I have a few people ask how the Alpha 3 compares to the SRO. Here is a quick summary:
SRO
Window is round/egg shaped and measures 0.98 x 0.89 inches
SRO weighs 1.6 ounces
SRO features 8 brightness levels with 3-8 for daylight use and 1-2 for night vision gear
Battery = CR2032 with top loading battery
Dot Sizes = 1, 2.5 or 5 MOA dot
Motion sensor = not available
Footprint for mount = Same as RMR
Warranty = 5 years from date of manufacture
Retail Price = $ 988.00 with street price of 850-860 CAD
FTP Optics Alpha 3
Window is tombstone shaped with window measuring 1.02 x .85 inches
FTP Alpha 3 weighs 1.46 ounces
FTP Alpha 3 features ten illumination levels optimized for daylight use
Battery = CR2032 with side loading battery tray
Dot Sizes = 6 or 8 MOA dot
Motion sensor = Yes. Dot will turn off after period of inactivity and then turn back on at same illumination level when motion it detected
Footprint for mount = Same as RTS-2 and Sig Max (please note RTS-2 mounts with blast shield will need to be clearanced)
Warranty = 30 months from date of purchase
Retail Price = $ 499.99
While the SRO is a good sight, it is not optimized for competition use. The dot sizes are much smaller and not ideal for pistol shooting in bright sunlight. Illumination levels are wasted to accommodate operators with night vision settings. The FTP dot is brighter at peak illumination levels and offers more illumination levels. The bezel of the lens on the SRO is thick and will add more protection if dropped but obscures the target more as a compromise. The glass is egg/round shaped while the FTP version is optimized to track the dot under recoil in the upper portion of the lens. The dot sizes on the SRO are not optimal for pistol competition shooting. The SRO is heavier and the price point is much higher. The FTP Optic has a motion sensor to extend battery and diode life while the SRO does not.
I hope that helps!