SIG Talk banner
1 - 1 of 1 Posts

76 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
Like many of you, I have found it extremely difficult to locate the Romeo 0 for the P365XL. The same is true for the Shield RMSc; however, it does show up from time-to-time. Both fit the P365XL after removing the rear sight plate. That said, there is a $200 difference in price.

I ordered and received the Shield RMSc and about a week later found a dealer in Ohio that had the Romeo 0 in stock so I ordered it and received it today. I figured I would compare the two and see if the Shield was worth the $200 extra. My thinking is that I would sell the one I decided not to keep. While Sig publishes the window measurements for the Romeo 0, I could not find the window measurements for the Shield on line or in the manual. Since I have a precision Micrometer I decided to measure both taking the measurements in the same locations on each. Interestingly, my measurements on the Romeo 0 did not match the published measurements.

Here are my measurements:

Full Body (WxLxH):
RMSc: 23.05x40.79x22.78mm
Romeo 0: 23.83x40.89x24.13mm

Window (WxH):
RMSc: 21.89x15.79mm
Rome 0: 20.40x15.65mm
Pub WxH
Rome 0: 18.3x16.4mm

Height from base to bottom of notch on built in rear sight:
RMSc: 6.81mm
Rome 0: 7.31mm
Original Iron Sight: 5.13mm

As one can see from the measurements the RMSc window is about 26.38sqmm larger than the Romeo 0. The Romeo 0 body is slightly wider. This is visible on the slide. The RMSc does not appear to have an AR coating on the lens but does have some type of hardening coating. The Romeo 0 does have an AR coating on the lens but does not have a hardening coating. Despite the lack of an AR coating, the RMSc displayed considerably less flare and halo than the Romeo 0 but some of that might have been due to the auto dimming/brightening of the RMSc versus the manual dimming and brightening for the Romeo 0. I found that as the brightness went above the third level (of 8 levels) the flaring would start to be visible and increase in normal room light and be significant in low light. This had the effect of making the brighter daylight outdoor levels less useful. The button is hard to reach and I used a small dowel to much the button without risking touching or damaging the lens. I don't think from a practical viewpoint that this setting will be frequently changed. The Romeo 0 I have is a 6MOA while the RMSc is a 4MOA reticule. While it is easier to pick up and find the 6MOA it does not provide the same level of accuracy for me at 15yds. Might just be me.

The RMSc body is anodized aluminum whereas the body of the Romeo 0 is a hard polymer. Having a polymer body allows for stippling which makes it easier to use for racking the slide. The polymer body also appears to allow the lens to be slightly more recessed and less likely to come into contact with your hands. There are two round screw hole studs on the slide that the sights sit on and that the screws use to mount the slide. On the RMSc the fit is so snug you actually can hear it snap into place. This makes it hard to remove after the screws are out (be very careful when using Locktite to not get any on the outside as you will have a very difficult time removing it if you do. The tiniest dab on one side of each screw is more than enough. Frankly, you might not need any given how snug the fit is. For the Romeo 0, this is not the case. It does not snap onto the studs though the fit seems secure and it doesn't move once the screws are tightened down.

I am including a lot of pictures to help you visualize the two and to allow you to see what I saw.

Subjectively, I found I preferred the RMSc. Yes, even at $200 more though it hurt. I liked the way the Romeo 0 looked on the gun better because it was obvious that it was designed for the gun and the stippling made racking the slide much easier with the Romeo 0. Sitting side by side the Romeo 0 window looks larger even though it isn't. I like the look of the AR coating on the Romeo 0 but I don't think it is as effective as it needs to be. Hence the halos at brighter settings. Both sights were zeroed to bulls eyes at 10yds but for some reason I could put more shots in a 2" circle with the RMSc at 5, 10 or 15yds. I think have the smaller 4MOA reticule helped me be more accurate, especially at longer distances. Maybe the 3 MOA would have given me different results. I found I really preferred the auto dimming feature on the RMSc, no having to mess with brightness adjustments and go through the steps (they go from off to max brightness in 8 steps and then back down to off). A lot of button pushes to cycle through with a hard to reach button. Both units will shut off after a period of inactivity to conserve battery and both are rated at over 20,000 hours. The Romeo 0 uses a smaller CR1632 that is 3v 125mAh 1.8g while the RMSc uses the CR2032 3v 220mAh 3.1g cell. In theory the 10mAh battery should last longer but it depends on the current draw from the LED. Lastly, while packaging is not a critical aspect, the Romeo 0 comes in a very hard to open blister type pack while the RMSc comes in a nice box with foam cutouts for the various pieces.

Having done my testing and comparison and having made my difficult decision, I will be posting the Romeo 0 for sale at my cost including sales tax. I will list it in the classified's tomorrow.

I need to make two corrections to my post. First the Shield RMSc does have an AR coating in addition to the SIO2 hardness coating on the optics. Second, the RMSc does not have an auto shut-off. It is always on, however, in dark storage it dims downs substantially to conserve battery usage.


1 - 1 of 1 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.