Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21

Thread: Milling for Glock MOS or aftermarket slide

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,781
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    I'm trying to get Steve at Jagerworks to offer MOS milling service for older slides
    Roger Wang
    Forward Controls Design
    Simplicity is the sign of truth

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    9,518
    Feedback Score
    45 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Duffy View Post
    I'm trying to get Steve at Jagerworks to offer MOS milling service for older slides
    Thanks for another option, I think.
    Gettin' down innagrass.
    Let's Go Brandon!

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    3,089
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Sorry if this is a dumb question, but why wouldn't you have your slide milled for a specific optic and forgo the weakening that comes with an interface plate?

  4. #14
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    UT
    Posts
    2,044
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by georgeib View Post
    Sorry if this is a dumb question, but why wouldn't you have your slide milled for a specific optic and forgo the weakening that comes with an interface plate?
    What kind of weakening comes with a plate?

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    3,089
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by YVK View Post
    What kind of weakening comes with a plate?
    Not sure if this is a genuine question or not, as I thought this was a well established concept, that I'm sure can be better explained by people in the business of milling slides. However, having an interface attached to another interface is clearly weaker than mounting directly, in principle alone. Then, you have the fact that the optic pocket (on a MOS type system) sometimes leaves a gap in the front and behind the optic leaving it supported by the screws alone rather than the whole pocket.

    ETA: my RMR cut slides are cut tightly enough that the optic has to be pushed into place and will stay there, even without the screws attached. Heck, even my SIG RXP slide is that way with the Romeo1 Pro.
    Last edited by georgeib; 04-24-21 at 07:41.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Not in a gun friendly state
    Posts
    3,806
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by georgeib View Post
    Sorry if this is a dumb question, but why wouldn't you have your slide milled for a specific optic and forgo the weakening that comes with an interface plate?
    Modularity. If I want to mount a newer, better optic down the road whenever the latest and greatest replaces the current generation, I don't need to get a whole new slide.
    Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who do not.-Ben Franklin

    there’s some good in this world, Mr. Frodo. And it’s worth fighting for.-Samwise Gamgee

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    3,089
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by BoringGuy45 View Post
    Modularity. If I want to mount a newer, better optic down the road whenever the latest and greatest replaces the current generation, I don't need to get a whole new slide.
    Modularity is definitely good.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    UT
    Posts
    2,044
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by georgeib View Post
    Not sure if this is a genuine question or not, as I thought this was a well established concept, that I'm sure can be better explained by people in the business of milling slides. However, having an interface attached to another interface is clearly weaker than mounting directly, in principle alone.
    It was a genuine question. To me more potential or theoretical failure points doesn't equate to weakening. I've numerous identical guns with direct and plate attachments and have found no difference in reliability and durability. If you look carefully at this, the weakest point are screws attaching optic to whatever is below, and that is the same for both. Many of the plate designs have interlocking interfaces, dovetail designs, slots, tabs, and pretty coarse screws. I am not worried about quality plate designs.
    Last edited by YVK; 04-24-21 at 10:29.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,781
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Milled slide is the most secure, but the slide is married the optics for which it's milled. MOS has its compromises, but with a competent plate, these are largely mitigated. The installed height of the optics is one that no plates can address, but given the modularity of the design, the ability to switch to another optic with the available plate, MOS is inexpensive and a good system.

    Screws are not the issue, how the optic is secured or, in failed designs, not secured, makes the difference. If the sight reciprocates on the plate in recoil, the sight to plate screws become responsible in keeping the sight from moving back and forth, a task for which they were never designed to handle. So they loosen and shear. Stronger screws will still loosen but will withstand shearing better, but it's addressing the symptom, not the cause, as screws are not recoil lugs and they don't do well when shoved into that role.

    ALERT: SELF PROMOTION CONTENT BELOW
    As long as the sight is not allowed to move on the plate, the plate does the job of a milled slide. Ours has been called a milled slide on a plate for that reason. We use the same screws and plate thickness as the OEM Glock MOS plate, whereas the OEM plate loosens and shears screws, ours do not. Screws and thread engagement between the two are the constant, how the optics are mounted and secured on the plate is the variable that makes the difference.

    If you want to read more about thread engagement: https://www.forwardcontrolsdesign.co...ngagement.html
    Last edited by Duffy; 04-24-21 at 11:20.
    Roger Wang
    Forward Controls Design
    Simplicity is the sign of truth

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    3,089
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Thanks Roger. I'm a fan of your products, and your company. I knew there was something I remembered about problems with the MOS system, and you just reminded me of it.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •