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

[Molon]

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 . . .

Per Aimpoint, the objective lens of the Aimpoint T2 has a diameter of 18mm. Per Trijicon, the objective lens of the MRO has a diameter of 25mm. Therefore, the objective lens of the MRO is 1.38 times larger than the objective lens of the T2, yet the parallax error of the MRO at 50 yards (7.73”) is 8.3 times larger than the parallax error of the T2 (0.93”) at 50 yards.




......



Aimpoint T2 Parallax Error At 50 Yards

An 8-shot parallax test-group fired from 50 yards using an Aimpoint T2 had an extreme spread of 0.907", which at 50 yards equates to 1.7 MOA.



...

The target shown below is the actual 50 yard parallax-test target for one of the Gen-2 Trjicon MROs that I tested. The parallax error is 7.7 inches. The target also clearly demonstrates the asymmetrical parallax pattern of the MRO. I’d like to see someone do the trigonometry for those "hold-offs", at various distances, on the fly, in the urban prone position.

Now, let’s superimpose the above parallax-test target on a realistic training target at 50 yards, for both a head-shot and an upper thorax shot.

That’s a whole lot of missed shots, and those shots were taken with a precision AR-15, using match-grade hand-loads, shooting from a bench-rest set-up. Now substitute a chrome-lined, NATO chambered barrel using factory ammunition and shooting from over/around/under a hard-cover position and the amount of missed shots drastically increases.



The next graphic shows the 50 yard parallax-test target for the Aimpoint T2 superimposed on the realistic training target along with the MRO.

…..

 

[Molon]

Tidbit . . .

A Trijicon MRO with a Geissele mount weighs 6.4 ounces.

....

 

[Happiness Is A Warm Gun]

Good info.

 

[oldfatguy]

Very thorouth test. Many thanks. Would like to see the same test done with Aimpoint PRO and Sig Romeo 5.

OFG

 

[shooter545]

Good read and very interesting.

 

[bfoosh006]

Very interesting, I would not have "assumed" such a "large" difference between the 2 red Dots.

Thank you for sharing your findings.

 

[cherokeefan03]

Very good info here, was not aware that the MRO had such terrible parallax shift. I will probably not consider the MRO anymore.

Have you done any EoTech Vs. Aimpoint parallax tests? Would be interesting to see and EXPS3 against a CompM5 or T2.

Reminds me additionally of Chuck Pressburgs video on his experience of red dot magnifiers causing varying degrees of impact shift depending on exact platforms when going from magnified to unmagnified.

 

[Hellbender]

WOW! Excellent data and surprising result on the MRO (2 no less!!!)

At what distance is the MRO supposedly parallax free?

Did you get to test at 100 yards? If you extrapolate the data the Aimpoint will be good at 100 and the MRO would be 15 MOA ???

I've got a bunch of RDS's I've got to test now! Several Aimpoints, FF3's, DP Pro's, Holosun's, etc, etc. That's scary, esp. on rifles that may be shot over 50 yards.

 

[Hellbender]

After thinking on this a bit more, it would be very interesting to see how much this changes with the distance from the scope to your eye...

I have always placed my Aimpoints as far rearward as possible (close to my eye for big FOV), but it would make sense (maybe???) that the further from your eye (like on a handgun) the less this error would be.

The Aimpoint error you show would have no effect in typical CQB scenarios, ie, I could still make a head shot at 7-50 yards while stretching out around a corner...BUT...the MRO would be a miss at further distances.

Also, the Mini RDS's with no tube should???/could???/maybe be a lot worse close to your eye (rifle) but fine on a handgun.

We also have a bunch of 1-4,6,8&10 scopes out there that need this test done at 1x (should obviously be a lot less with fixed eye relief... but you never know w/o testing).

 

[Molon]

Did you get to test at 100 yards? If you extrapolate the data the Aimpoint will be good at 100 and the MRO would be 15 MOA ???

I'd be real cautious about any extrapolations, as the parallax error chart that I posted in minutes of angle suggests a logarithmic nature to the decrease in parallax error as the distance increases.

 

[Molon]

Another tid-bit.

The Aimpoint Comp M5 in a Geissele mount weighs 7.7 ounces.

 

[lennyo3034]

Thanks for the info.

Any thoughts on doing the same test with a LPVO?

 

[Molon]

Any thoughts on doing the same test with a LPVO?

and The LIst just got longer . . .



]

....

 

[Molon]

Here's some additional data pertaining to shooting AR-15s while using red dot sights.



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-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 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.

…

 

[E. Bryant]

Wow - nice test, and interesting results.

So what is up with the MRO? It was my understanding that "reflex" (collimating) sights are effectively parallax-free at some substantial distance (maybe infinity, maybe something closer but still substantially beyond CQB distances), and that parallax offset at shorter distances is effectively limited to the diameter of the window. It looks like the Aimpoint generally obeys this theory, but the MRO certainly does not.

Tagging @koshkin so that I can gain enlightenment. Also, it'd be interesting to post this thread up in the Rifle Scopes subforum.

 

[koshkin]

Wow - nice test, and interesting results.

So what is up with the MRO? It was my understanding that "reflex" (collimating) sights are effectively parallax-free at some substantial distance (maybe infinity, maybe something closer but still substantially beyond CQB distances), and that parallax offset at shorter distances is effectively limited to the diameter of the window. It looks like the Aimpoint generally obeys this theory, but the MRO certainly does not.

Tagging @koshkin so that I can gain enlightenment. Also, it'd be interesting to post this thread up in the Rifle Scopes subforum.

No conventional red dot sight is truly parallax free for the entire window at any distance. Holographic sights are or within the margin of error.

All the companies know this and yet market their red dot sights as such. The fact that they get away with is mindboggling.

These guys did a fairly detailed test of this a while back:

Comparative Study of Red Dot Sight Parallax | Green Eye Tactical

I'd like to thank you for viewing this report. It took a considerable amount of time to finish. I would like to apologize that parts of it may not appear formatted properly in your browser. Depending on what browser you are using- some of the images may not be visible due to the .tiff format.

www.greeneyetactical.com

I'd do the test a little differently if you really want to be rigorous, but their results are fairly reasonable.

There is sample variation and mdoel to model variation. Then the otpical design of the reflective surface matters. Reflex sights with aspherical surfaces, if done right, will generally be better at this. Of the small red dot sights, I think Leica Tempus is the best at this from what I have seen, but Aimpoint T2 is quite nice. Same for Crimson Trace CTS-1400 (this particular CTS sight is not getting much attention which is a shame. I really like it). With fairly expensive high end red dot, MRO is easily the worst at this that I have seen. I am not 100% sure why since I never looked at it very carefully beyond checking the parallax.

As a general consideration, sights with longer length compared to the size of the lens do better with parallax, so Comp M5 will do better than most smaller sights. With full size sights, thenew Steiner DRS-1 is supposed to have this under control.

Being a little further behind the sight does diminish the apparent effect of parallax, but cuts down on flexibility of eye position a little, so there is a compromise there. I usually mount the red dot right at the front of the AR receiver which seems to be a good compromise to me.

Personally, parallax at the edges of the window does not bother me a lot. When I need precision, I usually have extra fraction of a second to line things up and when I go fast it is all within a minute of plate. If the center 60% of the window is reasonably parallax free, I am good. That is how my Shield SIS behaves (still probably my favourite small carbine RDS overall). Some sights out there have very nonlinear parallax behavior and that bothers me a lot more.

ILya

 

[Molon]

Also, it'd be interesting to post this thread up in the Rifle Scopes subforum.

I posted this thread in the Semi-Auto Rifles forum for two reasons:

1. The tests were conducted using semi-auto rifles.

2. The Rifle Scopes forum on this website seems to be more about magnified optics than red-dot/iron sights.

 

[Naaman]

Can this data be used to infer what the error might be when the dot is closer to the center?

 

[koshkin]

Can this data be used to infer what the error might be when the dot is closer to the center?

No. It is not linear.

ILya

 

[Naaman]

Sweet, thanks.

 

[pyrotechnic]

@koshkin Is there a relationship between optic diameter and parallax?

Example: full-size aimpoint vs micro. My assumption is that assuming similar optics the larger optic would have a larger deviation if the dot was placed in an extreme position in the FOV. But I would imagine that there are many more variables at play here.

Thanks!

 

[koshkin]

@koshkin Is there a relationship between optic diameter and parallax?

Example: full-size aimpoint vs micro. My assumption is that assuming similar optics the larger optic would have a larger deviation if the dot was placed in an extreme position in the FOV. But I would imagine that there are many more variables at play here.

Thanks!

If they are the same focal length, then a larger diameter lens will likely have more parallax toward the edges if it is the same design (i.e. both are spherical surfaces).

Between Micro and full-size Aimpoint, both the diameters and focal lengths are different. I would expect full size Aimpoints to have better parallax control.

ILya

 

[pyrotechnic]

If they are the same focal length, then a larger diameter lens will likely have more parallax toward the edges if it is the same design (i.e. both are spherical surfaces).

Between Micro and full-size Aimpoint, both the diameters and focal lengths are different. I would expect full size Aimpoints to have better parallax control.

ILya

Thank you sir!

 

[bfoosh006]

@koshkin

Thanks for the addtional info via your link.

 

[Molon]

Aimpoint T2 Parallax Error At 50 Yards

An 8-shot parallax test-group fired from 50 yards using an Aimpoint T2 had an extreme spread of 0.907", which at 50 yards equates to 1.7 MOA.



...

 

[Hellbender]

I'd like to see the T-2 moved to the rear of the upper and the same test done.

 

[Powder_Burns]

Almost makes me feel better about buying that m4s all those years ago.
Good write up and test.

 

[Molon]

another tidbit . . .

An Aimpoint T2 in a Scalarworks mount weighs 4.9 ounces.

 

[Molon]

Almost makes me feel better about buying that m4s all those years ago.

The only reason that I sold my M4S was at the time that I owned it, no one was producing a true absolute co-witness mount for it.

 

[TheOE800]

Well, this makes me regret buying the MRO HD.

 

[drewthebrave]

Aimpoint T2 Parallax Error At 50 Yards

An 8-shot parallax test-group fired from 50 yards using an Aimpoint T2 had an extreme spread of 0.907", which at 50 yards equates to 1.7 MOA.
...

Pretty much right in line with the Comp M5 at 0.931" (1.8 MOA). That's really encouraging. Thanks for taking the time to perform these tests.

 

[Naaman]

Well, this makes me regret buying the MRO HD.

No need to fret. Based on input from koshkin, it makes sense that the MRO would have more parallax at the extreme edge: it has a larger objectove, so the dot is farther from center.

Another way to compare the RDSs would be to draw a circle inside the MRO's Objective lens with the same diameter as the Aimpoint, and shoot the MRO with the dot on the smaller circle.

The advantage with the MRO is that it is not as sensitive to eye alignment as the aimpoint, and the FOV is a bit better.

 

[BCMRECCE29]

Hello all, I am new to the forum and moved here after reading a lot of good posts and seeing the respect the members show for one another. I am excited to get going!

 

[BCMRECCE29]

I agree with the above statement. The MRO has a larger objective lense with a more extreme outer edge where the bulk of parallax (in any red dot) resides. If the test were conducted at the extreme outer edge of the Aimpoint and then at equal radius on the MRO, the results would likely have been much closer. I don't think you can penalize the MRO for giving that little bit extra where the Aimpoint dot wouldn't be visible. Cheers!

 

[Naaman]

I agree with the above statement. The MRO has a larger objective lense with a more extreme outer edge where the bulk of parallax (in any red dot) resides. If the test were conducted at the extreme outer edge of the Aimpoint and then at equal radius on the MRO, the results would likely have been much closer. I don't think you can penalize the MRO for giving that little bit extra where the Aimpoint dot wouldn't be visible. Cheers!

Exactly what I was trying to say, but I think you articulated it better. Thanks!
🖒

 

[mig1nc]

Well, this makes me regret buying the MRO HD.

I wonder if Trijicon has improved the parallax performance in the newer HD model?

Regardless of the wide angle viewing aspects mentioned above this post.

 

[koshkin]

I wonder if Trijicon has improved the parallax performance in the newer HD model?

Regardless of the wide angle viewing aspects mentioned above this post.

Yes, they have

 

[Naaman]

Yes, they have

Good to know! I just tried to "eyeball" it comparing my HD to the standard MRO and it looks about the same (the apparent POA shift when I move my head around behind the optic... which isn't much).

I will say that the HD has noticeably clearer glass and no blueish tint... for those who are concerned with such things.

 

[Molon]

The target shown below is the actual 50 yard parallax-test target for one of the Gen-2 Trjicon MROs that I tested. The parallax error is 7.7 inches. The target also clearly demonstrates the asymmetrical parallax pattern of the MRO. I’d like to see someone do the trigonometry for those "hold-offs", at various distances, on the fly, in the urban prone position.

Now, let’s superimpose the above parallax-test target on a realistic training target at 50 yards, for both a head-shot and an upper thorax shot.

That’s a whole lot of missed shots, and those shots were taken with a precision AR-15, using match-grade hand-loads, shooting from a bench-rest set-up. Now substitute a chrome-lined, NATO chambered barrel using factory ammunition and shooting from over/around/under a hard-cover position and the amount of missed shots drastically increases.



The next graphic shows the 50 yard parallax-test target for the Aimpoint T2 superimposed on the realistic training target along with the MRO.

...

 

[Naaman]

And these are for shots taken at the extreme outer edge of the objective?

If so, one of the variables would have to be objective lens diameter, correct?

In other words, if you could superimpose the sight pictures of both the MRO and Aimpoint, we would see that the MRO's dot is farther from center than the Aimpoint's. Right?

If you could put the MRO's dot at the same distance from center as the Aimpoint's, would this give us a truer comparison of the parallax? For example, if one could tape-off a couple of mm worth of diameter so that the MRO's useable objective is the same as the Aimpoint's (and use the smaller diameter as the outer edge), would the comparison be more direct?

If I understand this correctly, if one can acquire the dot on the Aimpoint's outer edge in a given improvised position, then he can also acquire the dot on the MRO in the same scenario, but it would not be at the MRO's outer edge.

One could argue that the additional objective diameter on the MRO is wasted because it produces missed shots.

Likewise, one could argue that the smaller objective on the Aimpoint is inferior because it is less forgiving about acquisition of the dot.

Which leaves the question: is a near miss better or worse than a shot not taken or "blindly" fired?

Thanks for the data!

 

[damble44]

This thread is extremely intriguing to me. I went from an LPVO to the MRO with very high hopes. I went with the regular version, post 200k serial number. Scalarworks 1.93” mount. Went to zero it today with some range ammo and I could not get it to be consistent whatsoever like I’ve been able to with any other dot I’ve shot with (Eotech, Vortex, Sig, Holosun). I was shooting at 25 yards on a 36/300 simulated target. Rifle was bench rested, dot dead center, trigger squeeze was smooth, and the shots felt very good. I am very disappointed to say the least. I only made one adjustment at a time in between groups, like windage only or elevation only. First group is far left. Second is low right quadrant. Third upper left. 4th is low left. 5th is back up in upper left.

 

[Naaman]

This thread is extremely intriguing to me. I went from an LPVO to the MRO with very high hopes. I went with the regular version, post 200k serial number. Scalarworks 1.93” mount. Went to zero it today with some range ammo and I could not get it to be consistent whatsoever like I’ve been able to with any other dot I’ve shot with (Eotech, Vortex, Sig, Holosun). I was shooting at 25 yards on a 36/300 simulated target. Rifle was bench rested, dot dead center, trigger squeeze was smooth, and the shots felt very good. I am very disappointedView attachment 7641733 to say the least.

This is from 25 yards?

How much adjustment did you dial in? Were you having trouble with the adjustments or is this all on the same setting?

My first inclination is to check the mount-to-optic and mount-to-rifle fit. My first time out zeroing a red dot (not saying it's your first time), I hadn't torqued down the mount all the way to the rifle and it was bobbing around during recoil. Didn't even realize it till I got home and had to go back out and re-zero it.

 

[damble44]

This is from 25 yards?

How much adjustment did you dial in? Were you having trouble with the adjustments or is this all on the same setting?

My first inclination is to check the mount-to-optic and mount-to-rifle fit. My first time out zeroing a red dot (not saying it's your first time), I hadn't torqued down the mount all the way to the rifle and it was bobbing around during recoil. Didn't even realize it till I got home and had to go back out and re-zero it.

All from 25 yards. I checked the mount and optic to mount, no movement at all. When everything was initially mounted, very was torqued to manufactures spec. Came home and rechecked torque and nothing changed.
Adjustments were per the target, but I only made adjustments to the elevation or the windage each time. Never both the elevation and windage in one adjustment. That’s why I’m so lost as to why each group was off in both directions.

 

[Naaman]

That's really a bummer.

I have zeroed a total of 4 MROs in my shooting life. Ranging in serial number from the low 80k range up to 155k, plus an MRO HD. I have not seen anything like this.

At this point, if it were me, I'd ask a buddy to try it out just to rule out some mistake I might be making. Other than that, I'd contact Trijicon and ask them to help me troubleshoot it short of sending it back to them for evaluation.

 

[damble44]

Update on my situation in case anyone was curious.

I had a coworker try and zero it. Very similar results. Shot 3 round groups. Adjusted one thing at a time. Same inconsistency. I returned the optic.

 

[Naaman]

Bummer. What do you plan on replacing it with?

 

[damble44]

Honestly, a Holosun 515.

Bummer. What do you plan on replacing it with?

 

[Naaman]

Oof!

Kinda breaks my heart to see an American product get swapped out for a Chinese one, but I can relate to "going with what you know." You gotta do what you gotta do, brother.

I've had some bad experiences before and am just not interested in giving some of those products/companies another chance.

 

[damble44]

Oof!

Kinda breaks my heart to see an American product get swapped out for a Chinese one, but I can relate to "going with what you know." You gotta do what you gotta do, brother.

I've had some bad experiences before and am just not interested in giving some of those products/companies another chance.

I understand, it doesn’t make me warm and fuzzy inside either. It is disappointing seeing an American made optic from such a reputable company with so many reported issues and then experiencing those issues myself. I started watching MAC’s video on parallax where he used the MRO to demonstrate but I was disappointed to see he only shot at 100 and 200 yards when the parallax issue with the MRO is really between 25-100 yards. This rifle is built for 300 and in, not just 100-300 so to me, the parallax issue within 25-100 is unacceptable, especially coming from a company like Trijicon.

Quite frankly, some Holosun optics have become hard to argue for their value and durability. I’ve seen more Vortex and Sig dots fail or have issues. That’s just my experience, YMMV.

 

[Naaman]

For sure. From a quality standpoint, the Chinese can put out great stuff. No argument there.

I've personally reached a point where, no matter the quality or the price savings, I just won't buy anything made by communist labor.

Sometimes I forget to check where something made before I buy it, though.

In fact, I tried to verify where Trijicon's 3x magnifier is made before buying one. At the time, there wasn't much info on it. When I unboxed it, I was dismayed to see a great big "CHINA" on the underside of it.

Even though I like Trijicon and I prefer the red dot/magnifier over LPVO, I will never buy another Trijicon magnifier (even though it is very good). Any magnifiers I buy in the future will be Eotech (if they ever come back into production), and even then, never the G30.