How were they torqued when they were put on-- did you use a wheeler screwdriver style torque wrench?

Those tiny screws can shear no matter where you got it from. How many rounds fired since install?

 

Several thousand rounds since install. So, if that us the problem I guess I'm lucky that it lasted thus long. I'm retired from PD and my gunsmith buddy at the training academy installed. He's the one who told me of the problem with glock oem mos plates and screws. In fact officers that run the dots on their glocks can't use the glock oem stuff.

 

Just got my two Gen 4 G47 MOS’ back yesterday. Same problem. Glock needs to ensure that their MOS editions work properly. Screws for the optics platform were freewheeling after only 200 rds each. My GLS guys are really good. Only a few days, then got the call that all was now copacetic.

They installed on each, a Forward Controls OPF-G, RMR. Both platforms, and the Trijicon RMR 2.0s are stable and aboard.

This is not the first time Glock has stepped in it. Had same problem with my previous two Gen 5 Glock 34s. $90 per weapon, for a fix that should not have been necessary. Likewise, folks will have to wait for the Gen 6’s, for the new Glock Performance Trigger- that’s another $100 each, now. Still and all, I’m satisfied with the end product. Just wish the trail weren’t so rough gettin‘ there…

 

He was right.

C&H is definitely a superior set up

 

Multiple failures seen and reported with the OEM Glock MOS plates. C&H or Forward Controls both do better plates. I wouldn't use the OEM one unless it was my only choice. I've got two different guns with C&H plates on them and they've both crossed 10k rounds with no issues.

 

Yep, that's the route I'm going when I get the slide back. Hopefully next week.

 

More parts = more parts to fail.

 

Glock MOS = convenience for Glock, not for you.

 

The Glock MOS plate system is definitely a weak point of the platform. As mentioned above the C&H mounting plate is greatly improved over stock. I have them on 3 of my competition guns and they have withstood tens of thousands of rounds without issue.

 

or
Na just cheap screws or 2 years of wear like you stated . Was it a .40 ?

 

or
Na just cheap screws or 2 years of wear like you stated . Was it a .40 ?

G45 9mm

 

Do any of you have experience with the C&H optic mount which doesn't use an adapter plate?

I assume that means that the slide has been machined such that no adapter plate is required........

Thanks

 

I have personally seen this type of failure with the MOS more than once. I have a 19MOS for teaching and training, as I don't run am optic full time. I also wouldn't run a red dot on duty with the MOS system for any amount of money.

IMO the MOS isn't a duty ready system. It's ok for range use and trying different optics, but a direct mount is the only system that I would run for duty/defensive purposes.



TXPO

 

IMO the MOS isn't a duty ready system. It's ok for range use and trying different optics, but a direct mount is the only system that I would run for duty/defensive purposes.

And instantly makes the gun an Unlimited gun in GSSF. A tough trade off for those of us who compete and carry.

 

MOS is just a imperfect compromise, and certainly not the best way to mount RDS.

Just adds more points for failure.

 

Should these be considered a wear item and replaced every x thousand rounds?

 

OP, in those several thousand rounds, how many times did you confirm they were torqued properly? Are you sure they were correct?

 

Torqued correctly when put on but not checked periodically.

 

What torque driver do most of you prefer? I know I can borrow the one at the range, but if MOS plate maintenance becomes an annual inspection matter having it on hand with te cleaning kit would be good. To be able to do the maintenance with new loctite and then schedule the range session for rezero after the 24 hour period for the loctite to set.

 

I use the Vortex toque wrench. No complaints.

 

This is why I hate the plate system. Better to have a slide cut for a specific footprint.

 

The guy who makes the decisions of what's approved for use at my former agency recommends against either the stock Glock or the M&P standard adapter plates. Now, the latest models of guns coming from the companies which have been machined for a specific RDS, at the request of the agency customers, is a different thing.

If I recall right, his son (working LE in another state) recently had his M&P 40 have a screw fail for the adapter plate, so he recommended an aftermarket adapter plate that has an excellent record to replace it. (Can't remember what it was, so don't bother asking.) Same thing happened with a Glock being used by one of our cadets a while back, where he recommended the cadet get one of the aftermarket plates, and he installed it for him.

I imagine the gun companies will resolve this type of teething pain sooner or later.

 

Glock is doing the same thing for agency purchased pistols. They have the MOS 5 (RMR) and MOS 7 (Aimpoint ACRO), which are directed milled by Glock for those specific optics. Those two are GTG IMO.

As far as multi optic direct milled systems, Shadow System is about as good as they get. The new Springfield Echelon also has a multi optic direct mounting system that seems to be proving itself.

While the MOS is cool in theory. In practice it has proven itself to be fragile. Certainly not something I would put through heavy use not expecting possible failure or trust my life to, but thats me.

As stated before, I am carrying a Gen 5 19 MOS right now, and I have mounted optics for teaching others officers and training, but I do not nor will I ever carry an optic on it for on or off duty carry.



TXPO

 

Luckily Boeing is not installing adapter plates 🤣

For the tiny screws, I prefer a beam style torque wrench, one that doesn't "snap" when it reaches target, one I can build up the torque and control it as I tighten.

 

Do you consider an shield rmsc on a g43x with the rmsc cut or the Holosun on the MOS without a plate to be fragile? Do those not also have tiny screws that could shear off?

 

Using a red dot that works without an adaptor plate is the way to go. The optic I have used the most while teaching with my MOS is the SCS because it mounts directly without the adaptor plate.

The issue with the MOS system is for most optics, you have to use the plates. The screws with this system don't have much in the way of thread depth for the mounting screws. You have a short set of screws that hold the adaptor plate on, the biggest possible point of failure, and then short screws holding the optic to the plate, the second possible point of failure.

The more thread depth and screw engagement, the stronger the hold. You also only have two points of failure with a direct mount instead of four. WIth an adaptor system like the MOS, you are effectively increasing your chances of a failure by %50.

I don't think the screws themselves play as big of role in the failure as the design itself, honestly. I have no doubt using the highest grade screws possible will minimize the chance of them shearing off, but I think the MOS design and tolerances play more of a role.

Any movement at all in an optic mounting system, be it direct mount or milti optic systems, creates stress as the parts move back and forth under recoil. We are talking about micro measurements between the parts, but unless the parts fit tight, there will be movement no matter how small. That movement is amplified when you introduce the forces during recoil and slide cycling.

This is why even when you get a slide direct milled, you want to use someone who knows what they are doing. If there is an excessive amount of slop, or loose tolerances between the optic and slide contact points, you can still have a greater chance of failure. I have seen poorly done milling on a direct mount, where the optic would still work it's way loose more than it should under normal use.

As I mentioned before, I use the SCS on my MOS when I do run and optic. Even thought it is direct mounted, I still keep a close eye on the screws and check them often during a class. Even thought it is directly mounted, the tolerances aren't very tight, Holosun has to leave a little room as slides are always slightly different, milling wise and Glock doesn't exactly mill their MOS slots with tight tolerances. I haven't sheared a screw off, but I have had a screws work their way loose on occasion during multi day high round count shooting.



TXPO

 

I am extremely new to red dots. Only had one installed on a competition gun since last Saturday and do not have one on my carry. Despite being a millennial in tech

 

I am legitimately asking why the screws used to mount an optic to a frame that is directly milled for that specific footprint are less prone to breakage than the screws used with a plate system? Are the sheer forces materially different in some respect? Is it just that there are fewer screws and thus the number of failure points are reduced?

I am new to all of this. And the photo that the OP posted is the first time I have seen this sort of breakage.

 

In a multi piece structure, it may actually help to have a thin layer of urethane adhesive between the surfaces to act as a type of expansion or flex joint and decelerate the recoil movements.

The micro tape used on cell phones might be the perfect ticket. Yeah the design of the construction is key to something that lasts under recoil.

 

This triggered my anxiety until I realized my mounting screws were holosun and the SCS is directly mounted to the Glock, as God intended

 

I only use my MOS mounted optic for a range gun but at nearly 3000 rounds, I haven't experienced any problems. I see nothing wrong with the MOS system.

 

Had OEM and Holosun screws shear of on G17 and G19, both with high round (20k+) counts. For the past year I have scheduled and changed both mounting plate and sight screws every 6-months, using Battleworx (not sure if they are really necessary) screws and reconfirm zero. No problems. Guns are competition only so I've just added the screws to my regular replacement schedule for springs, etc.