This has been a question several times, Milled or MOS for RMR

[SteveL]

Glock's MOS design uses a rather thin plate, so the sight to plate thread engagement meets the minimum, but no more. We might develop something to address that, but it'd be at the expense of slightly taller sight height.

OPF-G, RMR is based on the Glock MOS, we didn't change the thickness of the plate. For users and agencies that already use MOS, the sight height remains the same, and there's no need to change iron sights to use ours.

A taller OPF-G, RMR will change that, albeit slightly.

Will this be true of the Holosun plate as well?

[Duffy]

Yep, no change to the plate's thickness.
While an RMR and SRO would fit on our H plate, a Holosun will not fit on the form fitting RMR plate.

[sundance435]

Glock's MOS design uses a rather thin plate, so the sight to plate thread engagement meets the minimum, but no more. We might develop something to address that, but it'd be at the expense of slightly taller sight height.

OPF-G, RMR is based on the Glock MOS, we didn't change the thickness of the plate. For users and agencies that already use MOS, the sight height remains the same, and there's no need to change iron sights to use ours.

A taller OPF-G, RMR will change that, albeit slightly.

Does a sealer plate minimize the engagement even less? Is that why you don't recommend using one?

Thanks

[CESwartz07]

Glock's MOS design uses a rather thin plate, so the sight to plate thread engagement meets the minimum, but no more. We might develop something to address that, but it'd be at the expense of slightly taller sight height.

OPF-G, RMR is based on the Glock MOS, we didn't change the thickness of the plate. For users and agencies that already use MOS, the sight height remains the same, and there's no need to change iron sights to use ours.

A taller OPF-G, RMR will change that, albeit slightly.

What made you choose the 6-32 screw with less engagement vs a threaded post with a 4-40 screw and more thread engagement?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[jpmuscle]

What made you choose the 6-32 screw with less engagement vs a threaded post with a 4-40 screw and more thread engagement?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

What does a threaded post matter if it’s not milled into the slide.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Duffy]

OPF-G, RMR supports the full width of RMRs and SROs, thus a sealer plate is unnecessary. On top of that, Glock's MOS design uses a plate that's rather thin, it provides sufficient thread engagement, no more and no less. Adding an unnecessary plate to it further reduces it by a bit, not enough to matter probably, as you need one with Glock's factory MOS. If we can obtain another 1/10 turn (probably less) more thread engagement, our stance is we'd rather have it than not.

Re: tapped posts used by the other company, there are several reasons we didn't follow that design.
1. It is their design, we don't copy other's IP
2. We stick to Glock's specs, as we stick to TDP specs whenever we can in our AR component designs, unless we see a reason to go a different route. We didn't.
3. We prefer the larger diameter sight to plate screws in the Glock MOS design.

We are evaluating a thicker version of OPF-G, RMR to increase the thread engagement. As mentioned previously, this would be done at the expense of taller sight height, and we'd get a bit more thread engagement out of it. As designed, OPF-G, RMR retains the same thickness as Glock's RMR, and doesn't require retraining and new iron sights. A taller plate may negate that advantage, at this point I rather doubt the trade off is worth the supposed benefit. There is no free lunch.

[sundance435]

OPF-G, RMR supports the full width of RMRs and SROs, thus a sealer plate is unnecessary. On top of that, Glock's MOS design uses a plate that's rather thin, it provides sufficient thread engagement, no more and no less. Adding an unnecessary plate to it further reduces it by a bit, not enough to matter probably, as you need one with Glock's factory MOS. If we can obtain another 1/10 turn (probably less) more thread engagement, our stance is we'd rather have it than not.

Re: tapped posts used by the other company, there are several reasons we didn't follow that design.
1. It is their design, we don't copy other's IP
2. We stick to Glock's specs, as we stick to TDP specs whenever we can in our AR component designs, unless we see a reason to go a different route. We didn't.
3. We prefer the larger diameter sight to plate screws in the Glock MOS design.

We are evaluating a thicker version of OPF-G, RMR to increase the thread engagement. As mentioned previously, this would be done at the expense of taller sight height, and we'd get a bit more thread engagement out of it. As designed, OPF-G, RMR retains the same thickness as Glock's RMR, and doesn't require retraining and new iron sights. A taller plate may negate that advantage, at this point I rather doubt the trade off is worth the supposed benefit. There is no free lunch.

Thanks for the explanation. I very much appreciate your willingness to address questions and you guys will have my business if/when I get an MOS.

[arptsprt]

I’ve been on the fence about buying a new Glock G45 MOS or getting a slide milled on my existing G45.

This FCD OPF-G for an RMR is the solution I’ve been waiting for. Ordered a new G45 MOS, RMR Type 2, and this plate today.

Look of forward to trying the combo.

ETA: order confirmation at 11:59 am. Order shipped confirmation at 12:23 pm. Wow. Great service.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mr McSimon]

OPF-G, RMR is live, more detailed description on the page https://www.forwardcontrolsdesign.co...RMR_p_224.html

It's 1018 steel, black nitrided. We do use Torx screws.

OPF-G, RMR is made for RMR and SRO, where there are already minor differences in length, SRO being very slightly longer and you have to pop the SRO inside the plate. Though RMR and Holosun share the basic mounting footprint, OPF-G, RMR's design fully encloses the sight front and rear via its recoil lugs/fences, the fit is too precise to allow the Holosun's slightly less curved front end.

So Holoson will get its own plate

Any idea of eta for the Holosun plate?

[Duffy]

Soon, it shouldn't take long, the ground work is mostly done, it's rather similar to the Glock plate. We're focusing on releasing our v3 bolt catches and long awaited ambi safety, and have a lot of resourced tied up in them