to mill again, or to get a Glock MOS gun

[DacoRoman]

I currently have a Gen 5 G17, milled for RMR (by Southwest Precision) to a depth of 0.150".

I really like this set up, and I would like to get a second Gen 5 G17 set up exactly the same way. One will be for practice, and the other will be a Match Gun for USPSA.

I would normally favor direct milling for the usual reasons, sits lower, less points of potential failure, etc. and, perhaps most importantly in this case, to have a gun that is exactly the same.

However, I am wondering if the second G17 ought to be an MOS gun. I'd get either a C&H Precision or Forward Control Designs optic plate for the MOS gun.
The advantage of the MOS gun would be that I could get different plates for different optics to future proof the gun to a certain degree.
I'd also be able to forgo waiting to get the slide milled/refinished, and the additional cost ($200 for the milling and re-finish with black nitride).

But, my milled pistol is milled to a depth of 0.150", and I'm wondering if an MOS gun with a plate would place the optic noticeably higher compared to the milled gun, to the point where it would possibly affect the efficiency of my presentation, and or the way the gun behaves in recoil?

Do any of you have any experience with how the two set ups compare when shot side by side?

Both guns would sport 507 Comp optics.

[GJM]

I would get a MOS pistol, for the reason you mention, and I wouldn't give a second thought to the difference in height between it and your direct milled pistol. I would also consider the DPP MOS plates for the RMR/SRO/Holosun 507 and Holosun EPS optics.

[Utm]

I use to be all for milling but after running MOS guns for work, I think it's just fine and wish I would've went with MOS from the jump.

[fatdog]

I have a pair of G17's both with 5 moa SRO in place, one is milled, one is MOS, when I have them up firing them I cannot tell the difference in height or any of that. They are identical for shooting purposes. I got the MOS because GSSF requires it for their carry optics division, but had the milling done because it "removed a point of failure" but with the good FCD plates properly installed with loctite blue, I don't think I have much to worry about.

Go MOS to be futureproof, we are in the early days still of the slide mounted optic, there are better things ahead we don't know about yet.

[Boxy]

I am at the same cross road to mill or not to mill. You folks provide good reason and logic to stay with MOS Glocks. I have a couple GSSF coupons for discounts and will be acquiring a couple pieces soon.

I love this forum. Thank you.

[DacoRoman]

Thanks for the suggestions everyone!

[EVP]

Like the others have said go MOS and go with a forward control plate, forget the C&H plate.


You can use your MOS to be the test bed for different optics.

[Henry]

Nice comments so far. I have a few milled Glocks and a few mos Glocks. I have no trouble adapting from one gun to the next. Seems like unless you know you want a milled slide; get an mos gun. The 507 comp is an ideal optic for the mos. The lens will not be unnecessarily near the ejection port and it has plenty of window to work with non "irons forward." Just don't skimp on the plate.

(not that there is anything wrong with other setups like some of the ones I have)

[DacoRoman]

Like the others have said go MOS and go with a forward control plate, forget the C&H plate.


You can use your MOS to be the test bed for different optics.

Y'all are making a strong case for MOS for sure! I'm still 50:50 on it! A GM friend of mine's words keep ringing in my head though: "if you want Twins, go all the way"! :D

But based on the responses here, if I do decide to go MOS, the good news is that it should be GTG. It's nice to know that I'm probably splitting hairs and either decision is legit!

While I'm still contemplating things, I may first just get another 507 comp, put it on my existing milled Gen5 G17, and use it as a training gun, and possibly use my milled Gen3 G17 with 507 Comp as my match gun, or vice versa, after a short trial to see if they are similar enough based on Drill performance.

The Gen3 has a better trigger hence I'm thinking it may be the Match gun. Accuracy seems close enough between the two (I have a WC drop in barrel in the Gen 3).

This is getting way off topic, but for the sake of discussion:

The Gen 3 has a 25 cent polishing job, 5lb striker spring, Zev V4 Race Connector, a reduced power drop safety plunger spring, and possibly a ZEV increased power trigger spring (the gun's recently come out of mothballs and I can't remember!).
The Gen 5 has a 25 cent polishing job, 5lb striker spring and "-" Glock connector. I think I can get it close enough to the Gen 3 by putting in a reduced power plunger spring.

I have a Talon Pro grips decal on the Gen3, and if I put the same grip decal on the Gen5 I think they'll feel close enough for RocknRoll.

Anyway, sorry for the digression, I guess I'm thinking out loud.

Why do you like the FCD > than the C&H? I'm kinda leaning toward the FCD already.

[DacoRoman]

Nice comments so far. I have a few milled Glocks and a few mos Glocks. I have no trouble adapting from one gun to the next. Seems like unless you know you want a milled slide; get an mos gun. The 507 comp is an ideal optic for the mos. The lens will not be unnecessarily near the ejection port and it has plenty of window to work with non "irons forward." Just don't skimp on the plate.

(not that there is anything wrong with other setups like some of the ones I have)

Another great data point about the inter-compatibility of shooting "feel" from milled to non-milled. If you run timed Drills, I'm assuming you can't tell a difference between hit factor between milled vs MOS?

You do bring up an interesting point about the optic issue. The 507 comp sitting a hair lower will make a tall optic like that less likely to get nailed by brass, although this only seems theoretical and not a real world problem, especially with Gen5 ejection patterns.

To follow up on my comments in the post above, if my milled Gen 3 and Gen 5 can be used as an interchangeable training/match pair, then my next Glock will 100% be an MOS gun...it may be a G45 instead of G17 at that point however :D.

[Henry]

Another great data point about the inter-compatibility of shooting "feel" from milled to non-milled. If you run timed Drills, I'm assuming you can't tell a difference between hit factor between milled vs MOS?

You do bring up an interesting point about the optic issue. The 507 comp sitting a hair lower will make a tall optic like that less likely to get nailed by brass, although this only seems theoretical and not a real world problem, especially with Gen5 ejection patterns.

To follow up on my comments in the post above, if my milled Gen 3 and Gen 5 can be used as an interchangeable training/match pair, then my next Glock will 100% be an MOS gun...it may be a G45 instead of G17 at that point however :D.

My timer has mostly sat in a drawer the past decade.

Even with tall sights on a Glock the height over your hands has got to be lower than with a lot of pistols. Going from a 1911 to my first Glock in 2010 it seemed like my eyes were higher up than where my hands wanted to be. I like suppressor height sights on Glocks if it has to be irons.

I only meant to praise the 507 comp. I wasn't saying it would get hit by brass. I have a gen 3 that is a laser so I had it milled for an SRO. The lens hangs more forward than on any Holosun and is just about flush with the breach face. I'm not knocking this; I like the setup... but it is worth complementing the 507 comp for not being that way.

If you don't go MOS then you wont learn anything new! Haha let us know how it goes.

[DMF13]

The advantage of the MOS gun would be that I could get different plates for different optics to future proof the gun to a certain degree.This is why I've stuck with plates so far.



I'd also be able to forgo waiting to get the slide milled/refinished, and the additional cost ($200 for the milling and re-finish with black nitride).Yes,but actual cost difference is only about $125, because a CHPWS or FCD plate is about $75.

[DMF13]

. . . my milled pistol is milled to a depth of 0.150", and I'm wondering if an MOS gun with a plate would place the optic noticeably higher compared to the milled gun, to the point where it would possibly affect the efficiency of my presentation, and or the way the gun behaves in recoil?

Do any of you have any experience with how the two set ups compare when shot side by side?

Both guns would sport 507 Comp optics.My competition gun had a 507COMP on a CHPWS plate, and last week I did some.shooting with a buddy's pistol that has a Deltapoint Pro, also on a CHPWS plate. That's about a .14" difference in height. I noticed it, but it didn't really affect me at all.

[EVP]

Why do you like the FCD > than the C&H? I'm kinda leaning toward the FCD already.

I went through 2 C&H plates that were machined wrong and had a defect.

I went through a trusted respected vendor that had a good return policy, so they took care of me and could not ask anymore then that from them.

The Fcd plate is steel and fits well, I can loctite and torque it down and it is going to be solid. I am kinda set it and forget it guy.

[Boxy]

Mulling over milling vs new MOS. I see some shops will mill an MOS footprint on a non MOS Glock slide with the iron sights milled in front of the optic. Only down side to this I see is if you remove the optic an use only iron sights.

What is the convention wisdom with this approach?

Thank you.

[Utm]

Mulling over milling vs new MOS. I see some shops will mill an MOS footprint on a non MOS Glock slide with the iron sights milled in front of the optic. Only down side to this I see is if you remove the optic an use only iron sights.

What is the convention wisdom with this approach?

Thank you.
Personally I would stick with iron to the rear of the optic. I never found an advantage of iron in front

[mmc45414]

"if you want Twins, go all the way"!
If you want a twin maybe plan around getting a third gun someday, and that would be an MOS gun.

[DacoRoman]

Mulling over milling vs new MOS. I see some shops will mill an MOS footprint on a non MOS Glock slide with the iron sights milled in front of the optic. Only down side to this I see is if you remove the optic an use only iron sights.

What is the convention wisdom with this approach?

Thank you.

I am so used to having the iron sights behind the optic that I'd personally be hesitant to go sights in front of the optic. If you try it and love it, it's one thing, but I can only think of downsides including shortening your sight radius like you alluded to, and probably making the gun/slide harder to sell maybe.

Another concern would be maybe sticking the thumb and smudging the optic by going in too deep while getting a claw grip from appendix :confused:? Especially with an enclosed emitter optic?

But, yeah, I'd personally stick to the conventional sight behind the optic, with an open mind that if I try it the other way I may in fact find it superior for some reason...but I doubt it.

[Boxy]

I went ahead and bought a couple of MOS G19s. Now installing cowitness irons. My wife and I are on the curve to like the dot.

[DacoRoman]

If you want a twin maybe plan around getting a third gun someday, and that would be an MOS gun.

I think this is where I landed in the final analysis if I was to get a third gun, but for the record, there has been a surprising turn.

I put in a TTI spring/connector set in my existing milled G17 gen5 and the trigger feels close enough to my Gen3 with it's Zev V4 Race Connector. Both guns now have 5# striker springs, reduced power plunger springs and increased power trigger springs.

I have done some drills with both guns, and I think that once I put a 507 Comp optic on the Gen 5, and also Talon Grip Pros like I have on the Gen 3, the guns will feel similar enough that I won't feel much difference between the two. Both have stock recoil springs btw.

I ran the Gen 3 two Sundays ago during my last USPSA club match and it ran great. To remind everyone I'm now running a Gen 5 ejector in my Gen 3 and while the Gen 5 ejects the brass like at twice the distance, the Gen 3 ejection pattern is pretty darn consistent to the 3-4 o'clock with the Gen 5 ejector, and I'll be keeping it in the gun.

Anyway, I took 3rd in Carry Optics, (and if I play the "Senior" card, as I just turned 55, I took first :D among the "Seniors"). My plan now is to just use the Gen 3 for both practice and matches and run that thing until it runs no more, with the Gen 5 as a back up.

This is a really long winded way of saying that I put off the purchase of any new Glocks for now, MOS or otherwise. But, yeah, for the sake of flexibility my next Glock will be an MOS pretty much for sure.