Glock imperfection; it happens...

[Trey Veston]

Bought a new G19 Gen 5 MOS for concealed carry and promptly mounted a new Burris Fastfire III red dot on it. With the optic, my leather IWB holster wouldn't work and only an OWB kydex I happened to have worked.

I ordered an IWB kydex holster that I then modified to work with the optic and tucked it in and went for a walk with my dog today. Within a few minutes, I felt a sharp pain in my side.

Got home and found a red mark where the rear sight was rubbing.

My pistol is an MOS version, so the space between the rear sight notch and the end of the slide is significantly shorter. It's fine for the factory plastic sight and adjustable sight, but mine came from Glock with night sights. They are too big and hang over the back of the slide just enough to create a very sharp edge that will dig into your side if carried IWB.

Way to go Glock!



So I promptly ordered new Ameriglo suppressor-height sights for it today to eliminate the issue and have back up sights in case the red dot fails.

Another thing that I find funny is that when Glock released the first Gen 5 pistols, the new slides came with the beveled slide front. But the frames were not beveled to match. It looked silly and I find it hard to believe that a major gunmaker would release a pistol with such a cosmetic flaw. But they did.

They have since corrected the issue, but on Glock forums, it raised quite a ruckus. Many argued that it was only cosmetic and no serious shooter would worry about it. Myself and others argued that it was sloppy and looked bad...



The above photo shows not only the non-beveled frame, but also another phenomenon that sometimes occurs with Glocks; the pig nose.

Notice how the slide to frame gap is inconsistent? The frame actually is slightly warped upwards and hits the slide. It's another cosmetic issue that bugs a lot of folks and sends the Glock faithful into fits of rage if you point it out.

Thankfully, none of my three Glocks have this issue and are flawless, as you would expect a $600 polymer pistol to be.

 

[Zerodefect]

The frame is ''warped'' up to prevent snags. Glocks have been like that for 20 years now. It would look even worse hanging down with a large gap.

Hog tooth was fixed a while ago.

The sights were poor taste. Don't order Glocks with metal sights. Especially obsolete 3 dots.

 

[Trey Veston]

The frame is ''warped'' up to prevent snags. Glocks have been like that for 20 years now.

Sorry, but that is absolutely not true. The frame is warped on random pistols. Period. It's a defect.

My Glocks have perfect frames...

 

[tipoc]

The pig nose is a fault. It is due to warping of the frame. Had this been an intentional feature Glock would have been boosting this "feature" since 1988. But they do not mention it, nor promote is as a "snag avoidance" feature.

Good shooting up above.

 

[Mn Fats]

The sights were poor taste. Don't order Glocks with metal sights. Especially obsolete 3 dots.

Why? And how are 3 dot sights "obsolete"? I personally black them out but plenty like them and find them easy to pick up.

 

[Trey Veston]

Why? And how are 3 dot sights "obsolete"? I personally black them out but plenty like them and find them easy to pick up.

Yeah, not sure. There's some pretty strong emotions going on with personal preferences apparently.

I didn't want the night sights, but I had no choice since that was the only G19 Gen 5 MOS available through the Blue Label program in my region, apparently. Dealer told me if I waited for regular sights, it could take months to get any available due to the popularity of the MOS version.

 

[DPris]

First I've heard of the "pig nose".
My 1988 Gen 1 17 has a frame that touches the slide at the front.
Could not care less about that, or any "mismatched" beveling.
Cosmetics only & utterly meaningless.
Denis

 

[JR24]

The overhang is an odd oversight. I usually dont bother with Glock night sights as I prefer the Ameriglo CAP sights with my colorblind eyes, but come on Glock, that would annoy me if I had paid extra for factory metal sights.

 

[JTQ]

The overhang is an odd oversight. I usually dont bother with Glock night sights as I prefer the Ameriglo CAP sights with my colorblind eyes, but come on Glock, that would annoy me if I had paid extra for factory metal sights.

Extra sight radius.

Not what the factory sights are, but there are Henning Battlehook sights that are designed to overhang the rear of the slide.

https://www.henningshop.com/Detail.aspx?PROD=1290391&CAT=9248

https://www.glockstore.com/Battlehook-for-Glock-Fiber-Front-Black-Rear

 

[Overkill338]

Why? And how are 3 dot sights "obsolete"? I personally black them out but plenty like them and find them easy to pick up.

I use 3 dot night sights. I love them. Personally I wouldnt stick a red dot on a handgun I carry. I see it as a crutch, just like a laser, makes up for lack of practice. I understand the principle of fast acquisition, but "point shooting" is more reliable than a battery.

But someone said it right, emotions run high on personal preference.

 

[JR24]

Extra sight radius.

Not what the factory sights are, but there are Henning Battlehook sights that are designed to overhang the rear of the slide.

https://www.henningshop.com/Detail.aspx?PROD=1290391&CAT=9248

https://www.glockstore.com/Battlehook-for-Glock-Fiber-Front-Black-Rear

Wow, didnt know about those. At least theres no gap to pinch there.

I'm certainly not high speed enough to notice the advantage of a few millimeters more sight radius. I dont tend to notice any difference between a 17 or 19, or 5" 1911 vs Commander. Guess I'm not the target audience.

 

[JTQ]

I use 3 dot night sights. I love them. Personally I wouldnt stick a red dot on a handgun I carry. I see it as a crutch, just like a laser, makes up for lack of practice. I understand the principle of fast acquisition, but "point shooting" is more reliable than a battery.

I should probably let Zerodefect respond since it was his point and I may be wrong, but I don't think he's talking about using a red dot.

I believe he's commenting the trend is away from 3-dot sights, as they are usually considered slower and more confusing than an all black rear, or a single dot/bar rear.

Some examples from Ameriglo

Pro I-Dot https://ameriglo.com/collections/glock/products/glock-tritium-i-dot-sets

CAP https://ameriglo.com/collections/glock/products/glock-cap-sets

Hackathorn https://ameriglo.com/collections/glock/products/glock-hackathorn-sets

 

[JTQ]

Wow, didnt know about those. At least theres no gap to pinch there.

Oh, I'm pretty sure Glock didn't do that for extra sight radius, though it will probably show up in product copy soon enough, but rather since the rear dovetail had to be moved farther back to accommodate the optic, they didn't have a tritium sight (you have to have room inside the sight to stick those tritium vials) available at the time of release that didn't overhang.

 

[JR24]

Yeah, that looked more like an unintended consequence of moving the dovetail for the MOS and the resulting overhang and a "eh, whatever just ship it" response to it.

Even if it didnt pinch, the overhang and gap would bug the everloving crap out of my quasi OCD

 

[Overkill338]

I should probably let Zerodefect respond since it was his point and I may be wrong, but I don't think he's talking about using a red dot.

I believe he's commenting the trend is away from 3-dot sights, as they are usually considered slower and more confusing than an all black rear, or a single dot/bar rear.

Some examples from Ameriglo

Pro I-Dot https://ameriglo.com/collections/glock/products/glock-tritium-i-dot-sets

CAP https://ameriglo.com/collections/glock/products/glock-cap-sets

Hackathorn https://ameriglo.com/collections/glock/products/glock-hackathorn-sets

Oh, I use mine as all black. The dots are just for low light. I have been known to cover the dots with a sharpie because the night sight glows through.

 

[whatnickname]

“Pig nose” and cosmetics? Seriously? Glocks are not, nor were they ever intended to be, something held in asthetic contemplation. Own more than a dozen of ‘em. I keep a number of them stashed around the house for protection. The one sitting in the “book box” next to me on the couch is a G32...LEO trade in that is in 99% condition. It has a slight “pig nose”. I paid $300 for it last year. All that matters to me is that it goes bang every time I pull the trigger...which it does. Kick my door in and you’re gonna have to figure out how to survive in a hail of 125 grain V-Crown bullets. I seriously doubt that anyone ending up on the business end of this pistol is gonna notice or much care about the cosmetic qualities of my G32. I know I won’t...I will be concentrating on the front sight and keeping it in the center of mass until the threat is eliminated.

 

[ATLDave]

Glocks are engineered to be serviceable, reliable guns at the price point necessary to win LEO contracts. It is a miracle of modern engineering that this can be done as well as Glock does it. What is even more miraculous is that Glock's "perfection" marketing has managed to persuade some people that they are premium guns and should have premium fit-and-finish expectations.

 

[captain awesome]

None of my 1911s have frame gap or pig nose
In seriousness why not just call Glock? I haven't dealt with their CS but I bet they would at least try to make you happy.

 

[tipoc]

It was Glocksters that began the talk of "pig nose" well back in the day of the Gen 1 and 2 guns. "Pig nose" meant that the front of the frame tended to turn upward over time like the snout of a pig, to the point that it was touching the slide. Glock fans worried that it might interfere with the operation of the gun by dragging on the slide. It was a thing that concerned fans of Glock back about 10 and 20 years ago. It seemed to retreat some with the appearance of the first "tactical" rails for lights etc. on the Gen 3 guns. That tended to solve the issue, or at least make it less noticeable.

With the Gen 1 guns length of the frame and contact with the slide was an issue as Glock changed it, by small amounts, several times with early contracts. Glocks had trouble passing the "Frisbee tests" and large recalls were made. So there was a basis for some concern early on.

BTW, more than anyone else, it's Glock fans who worry about it's cosmetics.

 

[ATLDave]

Personally I wouldnt stick a red dot on a handgun I carry. I see it as a crutch, just like a laser, makes up for lack of practice.

That's a puzzling view. The point of a carry gun isn't to demonstrate hard-won virtue, it's to survive an (extremely unlikely and unpredictable) event. There is no question that optical dot sights offer a massive performance advantage when it comes to shooting quickly and with adequate accuracy. None. Go watch any practical pistol match, and the huge advantage offered by the dot over iron sights will be very apparent. And I'm talking as between shooters who are each more technically proficient than 95+% of the gun-carrying public, not skill-less n00bs. These are people who all practice somewhere between a fair amount and a ton by conventional shooting standards.

I say this as someone who still has iron sights on all his handguns (for now). But, objectively, I recognize that the dots are better in terms of shooting performance.

 

[1KPerDay]

The frame is ''warped'' up to prevent snags.

LOLOLOLOL
You SURE you don't work for the government in PR?

 

[Zerodefect]

If it really bothers you. Steam the frame in a pot of broccoli and bend it back.

 

[Wreck-n-Crew]

I have heard it all now! Didn't think I would...but definitely heard it all.

 

[MTMilitiaman]

An entire topic on Glock's cosmetic flaws? When in the history of plastic curtain rods has the Glock ever been accused to being aesthetically pleasing?

Best case scenario here is beating a long dead horse, since we already know and acknowledged decades ago that Glocks are not the most pleasing to the eye. If that is what matters to you, get yourself a "nickel plated sissy pistol." The rest of us care more about function and are therefore fine with our Glocks.

 

[1KPerDay]

I find it interesting that people say they don't care at all about aesthetics. Yet given two pistols with equal function and ergonomics and accuracy, one of which is indifferently designed or patently ugly, and one of which isn't, guess which they choose? Glocks aren't ugly to my eye. They are a balanced, functional, well-designed pistol. They were a shock to the system when they first came out for sure. But they have come a long way in little, meaningful ways. And they are iconic now and deviations stand out. You want ugly? Look at a hi point. Or a walther PPX.