View Full Version : Where does Glock sight their pistols ?
This I find kind of interesting because I have looked all over the place for it and could never find it in any kind of Glock information or manuals even those it seems quite fundamental to me.
I was actually look for replacement sights and used google to search "Glock replacement front sights"
This popped up several items down under "People also ask"....
"Are all Glock front sights the same
ALL models use the same 4.2mm fixed front sight. Glock sights their pistols nominally for 25 meter POI. OEM rear sight elevations of 6.1mm, 6.5mm, 6.9mm, and 7.3mm are available.. An old generic Glock thumb rule states that each increment taller raises the POI 50mm (2 inches) at 25 meters (27 yards)."
So, I guess you should expect new Glocks with factory settings to have a POI below the POA by as much as an inch and a half at 7 yards, with a .22 caliber Glock 44.
Now I have no information as to where this nominal 25 yard sighting comes from, but it's the first place I have ever seen that even gives a hint as to where guns are sighted
This I find kind of interesting because I have looked all over the place for it and could never find it in any kind of Glock information or manuals even those it seems quite fundamental to me.
I was actually look for replacement sights and used google to search "Glock replacement front sights"
This popped up several items down under "People also ask"....
"Are all Glock front sights the same
ALL models use the same 4.2mm fixed front sight. Glock sights their pistols nominally for 25 meter POI. OEM rear sight elevations of 6.1mm, 6.5mm, 6.9mm, and 7.3mm are available.. An old generic Glock thumb rule states that each increment taller raises the POI 50mm (2 inches) at 25 meters (27 yards)."
So, I guess you should expect new Glocks with factory settings to have a POI below the POA by as much as an inch and a half at 7 yards, with a .22 caliber Glock 44.
Now I have no information as to where this nominal 25 yard sighting comes from, but it's the first place I have ever seen that even gives a hint as to where guns are sighted
Looking again at the .22 caliber trajectory curves, you might only be 1/2 inch below POA at 7 yards, not inch and a half. (read the curve wrong).
Unless there is a zero target w bullet holes in it in the box that tells me where it’s zeroed, I don’t have faith that a new pistol has been zeroed (or even test fired) at the factory. Those good old days are long gone.
BillSWPA
10-04-2020, 09:06 PM
At least some sellers of the OEM plastic sights list the models for which each sight was intended.
Most fixed semiauto sights seem to be engineered to hit approximately at the top of the front sight at 25 yards. However, some are designed for a “drive the dot” sight picture in which the dot on the front sight covers the point of impact.
If I am getting a big deviation in elevation, the problem has often been my own shooter error. Trying to correct that issue with a different height sight rather than addressing the shooting fundamentals resulted in less consistency than fixing the shooting errors.
In most cases, I have found that centering the rear sight (and front sight if dovetail mounted) in the slide results in proper windage adjustment. Unless the gun is of sub-par quality, deviations in windage have been caused more often by my own shooting errors, and trying to correct the situation with a sight adjustment rather than correcting the error led to less consistent shooting.
As I learned here, revolvers are different. The recoil impulse of a semiauto is felt at the rearmost point of slide travel, well after the bullet has left the barrel. The recoil of a revolver is felt as soon as the bullet starts moving. So, recoil and recoil control will affect point of impact. Perhaps for this reason as well as others, revolver fixed sights have been far less likely in my experience to shoot to point of aim, with elevation differences being more common.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
frozentundra
10-04-2020, 09:29 PM
Where does Glock sight their pistols ?
A little bit to the left. :)
Unless there is a zero target w bullet holes in it in the box that tells me where it’s zeroed, I don’t have faith that a new pistol has been zeroed (or even test fired) at the factory. Those good old days are long gone.
My understanding is that Glock test fires each pistol, and uses a computerized system to track that and verify accuracy and zero.
Every pistol is test fired at 25m and receives the sights that will best zero it.
At least some sellers of the OEM plastic sights list the models for which each sight was intended.
Most fixed semiauto sights seem to be engineered to hit approximately at the top of the front sight at 25 yards. However, some are designed for a “drive the dot” sight picture in which the dot on the front sight covers the point of impact.
If I am getting a big deviation in elevation, the problem has often been my own shooter error. Trying to correct that issue with a different height sight rather than addressing the shooting fundamentals resulted in less consistency than fixing the shooting errors.
In most cases, I have found that centering the rear sight (and front sight if dovetail mounted) in the slide results in proper windage adjustment. Unless the gun is of sub-par quality, deviations in windage have been caused more often by my own shooting errors, and trying to correct the situation with a sight adjustment rather than correcting the error led to less consistent shooting.
As I learned here, revolvers are different. The recoil impulse of a semiauto is felt at the rearmost point of slide travel, well after the bullet has left the barrel. The recoil of a revolver is felt as soon as the bullet starts moving. So, recoil and recoil control will affect point of impact. Perhaps for this reason as well as others, revolver fixed sights have been far less likely in my experience to shoot to point of aim, with elevation differences being more common.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What I have a problem understanding is why that "sight zero" information is not provided in the owner's manual or at least on the website. I can not find anywhere that Glock states what the correct information is.
Isn't it important to know whether your gun is set to shoot "top of the front sight" or "drive the zero" ? Sure seems like it to me. I would never try to confirm or check that with a free standing shoot. I always use a rest of to even attempt to verify or adjust sights.
My understanding is that Glock test fires each pistol, and uses a computerized system to track that and verify accuracy and zero.
Where do you obtain this "understanding" from ?
Every pistol is test fired at 25m and receives the sights that will best zero it.
Again....where do you get this information ?
And are you saying that various guns will receive different height front or rear sights ?
Again....where do you get this information ?
And are you saying that various guns will receive different height front or rear sights ?
I got it while sitting in a factory in a little town called Deutsch-Wagram just outside Vienna in Austria
The guns will get different rear sights as a rule to zero them. Which is why even when 6.5 was the standard for Gen4 9mm Pistols you would come across guns, sometimes in reasonable numbers with 6.1 rear sights.
Shipwreck
10-05-2020, 11:02 AM
A little bit to the left. :)
https://i.imgur.com/EmegnBa.jpg
I got it while sitting in a factory in a little town called Deutsch-Wagram just outside Vienna in Austria
The guns will get different rear sights as a rule to zero them. Which is why even when 6.5 was the standard for Gen4 9mm Pistols you would come across guns, sometimes in reasonable numbers with 6.1 rear sights.
My understanding is they shoot one proof round, plus some more as part of that check.
Duelist
10-05-2020, 04:59 PM
Where does Glock sight their pistols ?
This is a tech forum, I know it, and I’ve been actively resisting this response since I first saw the title.
“In Austria, or Atlanta.”
Sorry.
1:35 or so of this video appears to show a test jig with a pistol expending a round.
https://youtu.be/rmrdFCsdw8U
okie john
10-05-2020, 07:03 PM
This I find kind of interesting because I have looked all over the place for it and could never find it in any kind of Glock information or manuals even those it seems quite fundamental to me.
I was actually look for replacement sights and used google to search "Glock replacement front sights"
This popped up several items down under "People also ask"....
"Are all Glock front sights the same
ALL models use the same 4.2mm fixed front sight. Glock sights their pistols nominally for 25 meter POI. OEM rear sight elevations of 6.1mm, 6.5mm, 6.9mm, and 7.3mm are available.. An old generic Glock thumb rule states that each increment taller raises the POI 50mm (2 inches) at 25 meters (27 yards)."
So, I guess you should expect new Glocks with factory settings to have a POI below the POA by as much as an inch and a half at 7 yards, with a .22 caliber Glock 44.
Now I have no information as to where this nominal 25 yard sighting comes from, but it's the first place I have ever seen that even gives a hint as to where guns are sighted
115-, 124-, and 147-grain loads can have different POIs for windage and elevation even at fairly close range. Glock has no idea what load you'll use so they can’t predict your POI.
What other folks have said in this thread may be true for current pistols, but several earlier ones that I've owned have been all over the map. The worst was a brand-new Gen3 G17 that hit way higher than anyone can justify as being useful or even safe on a service pistol:
10-yard POI was 2.375" over POA
25-yard POI was 6.25" over POA
50-yard POI was 12.5" over POA
That was ridiculous even after allowing for differences in loads, so I shipped it to Smyrna on my dime. Glock said it was within spec and didn't change anything--a complete waste of several weeks and a bunch of money for shipping.
After that I bought a set of plain black Glock front sights in varying heights.
https://i.imgur.com/wi8Bx92.jpg?3
I'd shoot a new pistol until I figured out which loads it shot best then swap blades until I got it regulated. Then I'd buy a night sight of the proper height, verify my zero, and put the gun into service.
FWIW, most sights that are sold as sets for Glock pistols are either very close or identical to the height of OEM sights, so your POI for elevation shouldn’t change just because you swap the sights. Obviously, you’ll need to zero them to get the windage right.
Okie John
115-, 124-, and 147-grain loads can have different POIs for windage and elevation even at fairly close range. Glock has no idea what load you'll use so they can’t predict your POI.
What other folks have said in this thread may be true for current pistols, but several earlier ones that I've owned have been all over the map. The worst was a brand-new Gen3 G17 that hit way higher than anyone can justify as being useful or even safe on a service pistol:
10-yard POI was 2.375" over POA
25-yard POI was 6.25" over POA
50-yard POI was 12.5" over POA
That was ridiculous even after allowing for differences in loads, so I shipped it to Smyrna on my dime. Glock said it was within spec and didn't change anything--a complete waste of several weeks and a bunch of money for shipping.
After that I bought a set of plain black Glock front sights in varying heights.
https://i.imgur.com/wi8Bx92.jpg?3
I'd shoot a new pistol until I figured out which loads it shot best then swap blades until I got it regulated. Then I'd buy a night sight of the proper height, verify my zero, and put the gun into service.
FWIW, most sights that are sold as sets for Glock pistols are either very close or identical to the height of OEM sights, so your POI for elevation shouldn’t change just because you swap the sights. Obviously, you’ll need to zero them to get the windage right.
Okie John
Those numbers are incredible and actually ridiculous if you ask me.
Those numbers are incredible and actually ridiculous if you ask me.
I think your expectations are unrealistic. The days of factory test targets and zeroing with live ammo at the factory are over for all but the most high end pistols.
Glock makes up to 60,000 guns a month.
They are also, at their core, a European company which sees handguns as primarily for institutional customers who have armorers who can drift and swap sights.
Glock slaps the same height sights on all guns of a particular model or caliber. I'm sure it is cheaper to simply swap sights on the few guns that are off and actually get shot by someone who can actually shoot a handgun well enough to tell the difference.
And their adjustable rear sight is an afterthought to gain import points. If you want adjustable sights I would look at Dawson though LPA and Kensight make them too.
I think your expectations are unrealistic. The days of factory test targets and zeroing with live ammo at the factory are over for all but the most high end pistols.
Glock makes up to 60,000 guns a month.
They are also, at their core, a European company which sees handguns as primarily for institutional customers who have armorers who can drift and swap sights.
Glock slaps the same height sights on all guns of a particular model or caliber. I'm sure it is cheaper to simply swap sights on the few guns that are off and actually get shot by someone who can actually shoot a handgun well enough to tell the difference.
And their adjustable rear sight is an afterthought to gain import points. If you want adjustable sights I would look at Dawson though LPA and Kensight make them too.
I really don't have any expectations. You know why ? Because I can't find any manufacturer provided information on what I should expect. But I certainly expect better than 2 or 3 inches off or POA at 10 yards on a Glock.
If you look at the Glock video in the post above, it sure makes you think that they are all tested and checked for accuracy now doesn't it. And so, where is your information coming from that supports that they don't do any factory testing or zeroing ?
Here’s another interesting video purporting to show Glock factory testing. This seems to show the same test jig as in that earlier video.
Kinda looks like Glock does a basic ‘does it go bang’ test protocol, and that’s about it.
Just spit ballin’ here as a retired Engineer, but my guess is Glock expends a huge effort to design / develop each series of guns with a variety of ammo. Then, they pick a ‘common’ or representative ammo type and determine the sight heights to achieve POI=POA at 25m, verify that, then start shipping them by the 000s. I rather suspect Glock has a fair bit of corporate knowledge on this to make a pretty informed sight choice. Using this philosophy, it doesn’t seem unusual all they’d do is a basic function check, or possibly re-verify downstream production samples from time to time, to ensure QC is being met.
https://youtu.be/WeQ-9fcgEqM
I really don't have any expectations. You know why ? Because I can't find any manufacturer provided information on what I should expect. But I certainly expect better than 2 or 3 inches off or POA at 10 yards on a Glock.
If you look at the Glock video in the post above, it sure makes you think that they are all tested and checked for accuracy now doesn't it. And so, where is your information coming from that supports that they don't do any factory testing or zeroing ?
As RJ mentioned they are putting the gun is a machine rest to make sure it goes bang.
One of my duties at work is being that armorer who has to swap out sights to get guns to shoot to POA/POI.
I’ve corrected multiple Glocks and sigs which came from the factory with windage or elevation issues.
Glock isn’t the only one who ships all guns with the sane standard set of sights. Sig and others all do the same.
As RJ mentioned they are putting the gun is a machine rest to make sure it goes bang.
One of my duties at work is being that armorer who has to swap out sights to get guns to shoot to POA/POI.
I’ve corrected multiple Glocks and sigs which came from the factory with windage or elevation issues.
Glock isn’t the only one who ships all guns with the sane standard set of sights. Sig and others all do the same.
Well it sounds like you certainly have some experience and knowledge that most of us don't have. I believe you see things most of us never will.
Again, my complaint is that the manufacturer does not provide some sort of "spec" and detail about what those of us without all of that experience should be aware of. I can't even find anything that tells a person what the proper sight alignment and hold position should be with the gun. Seems like that would be good to know. Or, if variations in ammo can be that big of a factor, they could state that in their literature.
Doc_Glock
10-06-2020, 08:09 AM
115-, 124-, and 147-grain loads can have different POIs for windage and elevation even at fairly close range. Glock has no idea what load you'll use so they can’t predict your POI.
What other folks have said in this thread may be true for current pistols, but several earlier ones that I've owned have been all over the map. The worst was a brand-new Gen3 G17 that hit way higher than anyone can justify as being useful or even safe on a service pistol:
10-yard POI was 2.375" over POA
25-yard POI was 6.25" over POA
50-yard POI was 12.5" over POA
That was ridiculous even after allowing for differences in loads, so I shipped it to Smyrna on my dime. Glock said it was within spec and didn't change anything--a complete waste of several weeks and a bunch of money for shipping.
After that I bought a set of plain black Glock front sights in varying heights.
I don’t really trust any manufacturer. I don’t have any Glock horror stories probably because the ones I have bought used already swapped sights or I did it before shooting them.
Beretta M9A3 shoot 8” low at 25 yards out of the box: Beretta shipped and fixed on their dime.
Springfield Range Office Compact 9mm shot 15” high at 25 yards, again fixed on their dime.
Sig 2022 hit 6.5” high at 25. Sig refused to help in any way whatsoever.
Both my P30ls hit a few inches high at 25 which was readily fixed with a taller front that HK gladly shipped my way.
every other HK was completely dialed out of the box.
I am disappointed that Glock seems to rarely pay for return shipping. Amazingly, I have never had to ship one back to the factory.
Check your zero people.
Nephrology
10-06-2020, 08:50 AM
I am disappointed that Glock seems to rarely pay for return shipping. Amazingly, I have never had to ship one back to the factory.
That's strange to hear. I've sent tons of items to Glock for service (mostly magazines, but recently a Glock 48, sent back twice). They paid for return shipping on all of the mags and sent me a pre-paid FedEx overnight label for the pistol, both times.
Doc_Glock
10-06-2020, 09:01 AM
That's strange to hear. I've sent tons of items to Glock for service (mostly magazines, but recently a Glock 48, sent back twice). They paid for return shipping on all of the mags and sent me a pre-paid FedEx overnight label for the pistol, both times.
That is good. I have only ever heard from other folks that Glock is good about fixing stuff, but they never or very rarely pay for the shipping to them.
That's strange to hear. I've sent tons of items to Glock for service (mostly magazines, but recently a Glock 48, sent back twice). They paid for return shipping on all of the mags and sent me a pre-paid FedEx overnight label for the pistol, both times.
I’ve never had Glock pay for shipping.
Well it sounds like you certainly have some experience and knowledge that most of us don't have. I believe you see things most of us never will.
Again, my complaint is that the manufacturer does not provide some sort of "spec" and detail about what those of us without all of that experience should be aware of. I can't even find anything that tells a person what the proper sight alignment and hold position should be with the gun. Seems like that would be good to know. Or, if variations in ammo can be that big of a factor, they could state that in their literature.
The late Todd Louis Green, the founder of Pistol Forum worked in the gun industry and wrote an article for his blog pistol-training.com regarding the state of the industry titled “trust no one”
http://pistol-training.com/articles/trust-no-one-an-insiders-perspective
As far as zeroing and holds there are a few factors contributing to why Glock would not be that specific. First is variations in ammunition types and quality, environmental effects on ammunition performance and finally the fact that shooting handguns accurately is difficult and most people can’t shoot them worth a damn. Not that they are physically incapable but rather they don’t want to put in the work required to develop or maintain those skills.
Nephrology
10-06-2020, 11:13 AM
I’ve never had Glock pay for shipping.
Maybe my mom was onto something when she told me I was special ;)
WobblyPossum
10-06-2020, 02:28 PM
I’ve only had to ship a gun back to Glock once and they paid for shipping. My issue was a very obvious manufacturing mistake though so maybe they felt bad.
Years ago, I took the Glock armorers course. They told us that Glocks had "Combat Sights" not target sights, whatever that means.
I sent one Glock back for repair and they paid the shipping as far as I remember.
Maybe my mom was onto something when she told me I was special ;)
Lucky guy. One of my mom's (RIP) favorite things to say to me was "I am sorry we only had half enough money to make you a wit." :cool:
Anyway, on topic, I am going take the one-day Glock Armorer Course next month in Winter Garden FL. I'll see if there's an opportunity to ask this question about what sight picture Glock designs to.
echo5charlie
10-06-2020, 07:50 PM
I’ve never had Glock pay for shipping.
Conversely, I've never had Glock not pay for shipping.
echo5charlie
10-06-2020, 07:54 PM
Again....where do you get this information ?
And are you saying that various guns will receive different height front or rear sights ?
I was told the same thing when I went to the Glock Operator Course in Smyrna in 2017.
Of note, a G29 Gen4 I used to own had the "wrong" 6.5 rear sight (from the factory). It was correct for POA/POI at 25 yards.
ECVMatt
10-07-2020, 01:16 AM
The tone of some of the contributors on this thread seems almost angry; I find that puzzling.
I think it is part of being a responsible gun owner to verify and adjust, if needed, the sights on any gun.
For the most part I view factory sights a place holders for the real thing. With the exception of night sites or other top tier options, the plastic catch alls can be problematic. While I feel that Glock generally does a good job of mounting sights, I would put as much initial trust in them as I would taking a Savage Axis with a factory mounted NcStar scope bought from Walmart on sale, through Amazon Prime, On Black Friday, hunting without confirming zero. I am pretty sure that is a run-on sentence, but you get the point.
While the Axis can be quite accurate, and the NcStar will sometimes work, it is up to the actual buyer to put all this magic together and confirm that it will work.
Just my opinion.
The tone of some of the contributors on this thread seems almost angry; I find that puzzling.
I think it is part of being a responsible gun owner to verify and adjust, if needed, the sights on any gun.
For the most part I view factory sights a place holders for the real thing. With the exception of night sites or other top tier options, the plastic catch alls can be problematic. While I feel that Glock generally does a good job of mounting sights, I would put as much initial trust in them as I would taking a Savage Axis with a factory mounted NcStar scope bought from Walmart on sale, through Amazon Prime, On Black Friday, hunting without confirming zero. I am pretty sure that is a run-on sentence, but you get the point.
While the Axis can be quite accurate, and the NcStar will sometimes work, it is up to the actual buyer to put all this magic together and confirm that it will work.
Just my opinion.
I would not have as big a problem with that if such information was published and well publicized by the manufacturer. But nowhere does Glock ever give any indication that factory sights are "place holders" for the real thing. They give every indication that they are totally useable and reliable sights.
Eric_L
10-07-2020, 10:46 AM
I would not have as big a problem with that if such information was published and well publicized by the manufacturer. But nowhere does Glock ever give any indication that factory sights are "place holders" for the real thing. They give every indication that they are totally useable and reliable sights.
Even if you had that information I don’t see that it would change anything. See Matt’s comments. Check gun. Adjust as necessary. Move on.
Even if you had that information I don’t see that it would change anything. See Matt’s comments. Check gun. Adjust as necessary. Move on.
Because I would like to see what Glock's position is on this topic. If they admit that factory settings might not be what you want, then they should offer suggestions and maybe even replacement sights for free or at least at a good price. If they expect factory sights to need to be checked, they should include information and procedure to check the sights on a new gun in their owner's manual don't you think ?
They could use their lousy quality control to increase sales. I think it is quite odd that Glock knows that front sights might have to be changed but only manufactures one height front sight. So, they are encouraging you to go to another manufacturer to fix their quality problem ? Not buying it.....
4given
10-07-2020, 01:49 PM
A little bit to the left. :)
That would be low left::p
okie john
10-07-2020, 02:08 PM
Because I would like to see what Glock's position is on this topic. If they admit that factory settings might not be what you want, then they should offer suggestions and maybe even replacement sights for free or at least at a good price. If they expect factory sights to need to be checked, they should include information and procedure to check the sights on a new gun in their owner's manual don't you think ?
They could use their lousy quality control to increase sales. I think it is quite odd that Glock knows that front sights might have to be changed but only manufactures one height front sight. So, they are encouraging you to go to another manufacturer to fix their quality problem ? Not buying it.....
To admit any of this could create liability, so Glock's position is and always has been silence. Discussion wouldn't benefit the tiny number of shooters who already understand the problem and have already fixed it, but it would inflame ill-informed knuckleheads all over the internet, creating decades of white-hot neckbeard rage that would never truly dissipate. Ask arfcom about shooting cast bullets in Glock barrels with polygonal rifling if you doubt me.
Having worked on commercial ranges for years, I can say that few gun owners shoot regularly if at all. Even fewer know how to use the sights properly and fewer still understand what a zero is, why it matters, or how to achieve one. Almost none of them shoot well enough for either sights or zero to matter--hitting anywhere on an IPSC target most of the time in slow fire at 7m is cause for fist bumps and high-fiving all around.
Those of us who are the exceptions to these rules will tell you that Glock steel sights and night sights are acceptable (kind of) and that their plastic sights must be replaced immediately. Then we go back to doing something important.
Okie John
To admit any of this could create liability, so Glock's position is and always has been silence. Discussion wouldn't benefit the tiny number of shooters who already understand the problem and have already fixed it, but it would inflame ill-informed knuckleheads all over the internet, creating decades of white-hot neckbeard rage that would never truly dissipate. Ask arfcom about shooting cast bullets in Glock barrels with polygonal rifling if you doubt me.
Having worked on commercial ranges for years, I can say that few gun owners shoot regularly if at all. Even fewer know how to use the sights properly and fewer still understand what a zero is, why it matters, or how to achieve one. Almost none of them shoot well enough for either sights or zero to matter--hitting anywhere on an IPSC target most of the time in slow fire at 7m is cause for fist bumps and high-fiving all around.
Those of us who are the exceptions to these rules will tell you that Glock steel sights and night sights are acceptable (kind of) and that their plastic sights must be replaced immediately. Then we go back to doing something important.
Okie John
So do the plastic sights need to be replaced immediately because they are a) not accurate, b) fragile and easily damaged, or c) some other reason ?
I have ameriglo sights on my Glock 19 but I really can't see the need for that on a Glock 44. But I might change the front sight to a taller sight to allow me to zero at 15 or 25 yards yards where POA = POI. Because these days, that is about the most important thing I really have to do right now.
Thanks for your thoughts.
okie john
10-07-2020, 02:53 PM
So do the plastic sights need to be replaced immediately because they are a) not accurate, b) fragile and easily damaged, or c) some other reason ?
I have ameriglo sights on my Glock 19 but I really can't see the need for that on a Glock 44. But I might change the front sight to a taller sight to allow me to zero at 15 or 25 yards yards where POA = POI. Because these days, that is about the most important thing I really have to do right now.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Accuracy is the same as with any other sights. But if they get bumped, then the POI can easily shift radically. If they break or come off, then they can't be used at all.
Okie John
flyrodr
10-07-2020, 03:06 PM
So do the plastic sights need to be replaced immediately because they are a) not accurate, b) fragile and easily damaged, or c) some other reason ?
I have ameriglo sights on my Glock 19 but I really can't see the need for that on a Glock 44. But I might change the front sight to a taller sight to allow me to zero at 15 or 25 yards yards where POA = POI. Because these days, that is about the most important thing I really have to do right now.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Glock, it the owner's manual, does point out the availability of different sight dimensions.
61423
So the fixed sights are "adjustable", just not easily. To your question: The sights are not "not accurate". They may not be the proper height for the load, distance, person involved; thus the need to replace. Immediately? Personal decision based on sight deviation, need, etc. The plastic sights are pretty tough, not too easily damaged, but not as sturdy as good steel sights (tritium lamps . . . eh?).
Accuracy is the same as with any other sights. But if they get bumped, then the POI can easily shift radically. If they break or come off, then they can't be used at all.
Okie John
Been a while since I looked, but Glock offers steel OEM sights. A 6.5mm (which iirc is 0.256") rear is $14.99 at the Glockstore: https://www.glockstore.com/Glock-Sight-Rear-Steel-6-5mm
And the front is $14.99: https://www.glockstore.com/Glock-Front-Sight-Steel-Screw
So it looks like a $30 problem, plus installation, for a customer who prefers steel sights. I would surmise they are significantly more robust than polymer, and stand up to much harder use of frequent holstering or operation.
Now, just as another point of discussion, several gun manufacturers offer steel sights as standard. My P365XL came with excellent steel X-Ray night sights.
I was also curious enough to go check in the owner's manual. I can't see anything really useful in terms of guidance provided by Sig on sight picture, other than mentioning the availability of different sight heights available, from Sig. Anecdotally, the guys on the Sig brand forum, I'm on indicated Sigs use the cover or center dot hold, by design. Having shot my wife's P365, and my P365XL, that (cover dot) accurately described my experience. Now, I'm not sure exactly where that's documented on the Sig web site, if at all, tho. Maybe it is somewhere? Anyway, it looks like Sig doesn't seem to provide any more guidance on sight alignment than Glock does, at least by a cursory look.
One last point: A long time ago, I bought a M&P 1.0 9mm as my first gun in 2014. It came with decent three-dot, steel sights. To see what S&W is doing these days, I looked up what's likely a G19 equivalent, their M&P 2.0 4" compact. Per S&W, it does still come with steel three dot sights. Downloading the M&P user manual pdf, again, dang if I could find anything relating to guidance on the sight picture they use. There's information on sight adjustment, in terms of drifting the rear sight for windage. So, it looks like S&W also does not give any more guidance on sight design than Glock.
Bottom line, I think okie john has the right of it, as regards to the vast majority of the gun owning public. They just can't shoot that well, nor do they use their guns that much. I seem to recall someone I follow online mention, the average used gun that's traded in, has had 7 shots fire through it. 7 shots. As in, the average.
My own very limited experience in shooting at the Public Line on various square ranges here in FL is that generally you are lucky if the shooter in the next lane can keep his rounds from landing on your target. I see paper targets that do not look too different than if they were hit by a shotgun blast. It's pretty depressing.
So, using anything other than the existing plastic dove-tail protectors probably doesn't matter to Glock; they save $30 (end user price) per unit if they used steel, and for what? They sell a lot of Glocks. And of course the <1% of the shooting community that it matters to, knows this anyway, so they just get on with selecting the sight set that works best for them. It's hard to fault Glocks business model. I mean, you may not like it, but the carpets at Glock HQ are pretty thick. :cool:
Been a while since I looked, but Glock offers steel OEM sights. A 6.5mm (which iirc is 0.256") rear is $14.99 at the Glockstore: https://www.glockstore.com/Glock-Sight-Rear-Steel-6-5mm
And the front is $14.99: https://www.glockstore.com/Glock-Front-Sight-Steel-Screw
So it looks like a $30 problem, plus installation, for a customer who prefers steel sights. I would surmise they are significantly more robust than polymer, and stand up to much harder use of frequent holstering or operation.
Now, just as another point of discussion, several gun manufacturers offer steel sights as standard. My P365XL came with excellent steel X-Ray night sights.
I was also curious enough to go check in the owner's manual. I can't see anything really useful in terms of guidance provided by Sig on sight picture, other than mentioning the availability of different sight heights available, from Sig. Anecdotally, the guys on the Sig brand forum, I'm on indicated Sigs use the cover or center dot hold, by design. Having shot my wife's P365, and my P365XL, that (cover dot) accurately described my experience. Now, I'm not sure exactly where that's documented on the Sig web site, if at all, tho. Maybe it is somewhere? Anyway, it looks like Sig doesn't seem to provide any more guidance on sight alignment than Glock does, at least by a cursory look.
One last point: A long time ago, I bought a M&P 1.0 9mm as my first gun in 2014. It came with decent three-dot, steel sights. To see what S&W is doing these days, I looked up what's likely a G19 equivalent, their M&P 2.0 4" compact. Per S&W, it does still come with steel three dot sights. Downloading the M&P user manual pdf, again, dang if I could find anything relating to guidance on the sight picture they use. There's information on sight adjustment, in terms of drifting the rear sight for windage. So, it looks like S&W also does not give any more guidance on sight design than Glock.
Bottom line, I think okie john has the right of it, as regards to the vast majority of the gun owning public. They just can't shoot that well, nor do they use their guns that much. I seem to recall someone I follow online mention, the average used gun that's traded in, has had 7 shots fire through it. 7 shots. As in, the average.
My own very limited experience in shooting at the Public Line on various square ranges here in FL is that generally you are lucky if the shooter in the next lane can keep his rounds from landing on your target. I see paper targets that do not look too different than if they were hit by a shotgun blast. It's pretty depressing.
So, using anything other than the existing plastic dove-tail protectors probably doesn't matter to Glock; they save $30 (end user price) per unit if they used steel, and for what? They sell a lot of Glocks. And of course the <1% of the shooting community that it matters to, knows this anyway, so they just get on with selecting the sight set that works best for them. It's hard to fault Glocks business model. I mean, you may not like it, but the carpets at Glock HQ are pretty thick. :cool:
Thanks a lot for your research and reply. I have ameriglo sights on my Glock 19 and they are fine and sight very well. The gun I'm looking for sights would be a Glock 44 that has adjustable rear sights that won't zero with the rear sight in the lowest position. It still shoots high and I'd have to install a taller front sight to fix that. Glock does not make a taller front sight that I can tell. I'm not unhappy with the plastic sights as far as damage or use, I just want the thing to be zeroed where it should be.
But I really appreciate you and flyrodr both for your replies and thoughts.
Thanks very much.
okie john
10-07-2020, 06:41 PM
Having shot my wife's P365, and my P365XL, that (cover dot) accurately described my experience. Now, I'm not sure exactly where that's documented on the Sig web site, if at all, tho. Maybe it is somewhere? Anyway, it looks like Sig doesn't seem to provide any more guidance on sight alignment than Glock does, at least by a cursory look.
POI depends on load.
My VP9 required a “drive the dot” hold. My carry load (147-grain HST) grouped around the six o'clock portion of the the dot out all the way to 50 yards. A good 124-grain load consistently grouped at three o’clock. At 50 yards, that's center of mass with the 147 versus the target’s left armpit for the 124, and that's not good enough. Even up close, you could aim for the nose and hit the ear if you swapped loads indiscriminately.
Zero your pistol for the load you plan to use. Know where it hits with other loads. They might not be the same place.
Okie John
peterb
10-07-2020, 08:16 PM
One advantage of the fixed plastic sights is that they’re an inexpensive way to experiment with sight options. You can paint them or file them without feeling like you’re wasting money, or swap rears without a sight pusher with no worries about marring them.
GearFondler
10-08-2020, 05:03 AM
I just finished renewing my CCW for the 4th or 5th time and it never fails that multiple people in the class have not shot their "carry weapon" since the last CCW class 5 years past... I don't understand it but it's real.
Because I would like to see what Glock's position is on this topic. If they admit that factory settings might not be what you want, then they should offer suggestions and maybe even replacement sights for free or at least at a good price. If they expect factory sights to need to be checked, they should include information and procedure to check the sights on a new gun in their owner's manual don't you think ?
They could use their lousy quality control to increase sales. I think it is quite odd that Glock knows that front sights might have to be changed but only manufactures one height front sight. So, they are encouraging you to go to another manufacturer to fix their quality problem ? Not buying it.....
There are two heights of front sight and four of rear.
There are two heights of front sight and four of rear.
Thank you for that. I will look for those. I don't want to change the rear sight because it is adjustable for windage too.
Where are you finding those ? I only see the one option at GlockStore.com
Shipwreck
10-08-2020, 12:05 PM
I just finished renewing my CCW for the 4th or 5th time and it never fails that multiple people in the class have not shot their "carry weapon" since the last CCW class 5 years past... I don't understand it but it's real.
Yes, I have seen that every time as well...
BillSWPA
10-08-2020, 01:09 PM
So do the plastic sights need to be replaced immediately because they are a) not accurate, b) fragile and easily damaged, or c) some other reason ?
I have ameriglo sights on my Glock 19 but I really can't see the need for that on a Glock 44. But I might change the front sight to a taller sight to allow me to zero at 15 or 25 yards yards where POA = POI. Because these days, that is about the most important thing I really have to do right now.
Thanks for your thoughts.
I used the plastic sights for the first 2 years I carried my Glock 26, shooting 5,000-10,000 rounds/year at that time (prior to marriage and kids). I had no issues, but later replaced them with tritium sights.
On the 44, I strongly discourage a metal sight. Most metal sights are made of softer metal than the (almost always steel) slide in order to compress slightly to form a compression fit in the dovetail. However, the 44 has a plastic dovetail. So, when a metal slide is placed in the plastic dovetail, it is the slide, not the sight, that may be deformed or perhaps even damaged. Using the plastic sights prevents this possibility of damaging your slide.
I used the plastic sights for the first 2 years I carried my Glock 26, shooting 5,000-10,000 rounds/year at that time (prior to marriage and kids). I had no issues, but later replaced them with tritium sights.
On the 44, I strongly discourage a metal sight. Most metal sights are made of softer metal than the (almost always steel) slide in order to compress slightly to form a compression fit in the dovetail. However, the 44 has a plastic dovetail. So, when a metal slide is placed in the plastic dovetail, it is the slide, not the sight, that may be deformed or perhaps even damaged. Using the plastic sights prevents this possibility of damaging your slide.
Yes, I have no intention of replacing the rear sight anyway but would not do so with metal sights for all the reasons you mention. But, the plastic front sights that I find are only in the same height as the one in my gun. I might consider replacing the front sight with metal if I can only find a taller sight in metal. I don't think that should be a problem.
Thanks for your comments.
Shipwreck
10-08-2020, 07:46 PM
I have owned 3 digits of handguns over 25 years. I have owned a LOT of guns. I have had sight issues with less than a handful out of all of them.
Many times it is not the gun but the shooter.
OK I have now gotten my Glock 44 sighted where I am happy with it. Part of the problem I was having was that with the Glock sights, I was having difficulty getting the sights aimed at where I really wanted them. Because the background where I shoot is dark, I was aligning the top of the dot on the front sight with the top of the sight on the rear sight. This was causing my aim to be high and that is probably some if not all of the shooting high issues I was having at 15 yards.
So, I painted a stripe across the top of the front and rear sights and use those to properly get my sight picture. Brought down my shots consistently and I'm fine with where they are. I had actually adjusted the rear sight to the lowest point to bring shots down and now with this new marking on my sights, I had to adjust the rear back up one notch.
Rear sight stayed adjusted to compensate for shooting left.
I have attached pictures of my target at 15 yards and one that tries to show the modifications I made to the front and rear sights.
Thanks for everyone's help and suggestions.
6326663267
TCinVA
11-16-2020, 01:28 PM
I would not have as big a problem with that if such information was published and well publicized by the manufacturer. But nowhere does Glock ever give any indication that factory sights are "place holders" for the real thing. They give every indication that they are totally useable and reliable sights.
"Useable" and "reliable" are subjective evaluations.
Every Glock I've purchased, including my two Gen5 guns, have come from the box with sights I could use to make a hit out to 50 yards with 115 grain and 124 grain Federal FMJ ammo.
The sight picture was terrible and not to my preference, and the sights can be easily ripped off the gun if one was to, say, rack the slide off of your holster...but they allowed sighting the gun. And they did so as cheaply as possible. That's how Gaston Glock became a billionaire.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.