Sight Issues With Glock G21

[JonInWA]

For years, I've been shooting my Gen 3 G21 with Glock steel sights. At a recent GSSF match, I had issues with the steel plates, shooting consistently low; the sunlight on the plates was very bright, which probably was a factor, but I had no such similar issues when shooting the same plates at the same match with my G17 (also with Glock steel sights) and my G34 (with Warren Tacticals, with the back face of the front sight painted fluorescent green). I had the best results with the G34 with the Warrens.

I decided to switch out the Glock steel sights on the G21 with a set of Warrens. I'd intended to get the Warren Tacticals, but my gunshop inadvertently ordered (or their correct order was erroneously filled) me a set of Warren Sevigny Carry sights (which on arrival I decided that I was fine with). Since there was some confusion as to which was the correct front sight height for the G21, I personally discussed it with Scott Warren, and ordered the .215 tall front sight (versus the taller .245 option, which is normally used for the Tactical/Practical/Longslide Glocks).

My gunsmith very professionally installed the sights, and both mechanically laser boresighted. and then had me personally verify the boresight. I carefully zeroed the gun at my range, using a gridded target. I initially noticed a tendency for low strikes, but when carefully properly aligning, POA = POI (center hold POA/POI).

In a subsequent GSSF match, I continued to have a tendency to shoot low, and switched to a 12 o'clock POA hold for a center POI. After the match, I again confirmed zero-when the sights were properly aligned for a center hold POA, a center hold POI was achieved. But I again noticed a tendency to slip into shooting slightly low, so what I've been practicing is a 12 o'clock hold for "insurance," feeling that such a hold would be prudent to maximize hits.

Last weekend, we had an IDPA classifier. At the end of the day, while I had shot my best on a classifier with the G21 to date, the results were still sub par, with low hits predominating in most cases-BUT, I noticed that in the dynamic movement phases/strings of the classifier, where forward and then backward movement was required, I had excellent hit patterns in the "down zero" zone.

My thoughts are this:

1. That the bright sunlight on the steel plates, combined with how I personally index with the G21 and my trigger control/strong hand movements were the primary causal factors in my low shooting-not the sights per se (although I'm certainly not regretting switching to the Warren Sevigny Carry sights)
2. That I've twice confirmed zero with the Warren Sevigny Carry sights (and previously with the Glock steel sights) when the sights are properly aligned;
3. That when I add movement/time constraints, I utilize the sights more effectively;
4. That I'm probably overthinking the sight alignment issue, and that if I use the sights more aggressively and instinctively, I'll be more successful regarding center hold POA/POI

Contrary to my set-up with my Warren Tactical sights on my G34 (where I painted the front sight fluorescent green), I've decided to keep the front sight on the G21's Warren Sevigny Carry sights plain black, for a more stark sight picture, and were I can better capitalize on the front sight's serrations as a focusing aid.

When comparing my Glock performances in various venues, I find that I shoot my G17, G19s, and G34 very well, and very instinctively. The G21 requires more work, and I'm particularly suspecting more work on my trigger control, due to the differences in how my hands (particularly my strong hand/trigger finger) displace on the larger-framed Gen 3 G21.

Obviously, some options that come to mind are:

1. Simply getting rid of the G21, and sticking with the smaller full-size or compact frame Glocks;
2. Switching to a Gen4 G21, using it wothout either of the additional backstraps, wich makes it roughly comparable to a Gen 3 G17 regarding frame size/index;
3. Submitting my frame for frame modification to Robar or Bowie;
4. Doing nothing physically to the G21, but more extensively dry- and -live firing it as is to improve my instinctive index/build up the requisite muscle memory

Given my Gen 3's absolutely flawless performance with thousands or rounds, and that it has the more corrosion-resistant Tenifer finish, I'm more than a bit reluctant to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Similarly, I'm reluctant to have the frame modified, no matter how good the reputation of the modifier, as it would constrain my GSSF and IDPA eligibility. And while recent improvements to 9mm cartridges can be argued to somewhat marginalize the need/superiority of the .45 ACP round, I still very favorably look upon the .45 ACP G21 as a good winter carry/backwoods gun, given the efficacy of various cartridges for various purposes, and the relative weather imperviousness of the G21. I guess another option would be to mill down the front sight proportionately-but that's coming up with a hardware solution/compensation to what is most probably a software issue(s)...Thoughts?

Of course, increased practice/use of the G21 could be at the cost of practicing/using/carrying my 9mm Glocks, which I intrinsically and instinctively shoot better...

I'd appreciate other forum members thoughts, experiences and suggestions regarding this conundrum...(and the ammunition I've used throughout is brand new factory 230 gr ball-predominantly Federal Champion and Winchester White Box)

Best, Jon

[JHC]

I really liked the RTF2 G21 I once had for a while (traded it for a 6" nickel Model 27 with no cash but extra mags and a holster. Crazy eh? But I digress). I miss it. Have thought about a Gen 4 version. But . . . the more I've thought about the GJM idea of the .40 as a woods gun, the more logic I see in the Gen 4 G22 in that role. What's a .45 gonna do that a 180 gr Gold Dot or XTP can't do?

But standard frame. Just a thought. I know how neat the G21 shoots. It's a bit big for me to "gunhandle" reloads esp anywhere near like the std frame.

[JonInWA]

I'm not a big fan of the .40, due to a combination of the more acute pressure spike and the concurrent accelerated wear on the platform (arguably much of which was induced by manufacturers simply lightly modifying their existing 9mm platforms to chamber .40). I've reduced my .40 holdings to my FN Hi Power Mk III, but for future Glock acquisitions, a Gen4 G22 is high on the list, if only to provide me a Glock in that chambering, since I'm pretty solidly invested in the Glock platform, and to have a Glock so chambered so that I'll be relatively unimpeded in my shooting (especially IDPA) in the event of future ammunition shortfalls-in the 2 most recent situations, .40 was the one caliber that was continuously available, and at reasonable prices. Additionally, it looks like the Gen4 mods have significantly tamed the .40, and concurrently increased platform longevity.

For a woods gun, I like the G21, probably with appropriate Buffalo Bore 230 gr cartridges. Alternatively, my G34, using 127 gr Winchester Ranger +P+ cartridges, is pretty much at .357 SIG territory, which is sufficient for my Pacific Northwest neck of the woods in most cases. Given my discussion above, it would probably make a lot of sense for me to cast a more favorably eye/choice towards the G34 for much of my woods use...but if there's a chance of bear (or ticked off elk/moose) on the expedition, I'll probably go with the G21.

Best, Jon

[Kimura]

Can you afford to keep the 21 you have now and buy a Gen 4, 21? If so, maybe buy the Gen 4 and keep the Gen 3 until the 4 has proven itself; then either sell the 3 or send it for a grip reduction.

My opinion is that because there's a huge difference in the grip of a Gen 3 17 and Gen 3 21, you're going to have to shoot the current 21 more to improve your proficiency with it. Whether you can afford to do that and or want to cut back shooting the 9mms is something only you can address. Otherwise, I think the Gen 4, grip reduction or change to .40 cal are all possible options as well. I don't think I'm suggesting anything you haven't already thought of, so the value of my input is somewhat limited, but I simply don't think you can continue to shoot the current 21 at the frequency you are now and expect to do a lot better with it.

[JohnO]

I have two Glock 21s both Gen 3 one is a SF. Both have Warren Tactical Sevigny Carry Sights with .215 tall & .125 wide front sights. Both shoot POA/POI dead nuts.


Center mass hold for everything out to 50 yards. Beyond 65 I start thinking about holding a little higher.

[JonInWA]

Kimura and JohnO, excellent points and suggestions. John, when I have the sights aligned and exercise trigger control from inception to release, amazingly enough, center mass POA does equal center mass POI...the devil, obviously is in the details of the mechanics of my trigger pull sequence, and how I ergonomically interface with the gun. Which segues into Kimura's suggestion, that I consider a Gen 4 (or even a Gen 3 Short Frame); probably the intelligent thing to do would be to concurrently evaluate a Gen4 with my current Gen 3.

I think that I also need to be more aggressive with the sights, in practice (with both dry- and live-fire) and in use. The Warren and Warren Sevigny sights are set up for rapid acquisition and firing-I need to practice, and be more instinctive in their use, to see if that resolves my issues.

Another technique I plan on experimenting with is using the pad of my trigger finger, instead of the first distal joint in my trigger finger as the point of contact with the trigger, which might minimize the larger girth of the G21's receiver/trigger pull distance. I see that there's a decent ongoing forum thread on this in this sub-forum...

Then I need to re-analyze, and make some appropriate decisions. Interestingly, this year I've tended to use the G21 more than any of my other Glocks, due to GSSF (where I can use it in multiple divisions) and in IDPA, where I can use it to simultaneously classify in multiple divisions (but where realistically I would probably only use it in CDP). While I like it as a winter/wilderness carry gun, there are other Glocks that I instinctively shoot significantly better with as it currently stands that could fill those requirements generally with judicious cartridge selections in most cases.

Thanks for the input.

Best, Jon

[Mr_White]

I think you have the problem about figured out.

FWIW, I almost never shoot my G21 as well as my G17 or G34 in GSSF.

[JonInWA]

Thread Update: Yeah, it was me (shocker, I'm sure). I ran mine side-by-side with a Gen4 G21 today, at varying distances (mostly close-in to medium range-7 yds to 15 -20 yds). I was more accurate with my Gen 3, and was quickly shooting out the center of the bull with it. The Gen4 had good groups, but my Gen 3 was better. PROPER sight acquisition/alignment + good trigger finger placement (pad of finger actuating the trigger), + trigger control = POA = POI. Simply amazing.

Thanks for all the input, guys.

Best, Jon