Should of put large u notch serrated all black rear and night fision front installed. Hate factory 3 dot, they seem too close together and strange, def a weak part of the package.
Should of put large u notch serrated all black rear and night fision front installed. Hate factory 3 dot, they seem too close together and strange, def a weak part of the package.
I think at this point a manufacturer producing a pistol as a RDS host would be wise to put something economical on from factory (read plastic dovetail protectors). Between simple personal preference and the varying heights needed for different optics, it doesn't make sense to factory install (and pass on cost to consumer) premium iron sights.
Anything I post is my opinion alone as a private citizen.
Bwahahahaha!!!! Have you not been paying attention to every (youtube) reviewer of Glocks? Don’t you know that Gaston should be flogged for the plastic placeholders?!? C’mon man, get with it! Well, you and I, at least, agree on this - although we may be the only two folks on the planet who do. I would much rather ditch the plastic placeholders and get my preferred sights rather than pay a premium for what someone else thinks I should want.Originally Posted by DpdG
This isn't about or even related to the typical Glock plastic sight rants. I believe manufacturers should put durable metal sights on a iron sight gun. If it's a factory optics installed gun, like Sig RX models or the Hellcat sold with a mounted optic, then it should get appropriate height metal sights.
Specifically on an optics host that is almost assuredly going to get some sort of red dot installed by the customer (MOS, CORE, PDP, etc....), that's where the plastic dovetail protectors are appropriate in my view.
Anything I post is my opinion alone as a private citizen.
Hell, if you give me $5 or $10 off of the price of the gun, I'd be happy to take it with no sights at all - I know I'm just going to throw a Dawson fiber optic on the front and some form of all black sight on the rear anyway.
Video on the Walther optic mounting system.
Likes pretty much everything in every caliber.
Interesting. From my non engineering background he certainly seems to bring up some good points, I’m surprised we haven’t heard about these breaking based on how long they’ve been in the hands of folks like Blowers and Jedlinski though. Especially since he gives it a month before we see these start to break.
Isn’t Buck from CHPWS on this forum? I’d love to see his take on this.
I do have a mechanical engineering degree myself although I don't work in the field. I would like to see some math from anyone speaking in absolutes about something breaking. Not having any bearing surfaces for the plate (other than the front and back of the cut) is kind of odd and I don't really understand why Walther didn't do something different. However, my first impression is that should be easily addressed with a plate that has a tight front to back fit just like how the Glock MOS system has been rehabilitated by aftermarket plates.
Last edited by Eyesquared; 03-04-2021 at 11:19 AM.
That was my thought as well. I ordered a 509T plate from CHPWS and I’m curious if the fit is tighter. When I installed the Trijicon plate that came from Walther, I noted that the fit seemed a bit sloppy.
Likes pretty much everything in every caliber.
I don't have any plates for mine, but that was my suspicion as well. YouTuber might not be wrong, but he may just not have identified the entirety of the situation, which is too common.
Think for yourself. Question authority.
Reply With Quote