Glock 19 MOS/DP Pro

[GJM]

Some years back, I spent a fair amount of time shooting both a Glock 17, Sig 226 and a M&P 9FS with a RMR red dot. While I saw a number of advantages with the red dot, overall I felt like iron sights were still a better option for me, and put aside the red dot pistols.

Recently, with the release of the Glock 17 and 19 MOS, and the DP Pro, I decided to purchase that combination to keep up with technology. I figured the MOS offered enough flexibility, it would accommodate whatever the latest and greatest RDS is. (You listening Aimpoint?)

My first goal was evaluate whether the G19 functioned with the optic installed. While I only have a few hundred rounds through it so far, the pistol has functioned with Lawman 147, Gold Dot 124+P and my 124 Berry's reloads. No BTF either.

Out of the box, bolted onto the Glock adapter plate, the DP Pro hit within two inches of POA at 25 yards. A few clicks and it has a nice 25 yard zero. I like that the battery can be replaced on the DP Pro without removing the optic. What I like most, is the display seems much larger and easier to view than the RMR optics I previously used.

A disadvantage (or advantage in terms of flexibility) is the MOS mounts the optic higher than with a direct mount installation like Mark Housel did on a number of my other slides previously. I am considering sending Mark a classic Gen 4 slide to direct mount the DP Pro, for a lower, more rugged installation, and reserving the MOS slide for new optics that come down the road. Thoughts on that?

BTW, PF strikes again, and I am in process of sending a 17 and 19 frame out to Lane for grip chops. I particularly like the idea of being able to have a 19 DP Pro upper on a G26 butt length 19 lower, that accepts full capacity G26 ten round magazines for restricted capacity states with wide open spaces.

[farscott]

Assuming "DP Pro" is the Leupold DeltaPoint Pro, the DP Pro has definitely addressed most of the shortcomings of the original DeltaPoint. I have one that was given to me because, you may have guessed, one of the adjustment screws is stripped. I need to contact Leupold about how to proceed with a repair to the adjustments.

The original DeltaPoint has screws that secure the actual screws that effect the adjustments. So to adjust, for example, elevation, the locking screws have to be undone before one can use the actual adjustment screw. Good idea except for two major issues: 1) the locking screws are on the surface of the sight facing the rear sight, so a backup rear located behind the MRDS blocks the locking screws, and 2) Leupold chose a really small screw with a really small Torx head for all four locking and adjustment screws. Not hard to see how the screws get stripped. So the adjustments on the DP Pro that can be done with a nickel are a huge step in the correct direction.

The other big "huh?" is that the battery in the original DeltaPoint is installed in the bottom of the sight, meaning the sight needs to be removed to swap the battery. Giving Leupold credit, swapping the battery does not seem to adversely impact zero. But battery swaps are not exactly a snap as two screws need to be removed, the sight slid out of its home, the battery replaced, and everything done in reverse order to assemble. So the new magnetic battery cover is sweet.

If you decide to mill the slide for the new DP Pro, that slide will either have that sight on it or look a bit weird without a sight as the sight footprint is proprietary. If the DP Pro base is the same as the original DeltaPoint, the machining does not expose the striker channel. Thus, the gun can be used without the DP Pro. It may look funny, but there should be no new vector for getting junk in the striker channel.

[JSGlock34]

Funny, I also had a year long experiment with a G17 milled to accept a Trijicon RMR, but decided to return to iron sights. Similarly, the release of the G17 MOS motivated me to revisit the concept, and I acquired one last week. I again mounted a new Trijicon RMR (this time a RM06) and took it out to zero this weekend. Unfortunately, the RMR would shut off under recoil, and is already on its way back to Trijicon for service.

I've also noted that the added height of the MOS adapter plate means that the typical Ameriglo suppressor sights no longer fully clear the RMR, and the rear notch is partially obscured. The iron sights aren't completely unusable, but it is less than ideal. I understand some manufacturers are exploring 'MOS' height sights.

I tend to agree that a milled solution is probably still best if you plan to carry one of these as a primary sidearm. The mount is theoretically more secure (since you remove the 'middle man' of the adapter plate) and the sight sits lower, allowing for more BUIS options. But right now my MOS is a science experiment, so I'm content with its limitations.

[HCM]

I'm on the wait list for a blue label 17 MOS. I'm planning on picking up an RMR 06 for it next week.

Dawson precision already makes co- witness sights for the 34 MOS so I wod thi m they should have them for the 17/19 soon.

Here is my question for tnose who have run red dots on pistols. Is there any advantage to running a shorter slide with the RDS? I was told the shorter slide guns like the 19 allow you to acquire the dot more quickly than a similar 17 or 34. I'm thinking this is because they are using the code witness sites to acquire the dot as they press out?

[CCT125US]

This is the setup I am considering for a range gun. After all, I will need something to put my Gadget on. Do you have any pics of the combo? I never cared for the tombstone shape of the Trijicon RMR.

[LSP972]

Is there any advantage to running a shorter slide with the RDS? I was told the shorter slide guns like the 19 allow you to acquire the dot more quickly than a similar 17 or 34.

That sounds like a load of bullshit, to me. Maybe for that particular person, but as a rule of thumb… I don't think so, Tim. At least nobody in my experience; and that includes almost a dozen folks who have put more than a few rounds through either my three RDS-equipped pistols, or their own, both 17s and 19s; felt that way. They all said the same thing I did… you MUST change your grip, i.e. the way you present the pistol, before you will quickly pick up that RDS "window". Until you do, you'll be playing "hunt the dot."

That using the irons to act as a guide business came from Suarez. You can draw your own conclusions from that.

All that said… different folks react in different ways to this deal. On a relaxed range, taking your time, its a no-brainer. Doing it at speed, from the holster, is an entirely different ball of wax.

.

[JV_]

Is there any advantage to running a shorter slide with the RDS?

There are disadvantages too.

Shorter slide = potentially more flip = higher likelihood of losing the dot in recoil

[GJM]

My experience was BUIS, with tritium all around, greatly helped to acquire the dot in low light, and in awkward positions, especially support hand.

What complicates the 19/17 comparison for me, is the longer grip of the 17 helps me shoot better. I suspect there are many variables at play, such as type RDS, ammo and grip strength, that would confound a shorter vs longer slide comparison. It is my experience, that all things held constant, less slide mass tracks better and transitions faster. More mass being better as the targets get further and smaller.

The Sig 320 full size vs compact, both with a full size grip, was a good comparison for me, and I preferred the compact slide, even though it felt more abrupt than the full size slide.

[ChaseN]

I had an RMR on a 19 a while back, milled in place. I HATED it. The RMR window was tiny, the dot bloomed like crazy unless I kept it all the way down to nearly invisible illumination levels, and it often disappeared under recoil, only to reappear after another shot (even after putting a piece of tape under the battery and using the sealing plate - I think the battery compartment of the RMR caused this problem). Even when the dot wouldn't disappear, it was hard to track under recoil due to the tiny little window of the RMR. I bought into the "iron sights guiding you to the dot" thought process and found the whole thing clunky and slow, though extremely easy to shoot accurately at distance. I also loved how my focus never left the target, and how the dot was like an instant shooting coach.

Fast forward to a month ago, I bought a 34 MOS blue label with an eye towards revisiting the concept with another RDS, and maybe shooting some USPSA carry optics. After looking at the options available on the market, I went with the DP Pro...and hot damn do I love this little thing! The window is HUMONGOUS in comparison to the RMR and doesn't have the funky blue tint and distortion that my RMR did. I still get a little bit of dot bloom (about the same amount I get from an aimpoint) but most importantly, the dot doesn't play where's waldo on me in the middle of a string of fire. I've been using it on my MOS without getting any sort of extra tall sights to "aid in finding the dot", practicing hundreds of dry and live fire presentations a week (I have a reduced size IPSC target hanging up over the fireplace, god love my wife and her patience) and have gotten to the point where I can draw, present, and fire with a standard two hand grip consistently faster than the same with iron sights. Now that I have the basics down, I am starting the same presentation drills one handed and from irregular positions. With the DP Pro's large window, I am tracking the dot so well that I can dump a 23 round string in rapid fire without losing the dot for even a fraction of a second.

Now, the DP Pro does has its negatives, namely size and illumination adjustment. There is only one button (in fact it is right on top of the door for the battery compartment) that adjusts brightness. Because there is only one button, if you are adjusting up and decide you want to come back down, you have to press and hold the button for two seconds, release for one, and then press it again to start downwards - kind of annoying. Also, because of the location of the button, when you place your finger on the button it unavoidably blocks the dot that you are trying to adjust - what the hell was Leupold thinking on this one??? That being said, I have personally developed a procedure to mitigate this - I keep the dot on a good general setting for bright indoors/overcast outdoors, and make sure that I leave the brightness adjustment button on the "increase" mode so that I can adjust the dot brighter for outdoor lighting conditions with only one press. The sight body (that encapsulates the battery, zero adjustments, etc.) is also quite tall, and so is said to require taller sights than usual to cowitness. I don't know about this yet myself, as I have little to no interest in putting BUIS on a competition gun.

All that said, I am currently planning to send out a non-MOS G17 or 19 slide to L&M to be milled for the DP Pro for carry. I absolutely love this sight, and shooting it on my 34 has convinced me that I want one for my carry gun as well. I plan on using a Dawson tritium MOS front sight blade (for the extra height over standard suppressor sights to clear the main body of the optic) along with the adjustable rear sight that attaches to the DP Pro (this is an ingenious idea, BTW). I still look at the irons as a BACKUP, rather than an aid now, as practicing with my 34 without BUIS has convinced me that to truly make the most of an RDS on a pistol, one should look at it as an autonomous sighting system, much like on a rifle. Granted, there's no doubt the BUIS are useful for acquiring the dot in weird positions, or at night (after testing both ways, I'm a believer in a green tritium front sight on a RDS equipped "combat" handgun), but the way I used them on my last Glock, sort of like "landing lights" for the dot, was undoubtedly a handicap to my truly using the system to its fullest.




Regular deltapoint on left (roughly same window size and shape as the pro, actually the pro window is noticeably taller), RMR on right (not my pic):

[GJM]

ChaseN, excellent post!

Agreed that the intensity adjustment could be better. I have left my dot intensity one click higher than ideal, figuring it is better to have a small bloom than find no dot.