Observations On The Effect Of Parallax Error When Shooting With An Aimpoint Comp M5 And A Trijicon MRO
- Thread starter Molon
- Start date
Very interesting info on the MRO. While I have no doubt in @Molon and the tests he does(the Hide is blessed to have you and the information you post), I just do not have these issues with the MRO optic. I have shot quite a bit with everything from micro rds, acog’s, lvpo, comp m4s, pro’s, and so on(on AR platforms). I switched to the MRO kinda early on because I loved the fov and not the “looking through a tube” effect. Running various drills, shooting steel out to a few hundred yards and zeroing these optics on everything from short pcc’s to 16” guns I just have never noticed any negative effects in my accuracy. Granted some of my guns have a lower expectation of accuracy than other guns I have based on ammo, barrel quality, and what not. I guess what im really saying is that I don’t feel like I drop shots with the MRO that I wouldn’t drop with other comparable optics. Since it is a parallax issue, maybe my necessary fundamentals such as cheek weld, sight alignment and sight picture are where they need to be. But then again I still shoot the optic well when doing barricade work and being in less than ideal shooting positions. Since I have spent a little time on the MRO maybe I have trained through some of it’s short comings to the point that it’s not a issue for me anymore… Either way, great info to be aware of and I would be curious to see the level of improvement between a post 200k serial # MRO and the MRO HD.
I own a couple of MRO's (so I obviously like them). However, I definitely noticed parallax error when zeroing my first one. And this was before I read about this problem on the various forums.
I am curious though about how bad parallax error would be when the dot is not on the extreme edge of the FOV. For example, suppose the dot is midway between the center the the extreme left edge? If it results in a parallax error of 2" at 50 yards, that's something I can live with. And I suspect that's the case.
As someone who's been shooting a while and has a pretty consistent mount/cheek weld I feel I can start in a low ready position and engage multiple targets while keeping the dot relatively centered. Honestly, if you also shoot 1x4 or 1x6 scopes you have to do this anyway due the their relatively tight eye boxes. It's just something I have to be aware of when I use an MRO vs. something like an Eotech where I don't worry about parallax at all. Of course, I don't really do extreme positional shooting where I'm trying to engage targets from underneath vehicles, etc.
So for me the advantages of an MRO (FOV, weight, layout of functions, price) outweigh this one flaw.
I am curious though about how bad parallax error would be when the dot is not on the extreme edge of the FOV. For example, suppose the dot is midway between the center the the extreme left edge? If it results in a parallax error of 2" at 50 yards, that's something I can live with. And I suspect that's the case.
As someone who's been shooting a while and has a pretty consistent mount/cheek weld I feel I can start in a low ready position and engage multiple targets while keeping the dot relatively centered. Honestly, if you also shoot 1x4 or 1x6 scopes you have to do this anyway due the their relatively tight eye boxes. It's just something I have to be aware of when I use an MRO vs. something like an Eotech where I don't worry about parallax at all. Of course, I don't really do extreme positional shooting where I'm trying to engage targets from underneath vehicles, etc.
So for me the advantages of an MRO (FOV, weight, layout of functions, price) outweigh this one flaw.
I had mro for few months, thinking that a big step up from chicom made Sig and holosun. But I had a problem as described by Molon. Without making deep dive in to the problem, I just blamed on myself. After no positive results training harder etc I gave MRO to my range buddies for a spin. Everyone showed almost same results. Barrow T2 run it without issues. So, I sold MRO and ran irons for a while. FYI it’s great exercise after red dot and scope to see how much you’ll handicap with technology. After saving dime I just ordered T2 and QD mount directly Scalarworks.
Regardless of the sighting technology used, the fundamentals of marksmanship will always shine through. The 10-shot group pictured below was fired at a distance of 100 yards using Ultradyne back-up iron sights on one of my precision AR-15s.
....
Last edited:
Nice shootin'.
Regardless of the sighting technology used, the fundamentals of marksmanship will always shine through. The 10-shot group pictured below was fired at a distance of 100 yards using Ultradyne back-up iron sights on one of my precision AR-15s.
....
MRO is just a fail of a red dot...they have updated the MRO but still it has parallax error like a son of a gun...worst than any red dot I have seen...Trijicon truly sould be ashamed of themselves by releasing such a sub-par red dot at not so sub-par prices...
I haven't had the time or budget lately, but I have an idea that may redeem the MRO.
Essentially, the parallax comparison would only be scientific if the tester were to obscure 7mm worth of the objective lens diameter.
In other words, install an o-ring or washer or whatever on the front of the MRO which reduces its effective objective diameter from 25mm to 18mm. Then repeat the test. That is the one way to more "scientifically" (or at least more apples to apples) compare parallax between optics with different objective diameters (make them have the same diameter so that the dot isn't moved as far from center when at the edge of the FOV).
Koshkin confirmed above that the unequal objective lens diameters create an artificial difference (the comparison is not apples to apples).
If someone has the time to do this, feel free to use my idea. Otherwise, I may try to do it next time I'm at the range.
Similar threads
