GlockTalk Forum banner

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
435 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Just ordered night sights for my gen 5 and was shocked to see they called for a different part number than a gen 4...whats the deal with that?

Everything looks the same...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
909 Posts
I had the same issue with my 19X it came with 6.1mm sights which made poi about 4" low. I called Glock and was told that they sight in the 19X at 25 yrds for the military. Maybe it's the same thing with the gen 5 ? I replaced the sights with the standard 6.5mm and now it hits where I'm aiming.
 

Attachments

·
"Tactical Elf"
Joined
·
2,954 Posts
This is the rule with the Ameriglo sights.

The 5th Gen guns come with a .200 front sight typically. This gives POA/POI right behind the dot on the front sight. For most folks they hit low.

Most of the combat type sights listed for other models have a .180 height front sight.

FWIW I run .180 fronts on all my 5th Gen pistols. Their POA/POI are right at the top of the front sight. Closer to a 6 o clock hold.

The same is true with the 19X as well, although they come with the factory glock sights. I use the Ameriglo Agent sights on them as well with a .180 front sight.




TXPO
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,809 Posts
My thoughts, opinions, experiences.

Glock and Ameriglo have been producing sights (& Glock installing them) which have a lower rear or taller front.

On my Gen5 Glocks, these sights seem to hit too low for me and I've gone to Glock's "original" or its Gen1-4 9mm sight heights (4.2/6.5mm; front/rear). Other folks are staying with whatever Glock and Ameriglo are recommending and they must be OK with the POA to POI (point-of-aim to point-of-impact).

All Glocks could have a variance; and everyone will have his/her preference, too. I do remember another forum (which no long exists) have its owners/experts say Glocks generally hit too high for them. The current Gen5 sights may have worked well for those with Gen1-4 9mm Glocks whose POIs were high, too.

I'll shoot any 9mm weight of ammo for practice and usually shoot at 15 yards for my sighting in. This very well could be different for someone who might dial in his/her sights using other 9mm bullet weights at 25 yards, I suppose.

With the Ameriglo made-for-Gen5 "Agent" sights I bought, the front sight was ~.200" and the rear ~6.9mm (sorry for not being consistent with inches or mm). Rather than returning or exchanging, I ended up using a 7.3mm rear sight I already had on my Gen5 and putting the nice U-shaped rear onto my G30Gen4 which usually called for a 6.9mm rear anyway.

If I were to do it again, I'd just order the Ameriglo "Agent" sights packaged for a Gen1-4 9mm Glock even if I was putting them onto my G17 or G19 Gen5 models. I don't have a G26Gen5 (yet). Again, this is with my Gen5 guns and my preferred sight picture and preferred distance.

(Note, my comments were being written and posted after only reading the original post.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: M4Bear

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,833 Posts
None of the responses so far explain what appears to be the *real* question:

"Why is a Gen5 OEM night sight set different from a pre-Gen5 OEM night sight set?"

Gen5 pistols come from the factory with a different style OEM polymer sight or OEM night sight (ignore Ameriglo) than do earlier generations. These Gen5 sights are designated GMS for "Glock Marksman Sights". These are considered "target" sights, while the earlier generation sights are not. These GMS sights meets the BATFE import point criterion for "drift adjustable target sights" and gains five more BATFE import points for a Gen5 pistol.

Gen5 G19 and G26 pistols need these points because instead of the "target" grooved-face trigger of earlier generations, they come with "non-target" smooth-face triggers. That causes a loss of two import points, but that is no problem because of the five points gained by the GMS sights. All Gen5 pistols have smooth-face triggers and yet all remain importable!

It's all part of a game that's played to get GCA68/BATFE import permits for small pistols. "Target" features get more points. Seemingly insignificant changes can almost magically change a non-target feature into a point-winning target feature.

Thus this to the OP's observation, using a G26 as example:

-> An OEM night sight-equipped Gen4 G26 uses 4.1mm front night sight part NF17G24 and 6.5mm rear night sight part NR17G24. It actually requires no special sights for importation because the sights are NOT used for import point assessment.

-> An OEM night sight-equipped Gen5 G26 must have 4.1mm front GMS night sight part 39750 and 6.5mm rear GMS night sight part 39745 for importation because the sights are "target" sights for import point assessment.

Ameriglo sights, if applied outside of the USA, would qualify as target sights for import point assessment.

The Gen5 G17 and G34 and G19X are large enough to require neither special sights nor triggers for importation.

The sights sold by Glock form now a large array:

-> Non-GMS polymer, steel, luminous, and night sights - Fixed front with various rear sight heights.

-> GMS polymer and night sights - Fixed front with various rear sight heights.

-> Ameriglo night sights - Fixed rear with various front sight heights.

These options may be seen in the Certified Armorer's Parts Order Form found at:

https://us.glock.com/downloadable-materials
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
569 Posts
None of the responses so far explain what appears to be the *real* question:

"Why is a Gen5 OEM night sight set different from a pre-Gen5 OEM night sight set?"

Gen5 pistols come from the factory with a different style OEM polymer sight or OEM night sight (ignore Ameriglo) than do earlier generations. These Gen5 sights are designated GMS for "Glock Marksman Sights". These are considered "target" sights, while the earlier generation sights are not. These GMS sights meets the BATFE import point criterion for "drift adjustable target sights" and gains five more BATFE import points for a Gen5 pistol.

Gen5 G19 and G26 pistols need these points because instead of the "target" grooved-face trigger of earlier generations, they come with "non-target" smooth-face triggers. That causes a loss of two import points, but that is no problem because of the five points gained by the GMS sights. All Gen5 pistols have smooth-face triggers and yet all remain importable!

It's all part of a game that's played to get GCA68/BATFE import permits for small pistols. "Target" features get more points. Seemingly insignificant changes can almost magically change a non-target feature into a point-winning target feature.

Thus this to the OP's observation, using a G26 as example:

-> An OEM night sight-equipped Gen4 G26 uses 4.1mm front night sight part NF17G24 and 6.5mm rear night sight part NR17G24. It actually requires no special sights for importation because the sights are NOT used for import point assessment.

-> An OEM night sight-equipped Gen5 G26 must have 4.1mm front GMS night sight part 39750 and 6.5mm rear GMS night sight part 39745 for importation because the sights are "target" sights for import point assessment.

Ameriglo sights, if applied outside of the USA, would qualify as target sights for import point assessment.

The Gen5 G17 and G34 and G19X are large enough to require neither special sights nor triggers for importation.

The sights sold by Glock form now a large array:

-> Non-GMS polymer, steel, luminous, and night sights - Fixed front with various rear sight heights.

-> GMS polymer and night sights - Fixed front with various rear sight heights.

-> Ameriglo night sights - Fixed rear with various front sight heights.

These options may be seen in the Certified Armorer's Parts Order Form found at:

https://us.glock.com/downloadable-materials
Great point, and I'd like to point out the ATF's point system is unconstitutional, and not just regarding Second Amendment concerns. Just as important, and in some ways more so, the ATF is an agency under the executive branch and this violates the separation of powers the constitution requires. And since it was passed by legislation rather than constitutional amendment, it is utterly unconstitutional and thus illegal.

The regulations the ATF sets are laws, but all judicial power belongs to the legislative branch (Article I Section 1 Sentence 1). It's literally the first words of the Constitution after the preamble!

It went to court where it was predetermined in my opinion that the SCOTUS would rubber stamp the legislation delegating the executive branch to set import tax rates (again, totally unconstitutional). First of all, the SCOTUS does not constitutionally have the right to do that despite revisionist intervention (they stole judicial review in Marbury v. Madison).

Second, this was done in reality to obfuscate responsibility (because now congress could hold their hands up and point to the executive branch when people weren't happy with a law).

The usurpation of Art I §1 power allows for politicians to play the blame game, and the Federalists attempted write this nonsense into the constitution (which is why the discussions at the Philadelphia Convention were held in secret).

Unconstitutionally delegating legislative power in the judiciary and later the executive was necessary to create the unconstitutional Fourth Branch of the United States— the Federal Bureaucracy. Worse are the independent agencies within the bureaucracy that more illegal legislation and unconstitutional SCOTUS "opinions" prevent the president or congress' interference, and none of these people are elected.

Although the ATF is no longer technically an independent agency, it functions as such, and it rights its own laws which is a violation of the constitution and they did this because an amendment would never pass because of what this does.

Our founders, at least the anti-federalists, were smart enough to delegate legislative responsibility to one department (congress) for this very reason. It gets even worse with independent agencies the Supreme Court intervened. Legislating from the bench, they basically said presidents can no longer just fire their employees like they had for a century and a half. At first they said they had to have just cause established by laws congress passes (which is illegal in and of itself [again separation of powers), and then decades later they said that he couldn't even do that until there was an investigation where the SCOTUS appoints a fellow bureaucrat to investigate the bureaucrat in question (again, violating separation of powers). Most lawyers aren't even fully aware of this. It is so sad.

In addition to the further unconstitutional powers the Gun Control Act of 1968 created in the executive branch, the point system doesn't even support the purpose of the legislation when you think about the restrictions gun manufacturers have to deal with:

"PURPOSE

"SEC. 101. The Congress hereby declares that the purpose of this title is to provide support to Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials in their fight against crime and violence, and it is not the purpose of this title to place any undue or unnecessary Federal restrictions or burdens on law-abiding citizens with respect to the acquisition, possession, or use of firearms appropriate to the purpose of hunting, trapshooting, target shooting, personal protection, or any other lawful activity, and that this title is not intended to discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, or provide for the imposition by Federal regulations of any procedures or requirements other than those reasonably necessary to implement and effectuate the provisions of this title."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2500Silverado

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
461 Posts
Just as a bit of trivia that's how the Walther PPK/s came to be. When this point system was first adopted the Walther PP was OK to import but the PPK was not. Walther came up with the idea of mating the PPK barrel/slide to a PP frame and the PPK/s, which had enough points to import, was born.
 

·
WWKRD What Would Keith Richards Do?
Joined
·
161 Posts
So it sounds to me that Glock Gen5 sights are regulated like SIG sights?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,352 Posts
I have the 6.1 poly. rear sight and no idea what my front sight is on both of my G45's.I like the OEM poly. sights on Glocks,I am probably the only one on this board that does.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
I have the 6.1 poly. rear sight and no idea what my front sight is on both of my G45's.I like the OEM poly. sights on Glocks,I am probably the only one on this board that does.
I too liked the factory sights until my eyes started to betray me in my mid 40s. I chose the Ameriglo I-dots and put them on a gen 3 26 and gen 4 20. Love them. Shoot a tight 6'oclock hold just like every other pistol I owned before the tragic boating mishap. My disappointment is that Ameriglo didn't mention the regulation differences with their gen 5 sights. I'm 2' low at 10 yards. Looks like I'll be dropping another $50 for a .180 front.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
104 Posts
I know this is an older post
This is the rule with the Ameriglo sights.

The 5th Gen guns come with a .200 front sight typically. This gives POA/POI right behind the dot on the front sight. For most folks they hit low.

Most of the combat type sights listed for other models have a .180 height front sight.

FWIW I run .180 fronts on all my 5th Gen pistols. Their POA/POI are right at the top of the front sight. Closer to a 6 o clock hold.

The same is true with the 19X as well, although they come with the factory glock sights. I use the Ameriglo Agent sights on them as well with a .180 front sight.




TXPO
but just curious if you run the .180 in the front how does this affect a longer shot say around 25 yards ? I am looking into getting the ameri glo spartan tactical sights to put on my gen 5 19 and I would like to have that 6’0 clock hold. But just wanted to hear your thoughts/experiences with further shots. Thank you for your time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
I can't speak to the impact of running a shorter front post, only thing I would say is that I believe the spartan tactical set may come with a .180 front to start with due to the lower profile rear sight. You may have to drop down to a .165 front to accomplish the same thing on the spartan tactical set, but worth confirming with Ameriglo.

I know this is an older post

but just curious if you run the .180 in the front how does this affect a longer shot say around 25 yards ? I am looking into getting the ameri glo spartan tactical sights to put on my gen 5 19 and I would like to have that 6’0 clock hold. But just wanted to hear your thoughts/experiences with further shots. Thank you for your time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
104 Posts
I can't speak to the impact of running a shorter front post, only thing I would say is that I believe the spartan tactical set may come with a .180 front to start with due to the lower profile rear sight. You may have to drop down to a .165 front to accomplish the same thing on the spartan tactical set, but worth confirming with Ameriglo.
Thank you sir I appreciate your help. I am looking into setting up all of my glock pistols this way. I will report my findings once I get lucky enough to find the parts needed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Can someone help me decipher and decide which front sight height I need. I have a 43 with Ameriglo Spartan Tactical Operator and would like the same POA/POI on a Gen5 19 I just picked up. Am I going to want the Gen5 designated Amerglo set or is the other set for the Gen1-4 going to fit my needs best? Thank you
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
104 Posts
So I installed the American-Glo I-Pro part number GL-201 on my Gen 5 19. The part number correlates to a fitting the Gen 4. After shooting the pistol today I found that the POI is a dead on hold. Not sure if this is of any assistance to anyone or not but figure I would post it. I also have these sights on my 43X and 48. The odd part is they are both dead on holds for POI as well even though the sights are meant for the “Gen 5”. I’m guessing they different because they are slimline ?
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top