and it would wash out making it hard to find and put on the target, or it was too bright and it would make the dot consume too much of the target. That being said, its hard for me to bag on the 510C given its cheap price. This is a great optic for its price and I believe that the fully enclosed 512 version resolves the postage stamp issue. If I shot PCC in USPSA and was on a strict budget for an optic I wouldn't hesitate in putting a 510C or 512 on it.

 

I don't even want to say how much $$$ I have blown on testing different red dot optics over the years, but its a significant amount. I obviously have not tested all of the available red dot sights on the market as my wallet isn't that thick. But for the testing I have done, the best overall red dot sight I have proven to be the best in my own testing is the EOTech XPS2-1. The XPS2-1 checks all of the critical functionality boxes that I find important and know make the task of shooting stuff easier and more consistent. The only drawback to the EOTech sights is their Laser Holographic design chews up batteries much faster (600 Hours) than most modern LED style red dot sights (50,000 Hours). I can see how the much reduced battery life of the EOTech sights would get the tactical Timmy crowd's nickers in a twist. But I could care less. I use my rifles for competition and simply turn them Off/On as needed and swap the batteries whenever needed or proactively once a year anyway. 

 

Unless the way over priced MRO HD magically fixes all of its prior versions issues and can exceed the features and functions of the EOTech sights, I wouldn't suggest getting one. I also want to point out that I don't have any association with any of these sight manufactures. I am simply a consumer that has invested his own money into testing what is popular on the market while attempting to find the best option that will maximize my performance on the range. I am not brand loyal either as whatever works best is what I choose to use. What works best for your use case and budget may be completely different. 

[ltdmstr]

Those are all relevant points.  And I agree that an MRO is a poor choice for anything with moderate or greater distance.  But for indoor use, and PCC, I'm pretty happy with it.  The longest stage I've ever shot at a USPSA match was 50 yard standards.  And probably 95% or more are under 20 yards.  So I don't think parallax is much of a factor.  The MRO is compact, rugged, reliable, has great battery life, and has good adjustability.  So I'd say it's a good optic for close quarters stuff.  Beyond that, not so much.

[SJBriggs]

All great info, and I really appreciate the in-depth responses. I didn't know about the parallax issues on the MRO, as I've never shot one far enough for it to make a difference. I've had quite a bit of experience with the EOTech XPS2-1, and it wasn't overly positive. I've zero'd and shot dozens of them, and the lack of a positive click with many of the optics leads me to question their QC standards. We've also had issues with the glass actually falling out on one of the older models. Fortunately, the company took care of those optics.

 

So, is nobody running the circle reticle due the added distraction of a more complex reticle? If Trijicon took care of the parallax issue, the HD may not be a bad option. 

[CHA-LEE]

33 minutes ago, SJBriggs said:

All great info, and I really appreciate the in-depth responses. I didn't know about the parallax issues on the MRO, as I've never shot one far enough for it to make a difference. I've had quite a bit of experience with the EOTech XPS2-1, and it wasn't overly positive. I've zero'd and shot dozens of them, and the lack of a positive click with many of the optics leads me to question their QC standards. We've also had issues with the glass actually falling out on one of the older models. Fortunately, the company took care of those optics.

 

So, is nobody running the circle reticle due the added distraction of a more complex reticle? If Trijicon took care of the parallax issue, the HD may not be a bad option. 

 

I personally don't like the big 60ish MOA circles in the reticle. To me it clutters up the glass too much. I know some people love it though.

 

As far as the Parallax issues with these optics, rest assured there isn't a red dot on the market that DOESN'T have some level of parallax. If a manufacture claims that their sight is "Parallax Free" they are 100% lying. All you can do is pick the optics that have the least amount of parallax. Or if you are primarily shredding targets at rage blast speeds within 25 yards it really doesn't matter much even if a sight has very bad parallax issues.

[philmadxx]

On 5/4/2020 at 7:35 PM, ltdmstr said:

Pretty sure most people running the Holosun are using just the dot, not the dot/circle.  So the regular MRO would be comparable.  I've tried the dot/circle on the Holosun and found it too big and distracting.  I also don't care for the green dot.  I have several of the regular MROs on rifles and like it a lot.  I bought the 510C for a new JP PCC but am probably going to sell it and run an MRO.

I shoot with a number of people who use the 510c, as I do.  Most, if not all of them use the circle and dot.  I use it and find it much faster to acquire.  I think the key to using the circle-dot is to keep the brightness down lower than you would with just the dot.  When it's bright, it overpowers the sight picture but when it is lower, you can focus more on the target, not the sight.  

Phil 

[ck1]

I've run both, and for me the circle-dot reticle, while cool at first, is way too busy for me to track under recoil and had me making a bunch of fast, but sloppy, shots... That said, some guys love it, so if you want to try it for yourself I'd overwhelmingly tell you to get the Holosun over the MRO HD. The early reviews I've seen of the newer MRO HD have not been very kind, and for what they cost it should be all roses.

Even if you end up preferring the dot-only, I'd still recommend the 510C over an original MRO, having had a few examples of both, the MRO pretty much sucks IMO, it has noticeable magnification and is all kinds of distorted compared to most other dots out there and I don't even know how guys who run them can stand it... (FWIW, I'm no Trijicon-hater either, I just plunked down a cool $1000 for a couple SRO's.)

 

Edited May 6, 2020 by ck1