I'm trying to get Steve at Jagerworks to offer MOS milling service for older slides
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
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?
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.
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
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.
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
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.
Bookmarks