Aimpoint pro vs trijicon mro

[mi223]

Looking at these two red dots. Both are at a comparable price point.

Aimpoint has a longer track record but the mro looks solid.

Both have a several year battery life so that is non issue as I will change them every year or so.

Biggest factor I see is the aimpoint is heavier and more bulky.

I am willing to look at anything else in this 400-500 dollar range.

Want to hear what you guys recommend here

Thanks

 

[TheHorta]

Aimpoint T2.

BOCO.

 

[kl3309]

Aimpoint ACO is comparable to the PRO but is a little bit less expensive. ACO has shorter battery life but not a problem since you're on a replacement schedule. ACO has more daylight settings than PRO so may give you slightly better adjustability for lighting conditions. ACO has a simpler mount than the PRO. SportOptics had a seriously good deal on ACOs earlier this year but you may have to wait on stock.

Both ACO and PRO have a looking-through-a-tube effect that the MRO does not. Aimpoints have a cleaner-looking dot though (to my eyes anyway).

 

[308pirate]

MRO by a mile

 

[Rudy Gonsior]

Aimpoint.

Not all but a vast majority of MRO’s I’ve seen come through classes (probably 10-12 this year) have exhibited massive amounts of parallax.

Here is a vignette: Back in the spring we had 4 dudes, all from one agency running MROs in a Night Vision Operator course and said “This won’t go well.” And sure as shit not a single one of those dudes could print a group less than 6-8” at 50yds. We threw a T2 on and all the guns knotted up to useable 1-2” at 50yds. Of course they all said “I’ve never seen an issue before?!?!” Guess how many want to run the MRO instead of the T2?

I am not sure in what world a optic that runs the risk of turning your rifle in to a 12-14 MOA poker is worth anything, but you literally could not even give me an MRO for free.

 

[tanders11]

Keep your eye out on the used market for a t-2. If thats not an option I'd go with the PRO.

 

[Molon]

Aimpoint.

Not all but a vast majority of MRO’s I’ve seen come through classes (probably 10-12 this year) have exhibited massive amounts of parallax.

Yup.

Observations On The Effect Of Parallax Error
When Shooting With An Aimpoint Comp M5 And A Trijicon MRO​

Some manufacturers of red-dot sights have made claims that their red-dot sights are “parallax free“. Most of us are already aware that this is simply not true at all distances. Inherent parallax error with a red-dot sight is typically greatest at CQB distances (MOA wise) and decreases as the distance to the target increases.

In this ballistic exercise we’ll be looking at the amount of parallax error occuring during objective, controlled, live-fire testing at the distances of 7 yards, 15 yards, 25 yards and 50 yards when shooting with an Aimpoint Comp M5 and a Trijicon MRO mounted on a precision AR-15. The Aimpoint Comp M5 has a 2 MOA red dot, as does the Trijicon MRO.

All shooting for this exercise was conducted from my bench-rest set-up using one of my precision AR-15s. This AR-15 has a 20” Lothar Walther barrel with a 223 Wylde chamber and 1:8” twist and it routinely produces 0.75 MOA 10-shot groups at 100 yards (with a high magnification scope). The ammunition used for this exercise was one of my match-grade hand-loads topped with the Sierra 52 grain MatchKing. Wind conditions on the range were monitored using a Wind Probe. The set-up was very similar to that pictured below.

The barrel . . .

10-shot group at 100 yards . . .

The Wind Probe . . .

The Details


The methodology for this ballistic exercise was as follows . . .

Shooting from the bench-rest set-up with the Aimpoint Comp M5 atop the precision AR-15 at the initial distance of 7 yards, an 8-shot control group was fired with the red-dot centered in the sight window. Next, an 8-shot parallax test-group was fired in the following manner:

2 shots fired with the red-dot positioned in the extreme 12 o’clock position of the sight window.

2 shots fired with the red-dot positioned in the extreme 3 o’clock position of the sight window.

2 shots fired with the red-dot positioned in the extreme 6 o’clock position of the sight window.

2 shots fired with the red-dot positioned in the extreme 9 o’clock position of the sight window.


Additional 8-shot parallax test-groups were then fired sequentially at 15 yards, 25 yards and 50 yards in the manner described above. This simple methodology is illustrated in the two pics shown below. The solid black dot on the target was the point-of-aim.



The 8-shot control group at 7 yards . . .

The 8-shot parallax test-group at 7 yards . . .

Aimpoint Comp M5 Results

The 8-shot control group fired at 7 yards had an extreme spread of 0.039”, which at 7 yards is 0.53 MOA. The extreme spreads of the parallax test-groups are shown in the table below.

Trijicon MRO Results

I repeated the ballistic exercise described above using a 2nd-generation Trijicon MRO with a 2 MOA red-dot. The results are shown in the table below.

I also conducted the 50 yard portion of the parallax test using another 2nd-generation Trijicon MRO with a 2 MOA red-dot. The results were nearly identical to that of the first MRO. The extreme spread of the 8-shot parallax test-group was 7.46”, which at 50 yards is 14.3 MOA.


Comparisons

The tables and graphs below show the results from both the Aimpoint Comp M5 and the Trijicon MRO, side-by-side, for comparison.

Results in minutes of angle . . .

Results in inches . . .

…..





...

 

[bgolf92]

I have both and both seem to be good red dots. The aimpoint dot seems to be a little sharper. I really like the size of the MRO so that’s why I bought it for my B&T apc9. I know my aimpoint doesn’t have a parallax issue but since I only shoot the MRO at a max of 25yds if it had an issue I wouldn’t know. If size is a big selling point for you the MRO is a good option if you don’t care about size then I might recommend the aimpoint.

 

[CrabsandFootball]

Aimpoint hands down and its not even a discussion.

At one time I had 6 MROs. Have run them in a ton of courses and probably have 20K rounds through them.

Sold them all and went back to Aimpoint PROS.

MRO is a poorly designed piece of shit, which you will see explained many times if you do a search.

Anyone saying different, doesn't know what the fuck they are talking about.

I refuse to pay compM5 Prices so will rock the Aimpoint pros unless I can snag cheap T2/H2's for under $500. Even older M2/M3's are good go to.

 

[CrabsandFootball]

Aimpoint.

Not all but a vast majority of MRO’s I’ve seen come through classes (probably 10-12 this year) have exhibited massive amounts of parallax.

Here is a vignette: Back in the spring we had 4 dudes, all from one agency running MROs in a Night Vision Operator course and said “This won’t go well.” And sure as shit not a single one of those dudes could print a group less than 6-8” at 50yds. We threw a T2 on and all the guns knotted up to useable 1-2” at 50yds. Of course they all said “I’ve never seen an issue before?!?!” Guess how many want to run the MRO instead of the T2?

I am not sure in what world a optic that runs the risk of turning your rifle in to a 12-14 MOA poker is worth anything, but you literally could not even give me an MRO for free.

A Ton of Paralax
Shitty Glass quality
Blue Tint ALA RMR
Fish eye effect due to magnification in the 1.2x range
Piss poor battery design resulting in destroyed optics.
Looks like a frogs dick with a 3X G33 Mag.
Factory mount quality and hardware is shit resulting in stripped fasteners.

I tried to ignore the issues for years due to their cost and they do hold zero and shoot fine under 300 yards. Got sick of the shit and went back to aim point and now happier than ever.

 

[mi223]

So definitely sounds like the aimpoint is the way to go.

I have read about many of the issues you guys have mentioned with the mro, but it still gets a pass for many of the reviews I have read.

I can get the pro slightly cheaper so that might make it an easy choice

 

[oldfatguy]

So definitely sounds like the aimpoint is the way to go.

I have read about many of the issues you guys have mentioned with the mro, but it still gets a pass for many of the reviews I have read.

I can get the pro slightly cheaper so that might make it an easy choice

Aim point PRO.

OFG

 

[longshot2000]

MRO by a mile

Really? I have had exactly the opposite experience. The MRO has not been a very good seller either, but Trijicon is a tough brand. A few outstanding items, and alot of rush to the bottom on pricing, so as a dealer, we tend to be thin on Trijicon. Love some of their products.

The MRO has had issues with a halo ring inside that never took to me. Aimpoint T2 is hard to beat. The Compm5 can be trown off a cliff. When the MRO first came out, I had two personally, but something was just not right with the red dot. I wanted it to work, but could not compare to how solid everything Aimpoint is.

 

[GordonsGarage]

You're comparing apples and oranges in my opinion, your intended use will determine what's best for that gun.
I have both, and own/have shot numerous others.
The PRO is hands down the answer for a hard use, duty, apocalypse type optic.
The MRO is more of a range, speed, fun type optic.
The PRO is physically large and weighs like 2.5x as much, more of a tube when looking down it but not bad, maybe a tad sharper dot, lens caps are handy, probably has a few more settings, limited on mount options, holding it you can tell she's ready to be run over with a car then picked up with likely very little poi change (not sure it's actually that tough, but it's a tank). Mine went several feet under water for about a half hour once, I can speak to its water proofness.
The MRO is very open when looking through it, its short and belled out to make vision closer to seamless around the body of the unit, adjustment knob on top so the sides can stay slimmer meaning less field of view loss, it's compact and light, plenty of mount options, mine lives in a scalar works mount that I'm fond of. Caps would be nice but not totally necessary if it's not going to live an overly rough life, battery life is still plenty good, not a perfect clear picture but nothing like my rmr with it's blurred glass and blueish tint. The MRO lives on a vector or a 22lr ar15 where speed on steel is the goal.

Aimpoint t2 may be a good compromise between the two but more monies. I'm not a fan of eotech, wouldn't mind putting more rounds through the vortex uh-1, seemed like a viable option with a short look at it.

I think your use will determine which to get, the real answer is both.

 

[BullzeyeNJ]

Ive looked through friends MRO's and its only made me feel better that I have Aimpoint T2s on my Ar15s.

 

[308pirate]

Those of you who complain about bluish tint and lens "distortion" must be the ones who try to see the world through that tiny window.

It would help you to learn how to use a reflex sight.

 

[AManWearingAHat]

PRO, mine has been bulletproof. Couldn't ask for a better red dot at that price point.

 

[CrabsandFootball]

Those of you who complain about bluish tint and lens "distortion" must be the ones who try to see the world through that tiny window.

It would help you to learn how to use a reflex sight.

Get the fuck out of here. I probably have more rounds and time through an MRO than ANYONE on this website. I had 6 carbines with a MRO on them at one time, including both my training guns.

Those that actually shoot understand this.

Those that don't, ignorance is bliss.

Its really sad the lengths people go to confirm their own purchases and bias dispite a mountain of evidence and users who report the same issues.

 

[Jigstick]

I was looking at these two optics when I was outfitting my SBR and ended up with a Gen 2 Huey Holographic and it’s been phenomenal. Like it better than the EOTech EXPS

 

[WizManBooks]

I’d go with the MRO, mostly because it’s lighter and less bulky. Also like that the MRO has an off setting in between the NVG settings and daylight settings, so you don’t have to spin through a bunch of settings that are rarely used when turning it on/off

 

[GordonsGarage]

Forgot about the off setting in the middle. Wouldn't make my decision but it's a nice touch they put in there.

 

[UpSideDown]

I got a CompM5 for $500 and absolutely love this optic. It is everything I could have hoped for in an optic. The T2/H2 is also a fantastic optic. I just don’t have the want to play with mediocre red dots now that I have enjoyed the highest tier of red dots. It does feel awkward to drop so much money on something that isn’t magnified, but the money is worth it. I really wanted an MRO but the high parallax and the tint were a no-go.

If you need to keep it budget then get the PRO. It’s a great dot and I’ve seen them new for $350, not sure if those prices are still standing.

 

[GordonsGarage]

I'll try to remember to get mine out tonight side by side and take a few pics

 

[pmclaine]

Job issues Aimpoint Pro.

My only red dot experience.

I am very impressed.

Its got a great price point, batteries last a long time, great adjustability on the dot, holds zero just fine bouncing around in a vehicle mount.

On steel great out to 125y or so without magnification, will hold COM, your eyes ability to target ID will determine distance.

Shooting two eyes open, plenty of field of view. Shooting recently in class at 125 yards and in distance seemed to be slightly faster than LPVO. Shooter skill may have been a factor.

 

[AManWearingAHat]

I got a CompM5 for $500 and absolutely love this optic. It is everything I could have hoped for in an optic. The T2/H2 is also a fantastic optic. I just don’t have the want to play with mediocre red dots now that I have enjoyed the highest tier of red dots. It does feel awkward to drop so much money on something that isn’t magnified, but the money is worth it. I really wanted an MRO but the high parallax and the tint were a no-go.

If you need to keep it budget then get the PRO. It’s a great dot and I’ve seen them new for $350, not sure if those prices are still standing.

Im jealous you picked up an M5 at that price. Im looking to upgrade from the PRO at some point (Put the PRO on the AK) but its a low priority.

 

[CrabsandFootball]

If you want deals pick up older m68, m2, comp, m3 ect aimpoints. The newer ones with the 2moa dot is preferable but they all work. We got 20 year old aimpoints were still running and they dont miss a beat.

I would rather pick up 2 or 3 used m2/m3/pro than pay for a new m4 or m5 or t2. I actually like the larger model better, more forgiving of head placement and heads up shooting as well as shooting from weird positions.

 

[Molon]

The newer ones with the 2moa dot is preferable . . .

A 4 MOA Aimpoint can be used just as affectively as a 2 MOA Aimpoint in the vast majority of practical situations that most shooters would be using a non-magnified red-dot sight on an AR-15.





Head Shots With Red Dots

For this ballistic exercise, I did a brief comparison of the level of accuracy that was attainable when aiming with four different “red-dot” sights. The following four optics were tested:


> Aimpoint Comp ML2 with a 4 MOA dot

> Aimpoint T1 with an advertised 4 MOA dot

> Aimpoint Comp M4S with a 2 MOA dot

> EoTech 551 with the 65 MOA ring/1 MOA dot





All shooting for this ballistic exercise was conducted from the bench at a distance of 50 yards using my Lothar-Walther barreled AR-15 and match-grade, hand-loaded ammunition. The head-targets used for this exercise were reduced in scale to simulate aiming at distances beyond 50 yards.

The testing was conducted at 50 yards in order to mitigate the variable of wind-drift that would have been significant if testing had been conducted at actual distances and to remove the vertical variation of the points of impact that would have occurred due to bullet drop at actual distances. The objective here was to determine what the limitation on accuracy was due to aiming with the various red-dot sights; not how well I could dope the wind and distance. Each optic was zeroed for POA=POI at 50 yards prior to testing, using 10-shot groups. All aiming was conducted with the entire dot of each optic placed on the head-target. (No aiming was done using just the bottom or top of the dot or holding the entire dot above or below the head-target.)


The targets used for this exercise are copies of the head portion of the Front Sight Official Training and Qualification Target. The Front Sight target is an “accurate representation of human dimensions taken from medical cadaver studies and 3000 x-ray studies.”

Only the head portion of the target was used so that no visual cues could be obtained from the larger body portion of the target. The full-sized head portion of the Front Sight target is approximately 6” wide by 9” high. The targets were sequentially reduced in scale to simulate the full-sized head targets from 75 yards to 600 yards (at the actual distance of 50 yards), in 25 yard increments. (Again, all shooting was actually conducted at 50 yards.)

The simple test procedure for this exercise was as follows: one shot and one shot only was fired at the head-targets in increasing simulated distance (smaller and smaller targets.) Testing for each optic ended when I missed a target on the first shot. The entire exercise was conducted twice, with the same results each time.

To establish a control base-line of accuracy, I tested a NightForce NXS 1-4X with the NP-1 reticle prior to testing the red-dot sights. Using the NightForce scope (set at 4X magnification) I was able to make first-round hits on the simulated 600 yard head-target (the farthest simulated distance that I used for this exercise.)

Aimpoint Comp ML2

Using the Aimpoint CompML2 with the 4 MOA dot I was able to obtain first round hits on the simulated 225 yard head-target.

Aimpoint T1

Using the Aimpoint T1 with the advertised 4 MOA dot I was able to obtain first round hits on the simulated 250 yard head-target.

EoTech 551

Using the EoTech 551 with the 65 MOA ring/1 MOA dot reticle (and aiming with the 1 MOA dot) I was able to obtain first round hits on the simulated 375 yard head-target.

Aimpoint Comp M4S

Using the Aimpoint Comp M4S with the 2 MOA dot I was able to obtain first round hits on the simulated 400 yard head-target.

Precision Shooting With an Aimpoint



First and foremost, the Aimpoint red dot sight is a combat sight. Its primary purpose is for use in situations that require “reflexive shooting” at multiple targets, at close ranges. The Aimpoint excels in this type of shooting because it easily allows you to shoot with both eyes open and to focus on the target while shooting. However, should the need arise (for example, making a head-shot on an aggressor at 100 yards who has most of his body behind hard cover) the Aimpoint sight is certainly up to the task of making precision shots at reasonable distances.



There are those who claim that when using an Aimpoint sight with a four minute of angle dot, that it is not possible to shoot groups that are smaller than four minutes of angle in extreme spread. One such person has gone so far as to claim that groups shot from 100 yards using an Aimpoint with a 4 MOA dot will be “greater than 4 inches. Usually much greater.” As we shall soon see, such statements are completely false.



To determine the level of precision obtainable when using an Aimpoint sight with a 4 MOA dot, I mounted an Aimpoint ML2 with a 4 MOA dot on one of my Krieger barreled AR-15s. This AR-15 is easily capable of producing consistent sub-MOA 10-shot groups at 100 yards when using a high magnification scope. Shooting with the Aimpoint sight was done from a bench-rest at a distance of 100 yards using NRA 200 yard High Power type targets that I scaled-down for 100 yards. (The aiming black is approximately the same width as a human head.) Sighting was done using the whole dot centered on the bullseye. Three 10-shot groups were fired in a row for evaluation.

Zeroing the Aimpoint sight at 100 yards was conducted during a down-pour with 20-25 mph winds. The first two 10-shot groups were also fired under these conditions. The first 10-shot group had an extreme spread of 1.41”.

With another couple clicks of windage and elevation adjustment, the second 10-shot group had all shots going into the X-ring. The extreme spread for this group was 1.19”.

Just as quickly as the down-pour had started, the rain stopped, the winds died down and the sun began shining again. I posted a new and dry target on the 100 yard backer and continued shooting. The third 10-shot group had an extreme spread of 1.14”. The average extreme spread for all three of the 10-shot groups was 1.25”.

…

 

[GordonsGarage]

I snapped some pics of the mro and pro side by side, also threw the rmr in there for comparison since no one else seems to like it (it has a role, just not as replacing either of the other two).
Also threw a sparc ar in there because I think it's a pretty good budget option.

 

[GordonsGarage]

 

[GordonsGarage]

 

[GordonsGarage]

For reference, the hillside is about 70 yards away, dots adjusted to a good shooting position for me, not too bright, it's maybe an hour and a half before sun down.
Multiple distances away, depending on how close you run your sights.

 

[GordonsGarage]

 

[GordonsGarage]

 

[GordonsGarage]

 

[UpSideDown]

You know when you're having fun arguing subjective and unsubstantiated points based solely on opinion, and some dude comes in the thread and just pisses excellence of objective and substantiated evidence-based research? Damnit.

 

[AManWearingAHat]

@Molon excellent write up on using red dots. It was a pleasure to read.

I had to laugh though at the idea that you cannot shoot more precisely than 4MOA using a 4 MOA dot.

 

[6brshooter]

MRO by a mile

A mile of parallax? I had one of the early ones that had blue tint and was 1.15x mag, not impressed. I got a post 19k serial number and blue tint was gone and only minimal fisheye, 1.05x. The biggest issue with mro is the parallax, I've measured 8+" of parallax in several mros, those were worst, but thats unacceptable. I think the dot is a bit sharper in the mro than the pro. The pro is easier to have lens caps on. I do like the knob of the mro with an off setting between 3 and 4. The knob seems sturdier on the mro, but aimpoints aren't known to be weak. I think if you put a lighter mount on the pro, the weight difference won't be much. That qrp mount is a pig, but hell for stout.

 

[UpSideDown]

I believe the new MRO HD fixed the issues of the previous model, but it's nearly T-2 price.

 

[Kamerad]

Thanks all for the knowledge and experience. I just just ordered an Aimpoint Pro for an AR pistol, and this thread was helpful in picking between the Mro and AP Pro.

 

[Crang]

If you want deals pick up older m68, m2, comp, m3 ect aimpoints. The newer ones with the 2moa dot is preferable but they all work. We got 20 year old aimpoints were still running and they dont miss a beat.

I would rather pick up 2 or 3 used m2/m3/pro than pay for a new m4 or m5 or t2. I actually like the larger model better, more forgiving of head placement and heads up shooting as well as shooting from weird positions.

Lot of wisdom in this. Ive never been tempted to upgrade a couple older M3s I use despite owning some of the newer stuff in question as well.

 

[KnightOfNee]

Aimpoint= the toughest best redots on the market. But they do cost alot, if you are looking for somthing on a budget, Holosun has some good ones. They also make alot of red dots for other companies like sig.

Ive had my fill with Eotechs, I had two 552 eotechs that kept losing zero by alot for no reason, one with factory mount and other with a GG&G mount.

 

[jevan126]

Just my 2 cents, I have 2 Trijicon ACOG's, an Aimpoint T-2 and a EOTech xps2-0 green. I love my ACOG's and I really love my EOTech but the T-2 is bullet proof and simple and Always On, I had a Trijicon MRO and wished I didn't sell it but out of the TWO get AIMPOINT and don't look back.