Anyone try the Trijicon MRO?

I've been looking at this thing for a couple years and have never got to look through one. Does it appear more open than a Aimpoint Micro? I gave several Primary Arms MD-ADS micro clones which are good but a bit tight on the viewable. Might be nice on my new MG2.

I am not sure if these panels work. I will let you know in a couple of months after I mount a Venom on my PPQ project gun. 

I think the better choice is the SRO Model because it has a round panel. 

https://www.trijicon.com/products/subcategory/trijicon-sro#:~:text=The%20Trijicon%20SRO%C2%AE%20(Specialized,on%20and%20off%20the%20range.

I don't like reflex sights so not an option.

The MRO certainly looks ugly with that big turret sticking up on top, but it does seem to have a very large, round field of view. By the time you put some shades on it I guess that it will resemble an Aimpoint 9000.

Only 2moa dot versions seem to be available.

Lot of money to drop on a sight with no track record in Bullseye though. IMHO

A year or more ago, on a whim, I bought a Bushnell 1x30RD off a shopping site in Asia. It was very cheap, maybe $20 I think, most likely a knock-off. I have never tried it on a gun, I guess that it is intended for the Airsoft market, but it looks remarkably similar to the MRO. Body is about 40mm OD, 95mm OAL.

No MRO experience, sorry. I am sure it's good being a Trijicon. A worthy contender with large viewable would be Holosun 530 series. Really well built, large, bright, Aimpoint tube style, pretty thing and compatible with Aimpoint mount. 

https://holosun.com/index/product/item/cid/19.html

I have handled one and considered putting it on my pardini but when holding it, it was very heavy.  I am sure that it weighs more then a aimpoint 9000. 

Regards, 
Crankster

Actually, only weighs 4.1 oz without the base, while the 9000 weighs 7.4 oz. Could be a good option. 

Dave

The MRO with the optional low base is 5.6 oz and the 9000SC with stock rings is 9.8oz, that's over a quarter pound.

Yes, didn't like the height, the lack of mounts (pardini), the blue tint, or the parallax.

Might be better off on a rifle but I don't shoot rifles with 1x magnification scopes.

that might be the published weight but when I held it in my hands it felt like a big old chunk of lead.  I might have had the old cast iron framed model but it was obnoxiously heavy.  Unless they changed the chassis material from steel to aluminum make sure you check how heavy it really is.

A review on OP said it looked closer to 1.25x instead of true 1x. Even if that's an exaggeration that's a deal breaker, the negative magnification of a UD drives me nuts sometimes and it's not even that bad. I've got a MD-ADS on it now and it's growing on me it also makes the pistol balance well. I usually like 9000SC's but not sure I can handle that weight on a MG2 due to the forward balance.

Zane,

I ran a 9000 on my MG2 with the weights in the front, and it was honestly not bad at all. Only took it off because I'm shooting irons for a while on that gun.

Dave