Right, but 1) I’m not seeing it in the pics, and 2) it wouldn’t be the first time TTAG got something wrong. I’m holding out for independent confirmation.
Printable View
https://youtu.be/GlYJHbM7PVY?t=229
The video from GunsAmerica that @Tokarev linked, at 3:49, pretty obviously shows there's no rear lens. The fact that there's zero mention of it being an enclosed optic in any of the literature is also a giveaway, given how they specifically call out the ability for the ROMEO2 to become enclosed, and how the ROMEO-M17 is specifically said to be "[a] fully enclosed, sealed, and purged optical system, for ultimate protection from the elements".
There’s no rear lens in that huge housing? Ok, I stand corrected.
I rarely watch videos, it’s not an efficient way for me to transfer knowledge. I’m a written word guy.
Man, that’s gonna collect shit.
Nah, I fucking hate videos, too, I only watched it (skimmed through, really) to see if they mentioned anything about it being enclosed that I missed. I really hate the video format, I wish that folks would do a transcript that I can just read, or at least a BLUF in the description section or something.
I agree that it's going to collect a ton of dust and lint.
I'm doing the draft QRC for this optic, question for you guys: the reticle shown on Sig's web page for the circle dot looks like a circle, but with a segment missing at the bottom. Blown up so you can see what I mean:
Attachment 107346
Would you think Sig would really design an optic with a segment missing from the reticle at the bottom, or is it more likely to be a circle in real life, and the missing segment is just some artifact of publishing the image on the web?
https://www.sigsauer.com/romeo-x.html
EDIT I shopped the segment out for the QRC. I decided it's more likely to be a complete 32 MOA circle. Still interested if anyone knows.