Would you buy an MOS or non-MOS Glock and get it milled?

[Cuz]

I’m curious, and don’t know how to set up a poll, so,

 

If you were buying a new full size Glock today, for range, competition, or even home defense, and already knew which optic you were going to mount on it, would you get the MOS version? Or would you get the non-MOS version and send the slide out to be milled for your optic?

 

Personally, I’ll never buy another MOS slide, unless I plan to use multiple optics to play around, or if I didn’t know which one I wanted to mount. 
 

I’d much rather get the traditional slide and have it milled for a specific footprint and eliminate the whole plate system altogether. 
 

Just wondering what the rest of you would do. 

[jerseyglock]

MOS.

[vluc]

The optic of today won't be the optic of tomorrow.  I have no issues with the MOS system.  I have one milled Glock slide and wished that I hadn't done it.  I was all in in the Vortex Venom, now, I have Holosun on all my Glocks, all MOS.  The 17 with the milled venom sits in the safe.

 

Not made of money and I like to try different optics.  Buying slides, heck the cost is almost as much as buying the whole gun.  Add milling...no thanks, but you do you.

 

Better that the footprints get standardized among the optics makers, that's a better solution imo.

[Boomstick303]

Unless you are absolutely set on using one and only one optic, MOS.  If you are a dude that chases the next hotness definitely MOS.  If you are someone that likes to tinker then MOS.  If you are not the type that keeps guns for very long, then MOS.  See the pattern.

[Intheshaw1]

I just buy MOS for all the glocks I can now even if I don't plan on adding a dot to them any time soon. I like having future options open to me and to Mill a slide is pretty much the same cost as the price difference to MOS, the MOS may even be cheaper.

[SGT_Schultz]

2 hours ago, Cuz said:

 

I’d much rather get the traditional slide and have it milled for a specific footprint and eliminate the whole plate system altogether

Not all plate system are the same.  

 

The MOS system lacks a feature that interlocks the plate and the slide to isolate the plate screws from longitudinal shear stresses.  Because of that I would not buy one.  

 

CZ's plate system on the other hand does have a cruciform lug that takes longitudinal shear stress away from the screws that hold the plate down.  CZ OEM plates are also hardened steel with plenty of thread engagement both through the plate for the optic screws and into the slide for the plate screws.

 

So all my Glocks are direct milled and all my P-10s have the factory plate system.  If I ever buy a Shadow 2 it will be the Optics Ready version which has the same plate to slide interface as the P-10.

[Cuz]

1 hour ago, vluc said:

 

Better that the footprints get standardized among the optics makers, that's a better solution imo.

VLUC for the win!

Although I doubt we’ll see that anytime soon. 

[Boomstick303]

2 hours ago, vluc said:

Better that the footprints get standardized among the optics makers, that's a better solution imo.

 

And that day will be when?????

[vluc]

SGT has a solid point.  Not all plate systems or the plates they use are the same.  I'm not a big fan of the C&H plates.  They have a nice idea with their lugs, but the screws they use strip way too easily.  I can see Glock doing some mods or even another 3rd party coming along.  The plate system is really not that mature at this point across the industry.  I've racked my slides with the red dot on MOS and C&H regularly since 2017 and have yet to have any issues.  But that's just for competition, its not a life & death deal.  Right now I don't know how much of it is marketing hype or reality.

 

Give them all time, until then, it's one of those things where we like what we like and that's what we use.

[SGT_Schultz]

3 hours ago, vluc said:

Better that the footprints get standardized among the optics makers, that's a better solution imo.

 

While I don't disagree with you, I doubt it will ever happen.

 

There's more than a few basic "footprints" that automakers have not standardized amongst themselves even after over 100 years of automobile manufacturing.  Try mounting a Honda wheel on a Ford vehicle for example.

 

 

[Braxton1]

1 hour ago, SGT_Schultz said:

Not all plate system are the same.  

 

The MOS system lacks a feature that interlocks the plate and the slide to isolate the plate screws from longitudinal shear stresses.  Because of that I would not buy one.  

 

I am a big believer in the MOS, having never suffered a failure, but this topic made me think a little. 

 

I believe that high-quality screws and proper installation are the secret to a good MOS mount.  Soft screws that break before being properly torqued are a panacea.  Hard screws can be brittle and break from metal fatigue after many cycles.  It's almost like the Three Bears and their porridge....  Another sure-fire killer of MOS Plate screws is installing RDS screws that are too long.  When that is done, the screw goes through the plate and projects out the bottom side, pressing on the slide itself.  That makes the screw act like a jackscrew, prying the plate up and away from the slide.  No Plate screw is going to survive that.  A common example of this is installing an RMR onto an MOS Plate without the Trijicon Installation Kit.  This kit includes a rubber gasket-like material and shorter RDS screws.  It all but eliminates the issue of "too long screws" and the rubber may dampen some shock.

 

Whether or not one uses the Trijicon kit, the person should install the RDS on the plate first as a trial fit, including torquing the screws.  Check the bottom of the Plate for ANY protrusion.  If there is, we can trim the screw a bit to shorten.  (I mostly see this on the RMS footprint; rarely on the Leupold DPP plates.)

 

Having not extensively tested it, I'm not sure (respectfully) of the validity of SGT Schultz's point, but he may be on to something.  The longitudinal play in the 17 Gen5 MOS averages around 0.010", before the screws are installed.  On the particular one that I am holding right now, about 8 thou of that is at the rear of the plate after the screws were tightened down.  There is a small interface between slide and plate, but it mainly supports the plate laterally (side-to-side play).

 

If one wanted to really hedge their bets, they could theoretically TIG weld a couple of small dabs on each end of the OEM plate to build it up, then dress it down with a file or stone to eliminate that longitudinal play.  Combine that with some good screws and proper installation technique and it should rock.

Edited October 22, 2021 by Braxton1

[rowdyb]

MOS simply because I wouldn't have to wait to send a slide off and for the ability to change and replace optics of differing types.

 

On my Gen 5 G34 mos I had no issues but did take every extra care during my installation. I have heard from others they are constantly replacing screws if not getting the threads retapped and or plates replaced. But I have not had that happen personally.

[SGT_Schultz]

1 hour ago, Braxton1 said:

 

I am a big believer in the MOS, having never suffered a failure, but this topic made me think a little. 

 

I believe that high-quality screws and proper installation are the secret to a good MOS mount.  Soft screws that break before being properly torqued are a panacea.  Hard screws can be brittle and break from metal fatigue after many cycles.  It's almost like the Three Bears and their porridge....  Another sure-fire killer of MOS Plate screws is installing RDS screws that are too long.  When that is done, the screw goes through the plate and projects out the bottom side, pressing on the slide itself.  That makes the screw act like a jackscrew, prying the plate up and away from the slide.  No Plate screw is going to survive that.  A common example of this is installing an RMR onto an MOS Plate without the Trijicon Installation Kit.  This kit includes a rubber gasket-like material and shorter RDS screws.  It all but eliminates the issue of "too long screws" and the rubber may dampen some shock.

 

Whether or not one uses the Trijicon kit, the person should install the RDS on the plate first as a trial fit, including torquing the screws.  Check the bottom of the Plate for ANY protrusion.  If there is, we can trim the screw a bit to shorten.  (I mostly see this on the RMS footprint; rarely on the Leupold DPP plates.)

 

Having not extensively tested it, I'm not sure (respectfully) of the validity of SGT Schultz's point, but he may be on to something.  The longitudinal play in the 17 Gen5 MOS averages around 0.010", before the screws are installed.  On the particular one that I am holding right now, about 8 thou of that is at the rear of the plate after the screws were tightened down.  There is a small interface between slide and plate, but it mainly supports the plate laterally (side-to-side play).

 

If one wanted to really hedge their bets, they could theoretically TIG weld a couple of small dabs on each end of the OEM plate to build it up, then dress it down with a file or stone to eliminate that longitudinal play.  Combine that with some good screws and proper installation technique and it should rock.

 

Screws that do not bottom out are a given.  I'm amazed at the number of men that need that explained to them.  Not only do they act like a jack like you correctly described, more importantly when they bottom out the linear relationship between torque and fastener tension that we rely on to predict threaded fastener preload is void and you have no idea how tight the joint is regardless of what your torque wrench is telling you.

 

Screws are always weaker in shear than they are in tension.  Letting them take the shear stresses with no relief from the components they hold together is not wise.

 

That's why I hedge my bets with plate systems that don't rely on screws to take on those longitudinal forces.

Edited October 22, 2021 by SGT_Schultz

[AHI]

From someone who has both. MOS.  Have 2 slides(guns) that takes Vortex/FF3 sights and 1 vortex (razor ?). Now I prefer Holosun.

So unless someone makes an adapter. They don't by the way. Now to change. I'll need a new slide. The two 

mOS guns just change the plate.

 

 

Edited October 22, 2021 by AHI

[Gary1911A1]

MOS would be the only way you could shoot an optic in GSSF Matches too.

[SGT_Schultz]

4 hours ago, Gary1911A1 said:

MOS would be the only way you could shoot an optic in GSSF Matches too.

 

You can shoot any aftermarket-milled Glock in GSSF Open

[boudreux]

I would go MOS. I got my first slide milled for a Burris FF3 and now I'm stuck with that dot forever. I do think that the milling is much better for reliability of the optic staying on. But, It now sits in the safe and I use it as a backup gun. If you were going to go with something like an RMR i think the milling would be good as those will probably have the same footprint for the foreseeable future. I use the forward controls plate with the DPP. I have had it come loose a couple times on the MOS. 

[SGT_Schultz]

16 hours ago, boudreux said:

I do think that the milling is much better for reliability of the optic staying on.

 

That depends entirely on the design of the plate system you're comparing it to.

 

With Glock, S&W, and SIG, you're likely right.  With CZ, not at all.

Edited October 24, 2021 by SGT_Schultz

[Cuz]

You guys are starting to make me rethink my decision to not want another MOS version.  Especially Boudreux.  I got a mounting plate to put a FF3 on my revo, and then immediately changed my mind in favor of a Holosight.  Luckily I don't plan to buy another gun for a while so it's not something I need to decide right away.

 

[Jeremyc_1999]

I have both, and for a carry gun prefer a milled slide because imho the Trijicon or Holosun are the only optics I feel have been proven for duty use and started with milled slides many years ago.  For competition I would probably go with MOS because of the changing red dot market 

 

[bigtimelarry]

Why get a slide milled when you can get the MOS ?  What, you think the Dot sitting  1/4" inch lower is gonna make a difference.. LOL..

[Cuz]

7 hours ago, bigtimelarry said:

Why get a slide milled when you can get the MOS ?  What, you think the Dot sitting  1/4" inch lower is gonna make a difference.. LOL..

Not at all, but it’s a much more solid mount to attach the sight directly to the slide instead of having a plate mounted to the slide, and then the sight mounted to the plate. 
2 more screws to break, everything is thinner with less screw threads holding them in place. 

[lgh]

8 hours ago, bigtimelarry said:

What, you think the Dot sitting  1/4" inch lower is gonna make a difference.

Yes

[Cuz]

Argh!  Sheared the plate of my slide today.  Probably only has around 6-7k rounds through it.

I think if I could find a Gen5 slide milled for RMR in stock I'd buy it.

At least my backup is a Gen3 with Brownells milled slide.  The dot isn't going anywhere on that one...

 

[SGT_Schultz]

37 minutes ago, Cuz said:

Argh!  Sheared the plate of my slide today.  Probably only has around 6-7k rounds through it.

I think if I could find a Gen5 slide milled for RMR in stock I'd buy it.

At least my backup is a Gen3 with Brownells milled slide.  The dot isn't going anywhere on that one...

 

I have over twice that many rounds on my P-10F OR, still going strong.

 

Your failure reinforces my opinion of MOS as not good to go.