Glock GEN6 Images (Page 4 of 9)
|
Originally Posted By Duffy: Two of the Gen 6 are nearly done in first article form. Over the years we've dialed in the RMR and ACRO footprint for Gen 5 MOS plates, so the upper section won't change except what we want to do to better accommodate Gen 6's new pocket dimensions. The bottom is where we need to pay a lot more attention, Glock doesn't share dimensions and info with anyone, we need a bigger sample size than we have presently in order to arrive at an educated, best effort estimate at tolerances and dimensions for the ORS footprint. Given the contractual responsibilities, this is the only play for us. I.e. we might not be first, we have to be best. We know the agencies that use our plates now will be testing them, whereas our Gen 5 MOS plates have had years of proven reliability and success, Gen 6 FCD plates will need to be just as good. We'll disclose the material and design as soon as they're done, but you can expect to see at least one of them at SHOT in the hands of a major optics manufacturer. ACRO plates coming? |
|
ACRO and RMR plates will be first, followed by DPP and RMSc. The way of FCD product development and testing means FCD plates are unlikely to be first, first to market is traditionally never a thing we chase anyway, there are good reasons we need a larger sample size than we have now, testing will also take time. There is no rush to go to market, OPF-G6, RMR and OPF-G6, ACRO will ship when we're happy with them and trust they'll pass some of the pretty rough testing we know they'll be subjected to. |
|
Originally Posted By Duffy: Two of the Gen 6 are nearly done in first article form. Over the years we've dialed in the RMR and ACRO footprint for Gen 5 MOS plates, so the upper section won't change except what we want to do to better accommodate Gen 6's new pocket dimensions. The bottom is where we need to pay a lot more attention, Glock doesn't share dimensions and info with anyone, we need a bigger sample size than we have presently in order to arrive at an educated, best effort estimate at tolerances and dimensions for the ORS footprint. Given the contractual responsibilities, this is the only play for us. I.e. we might not be first, we have to be best. We know the agencies that use our plates now will be testing them, whereas our Gen 5 MOS plates have had years of proven reliability and success, Gen 6 FCD plates will need to be just as good. We'll disclose the material and design as soon as they're done, but you can expect to see at least one of them at SHOT in the hands of a major optics manufacturer. |
|
No problem. Our philosophy is if we can't do it better, we'd sooner just carry the product and sell it, there is no point in making something just for the sake of being different. Different is just different, better is meaningful. We have valid reasons, but I don't want to contradict Glock by implying their solution doesn't work, we can say we think we can bring improvement to a proven system and we have done that with the selective plates we choose to make. Originally Posted By HighPlains1911: My apologies if this sounds rude but why would we need a metal plate for RMR or DPP? I could see it being necessary for an Acro, obviously. |
|
Originally Posted By HighPlains1911: My apologies if this sounds rude but why would we need a metal plate for RMR or DPP? I could see it being necessary for an Acro, obviously. I don’t know if I would completely agree with glock. I’ve seen many broken bolts where the bolts are the only thing holding the optic and not the alignment bosses. I don’t think I would feel comfortable with plastic bosses on the glock plate. |
|
Originally Posted By Ivan1: I don’t know if I would completely agree with glock. I’ve seen many broken bolts where the bolts are the only thing holding the optic and not the alignment bosses. I don’t think I would feel comfortable with plastic bosses on the glock plate. I thought the same but in this case I'm torn. A metal plate has to be precise enough to perfectly fit in the recess in every dimension, or it will move... and be exactly the same height as the depth of the cut in the slide to truly be solid, or not put upward pressure on the optic body between the screws. With the ever so slight ability for the plastic to compress and truly wedge in the cut, and the fact that 75% of the plate has lateral support from the cut, plastic may not be the worst choice here. Plus, when compressed, there really is no where for the plastic to go, in any direction, so even as such, it should still provide support for the optic via the bosses. If Glock's cuts aren't amazingly consistent, this could end up being a headache for plate manufacturers, or at least virtually guarantee some hand fitting is required. |
|
In a week or so, we'll have sufficient sample size to better discern a pattern on tolerances for the first batch of Gen 6 guns. OPF-G6, RMR is right behind OPF-G6. ACRO. Slight refinements continue, dimensions will be finalized for the initial run in two weeks. As good as the progress has been, we're probably not going to be the first to market. but that's not our goal anyway, we're not in a race. We will have enough sample size in a week, and will continue to expand it in coming weeks and months. First to market means nothing if they don't work as well as they need to, we can't have users beta test products for us. |
|
Originally Posted By Duffy: In a week or so, we'll have sufficient sample size to better discern a pattern on tolerances for the first batch of Gen 6 guns. OPF-G6, RMR is right behind OPF-G6. ACRO. Slight refinements continue, dimensions will be finalized for the initial run in two weeks. As good as the progress has been, we're probably not going to be the first to market. but that's not our goal anyway, we're not in a race. We will have enough sample size in a week, and will continue to expand it in coming weeks and months. First to market means nothing if they don't work as well as they need to, we can't have users beta test products for us. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/781/789085601_jpg-3687988.JPG Dang. That looks like it's 3/32" higher than your Gen 5 ACRO plate. |
| It's an early prototype, we're still working on it. The plate thickness in this case is dictated by the screw's countersink, we're working on lowering it, but can't do it to the point of making the ACRO footprint out of Aimpoint's TDP dimensions. |
|
Anyone who has one, can you describe the trigger pull? All I get is “it’s improved” and a post of GSSF FB that says the GPT won’t work in the Gen6. I like the GPT, a lot. The post in the GSSF group said the G6 didn’t need the GPT. *FCD, I have your plates on all my MOS Glocks and not one has ever come loose, ever. |
|
Basically it is the same trigger as the Gen 5 but with a better trigger shoe. It may be slightly smoother out of the box than most of the Gen5's I have seen, but all my Gen'5s broken in nicely. Don't expect anything other than a standard Glock trigger. I still prefer the GPT, but the new Gen6 trigger shoe is excellent. When the GPT is released for the Gen6, I will run those, albeit I will use the Factory Gen6 shoe over the Timney, I like it that much. TXPO |
|
Originally Posted By Texaspo: Basically it is the same trigger as the Gen 5 but with a better trigger shoe. It may be slightly smoother out of the box than most of the Gen5's I have seen, but all my Gen'5s broken in nicely. Don't expect anything other than a standard Glock trigger. I still prefer the GPT, but the new Gen6 trigger shoe is excellent. When the GPT is released for the Gen6, I will run those, albeit I will use the Factory Gen6 shoe over the Timney, I like it that much. TXPO I agree. In my sample the primary difference in the smoothness is the trigger bar is not rubbing against the ambi side of the slide stop. Or if it’s making contact it’s very smooth. With any gen 5 I’ve tried the ambi side of the slide stop actually moves when the trigger is manipulated. My plan is to stick with the stock shoe for now but with an OEM minus connector, copper grease on the contact points, and probably a 5lb striker spring. I have a stainless Gen 3 captured guide rod with a 15lb recoil spring I will probably try in it, but I didn’t feel like the recoil needed any change. I’d need to shoot it on a timer to see if it would improve my results. I’m letting some other people shoot it this week before making any changes. |
|
Originally Posted By DetroitSounds: Have enough Gen 5's to last a lifetime but was hoping Gen 6 grip was aggressive...... and it's not. It's barely more aggressive, therefore I don't need a Gen 6. Especially considering all my 5's are either COA or milled RMR. I feel like the texture is substantially different and in a good way. It’s not skateboard tape or cut your hand level aggressive but much better than the Gen 5 texturing. My G34.5 was laser stippled with a more aggressive texture than stock and the Gen 6 is better in my opinion. |
|
Originally Posted By -CRW-: I feel like the texture is substantially different and in a good way. It’s not skateboard tape or cut your hand level aggressive but much better than the Gen 5 texturing. My G34.5 was laser stippled with a more aggressive texture than stock and the Gen 6 is better in my opinion. Agreed, the texturing on the Gen6 feels much like a Gen5 when just holding it. When you bear down on it while running it, the smaller secondary texturing kicks in a keep your grip planted. They did a good job with it IMO, and works as well as the carry texture I apply. TXPO |
|
Originally Posted By -CRW-: I feel like the texture is substantially different and in a good way. It’s not skateboard tape or cut your hand level aggressive but much better than the Gen 5 texturing. My G34.5 was laser stippled with a more aggressive texture than stock and the Gen 6 is better in my opinion. I'm sure it's plenty for most, but I prefer very aggressive grips. Most of my Glocks are stippled, and the only stipple job that I'm even satisfied with is Agency arms aggressive. So, if gen 6 requires more.... the other new features aren't enough to tip the scales for me personally. Sticking with gen 5's. |
|
Originally Posted By DetroitSounds: I'm sure it's plenty for most, but I prefer very aggressive grips. Most of my Glocks are stippled, and the only stipple job that I'm even satisfied with is Agency arms aggressive. So, if gen 6 requires more.... the other new features aren't enough to tip the scales for me personally. Sticking with gen 5's. Do you carry concealed IWB? |
|
Originally Posted By Marksman14: I thought the same but in this case I'm torn. A metal plate has to be precise enough to perfectly fit in the recess in every dimension, or it will move... and be exactly the same height as the depth of the cut in the slide to truly be solid, or not put upward pressure on the optic body between the screws. With the ever so slight ability for the plastic to compress and truly wedge in the cut, and the fact that 75% of the plate has lateral support from the cut, plastic may not be the worst choice here. Plus, when compressed, there really is no where for the plastic to go, in any direction, so even as such, it should still provide support for the optic via the bosses. If Glock's cuts aren't amazingly consistent, this could end up being a headache for plate manufacturers, or at least virtually guarantee some hand fitting is required. Well stated. I’d also add in that I’ve been wondering how they will wear. If they truly are compressing, how many uses can one get out of them. Not a big deal since most optics are set it and forget it, but would be nice to know if they’re one time use. |
|
Originally Posted By -OdieGreen-: Well stated. I’d also add in that I’ve been wondering how they will wear. If they truly are compressing, how many uses can one get out of them. Not a big deal since most optics are set it and forget it, but would be nice to know if they’re one time use. Im very curious to see the setup, and also very curious to see how the plates wear over time. I'd love to sit here and tell you that I'm going to be the one to hash that info out, but the minute a certain someone has their plate out, I'm going to go that route. While the gen 6 is certainly different in that it at least has metal to optic contact by the screws, I am genuinely having a hard time wrapping my head around an optic system using plastic that doesn't suck. Thus far, from what I have seen....they all suck, and its not like Glock is coming off of a proven full OEM plate design that they improved over the years, demonstrating they learned something. They let others do that for them. |
|
just picked it up. on my way to work soon. plan is to run a quick thousand rounds through it to break it in. glad i had the grandkids load up all the mags over the weekend. gotta get used to the old glock trigger again. last few glocks i have installed the GPT. 
|
|
Originally Posted By Chowser: just picked it up. on my way to work soon. plan is to run a quick thousand rounds through it to break it in. glad i had the grandkids load up all the mags over the weekend. gotta get used to the old glock trigger again. last few glocks i have installed the GPT. https://i.postimg.cc/QCVSvSL7/IMG-9920.jpg Put 250 through mine today and it was very enjoyable, no issues. Medium back strap filled in my xl glove hands well. Grip texture is better but could be more aggressive. Definitely closer to perfection. |
|
Originally Posted By Chowser: just picked it up. on my way to work soon. plan is to run a quick thousand rounds through it to break it in. glad i had the grandkids load up all the mags over the weekend. gotta get used to the old glock trigger again. last few glocks i have installed the GPT. https://i.postimg.cc/QCVSvSL7/IMG-9920.jpg With that lighting you can really see the palm swell. |
I equate GD as the Westboro Baptist Church of arfcom: fun to mess with on occasion, full of ignorant bastards, and they always try to turn a good thing into something bad.
|
My 19 came in today. 429s are perfect height for the RMR HD now, so thats a bonus. However the plate system......... Yeah Duffy, we're gonna need you on this one. NOT sold on this system. Not at all. Plastic plates are flimsy, move around in the pocket, not what I was hoping for/expecting. |
|
Originally Posted By Duffy: First articles already machined but we changed the design a bit. With more G6 guns in our inventory for reference, we'll dial in the lower portion of the G6 plates this week, we already have the RMR footprint down cold  Help us Obi Wan Duffnobi, you’re our only hope. 
|
|
Originally Posted By Duffy: First articles already machined but we changed the design a bit. With more G6 guns in our inventory for reference, we'll dial in the lower portion of the G6 plates this week, we already have the RMR footprint down cold Any work or thought into how to get the COA on a Gen 6 gun? |
|
Originally Posted By Duffy: First articles already machined but we changed the design a bit. With more G6 guns in our inventory for reference, we'll dial in the lower portion of the G6 plates this week, we already have the RMR footprint down cold please keep us in the loop. I will wait for this before I put an rmr on it for work use. |
|
Originally Posted By CSIGunNut: Any work or thought into how to get the COA on a Gen 6 gun? @CSIGunNut I don’t have a gen6 so take this as theoretical. From what I have read and seen, you should be able to modify a gen 5 backplate by trimming the polymer where it contacts. Then you would need to convert the gen 5 slide to accommodate a gen 3 style RSA with an adaptor. I think it would work with those 2 mods. |
|
Originally Posted By fastluck13: Why do they insist on that humpback bullshit that nobody really likes. A flatter backstrap would be a huge plus. Lame. |
Glock Derangement Syndrome > Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Plastic Fantastic Fanatic.
I love my little pro gun Viking wife.
She has the world's bluest eyes.
Plastic Fantastic Fanatic.
I love my little pro gun Viking wife.
She has the world's bluest eyes.
|
Originally Posted By fastluck13: Why do they insist on that humpback bullshit that nobody really likes. A flatter backstrap would be a huge plus. Actually with the rounding of the grip that Glock did on the Gen6, the hump is no longer an issue IMO. The hand is supported more by the side of the grip surface on the 6, whereas the main supported areas were the front and backstraps on all previous gens. This is coming from someone who has a tad bit of experience with grip work on Glocks. I don't see or feel the need for any reduction work at all on the Gen6 frame, and that's saying something. There may be a few that still want the flat backstrap, but based on the refined ergos of the Gen6, I don't think it is needed. The blocky feel and pointing high characteristics of the Glock are absent on the Gen6 at least in my small to medium average sized hands. Honestly those with larger hands may find the Gen6 grip to small, needing to utilize the add on backstraps. TXPO |
|
RMR, RMSc and DPP plates / inserts will maintain a short installed RDS height. For ACRO and COA, both require there be a base and the thickness of which might turn some off. The base on top of which the ACRO's dovetail will be located must be sufficiently thick to accommodate M4 or 6-32 flat top screws countersink, thus whereas a Gen 5 ACRO plate's top is about flush with the top of the slide (MOS plates use M3 screws), on the Gen 6, an ACRO plate will stick out above the slide, and there are only bad choices if one tries to mess with the ACRO footprint, i.e. reduce the ACRO dovetail height and make it out of Aimpoint's TDP spec. We've always flatly rejected any notion to reduce the ACRO dovetail, and this is in the face of some PDs choosing plates that have reduced height, i.e. out of spec Aimpoint ACRO footprint TDP in order to be able to use the factory backup sights. There are multiple reasons for adhering to the manufacturer's (Aimpoint's) specs and tolerances, we won't go into the all too predictable results of the dovetail being out of spec, we do wish armorers and customers would do their research and homework before deciding that a lower installed RDS height is more important than an in spec plate that won't let the ACRO fly off in recoil and hit them in the face. Agency armorers, or any customers for that matter, can call us and we'll be happy to explain these in detail. I've found that often, sometimes rangemasters and armorers can be stubborn and reluctant to listen to our opinions based on experience and data, our opinion is the same if they choose to source B&T made plate for Aimpoint P2, or another manufacturer's plate that is in spec, as this isn't an attempt to sway them to buy our products, rather we'd want them to buy the right solution, even it's not ours. |
What have the Romans ever done for us?
Joined:
Jul 2008
Posts:
45235
EE: 100% (212)
TN, USA
|
Originally Posted By Texaspo: Actually with the rounding of the grip that Glock did on the Gen6, the hump is no longer an issue IMO. The hand is supported more by the side of the grip surface on the 6, whereas the main supported areas were the front and backstraps on all previous gens. This is coming from someone who has a tad bit of experience with grip work on Glocks. I don't see or feel the need for any reduction work at all on the Gen6 frame, and that's saying something. There may be a few that still want the flat backstrap, but based on the refined ergos of the Gen6, I don't think it is needed. The blocky feel and pointing high characteristics of the Glock are absent on the Gen6 at least in my small to medium average sized hands. Honestly those with larger hands may find the Gen6 grip to small, needing to utilize the add on backstraps. TXPO I know your work and you just sold me on a 19.6. |
Panem et Circenses
I have also learned from experience that the greater part of our happiness or misery depends upon our dispositions, and not upon our circumstances.
Kites rise highest against the wind, not with it. - Churchill
I have also learned from experience that the greater part of our happiness or misery depends upon our dispositions, and not upon our circumstances.
Kites rise highest against the wind, not with it. - Churchill
|
Attached File I’m really liking the feel of the changes in the grip. Will shoot this weekend. |
|
I have large hands with unusually large thenar eminences but short fingers. The prior gen blocky Glocks made it difficult to get all of my support hand on the frame. I had to install aftermarket trigger shoes to comfortable reach the trigger and build up the grip on my support hand side to make solid contact with the frame. The new design makes it easier to get more of my support hand attached to the frame and the reduced trigger reach is perfect for me. I’m not sure if I will run a back strap yet, but the new design is much closer to optimal for me. |
|
Originally Posted By -CRW-: I agree. In my sample the primary difference in the smoothness is the trigger bar is not rubbing against the ambi side of the slide stop. Or if it’s making contact it’s very smooth. With any gen 5 I’ve tried the ambi side of the slide stop actually moves when the trigger is manipulated. My plan is to stick with the stock shoe for now but with an OEM minus connector, copper grease on the contact points, and probably a 5lb striker spring. I have a stainless Gen 3 captured guide rod with a 15lb recoil spring I will probably try in it, but I didn’t feel like the recoil needed any change. I’d need to shoot it on a timer to see if it would improve my results. I’m letting some other people shoot it this week before making any changes. I cut the right side slide stop off, I’m a hoodlum like that, if there is any rubbing, which there usually is. I’ll try to fondle one. I’ll buy one when a GPT is released and FCD released a plate. |
|
Originally Posted By Duffy: RMR, RMSc and DPP plates / inserts will maintain a short installed RDS height. For ACRO and COA, both require there be a base and the thickness of which might turn some off. The base on top of which the ACRO's dovetail will be located must be sufficiently thick to accommodate M4 or 6-32 flat top screws countersink, thus whereas a Gen 5 ACRO plate's top is about flush with the top of the slide (MOS plates use M3 screws), on the Gen 6, an ACRO plate will stick out above the slide, and there are only bad choices if one tries to mess with the ACRO footprint, i.e. reduce the ACRO dovetail height and make it out of Aimpoint's TDP spec. We've always flatly rejected any notion to reduce the ACRO dovetail, and this is in the face of some PDs choosing plates that have reduced height, i.e. out of spec Aimpoint ACRO footprint TDP in order to be able to use the factory backup sights. There are multiple reasons for adhering to the manufacturer's (Aimpoint's) specs and tolerances, we won't go into the all too predictable results of the dovetail being out of spec, we do wish armorers and customers would do their research and homework before deciding that a lower installed RDS height is more important than an in spec plate that won't let the ACRO fly off in recoil and hit them in the face. Agency armorers, or any customers for that matter, can call us and we'll be happy to explain these in detail. I've found that often, sometimes rangemasters and armorers can be stubborn and reluctant to listen to our opinions based on experience and data, our opinion is the same if they choose to source B&T made plate for Aimpoint P2, or another manufacturer's plate that is in spec, as this isn't an attempt to sway them to buy our products, rather we'd want them to buy the right solution, even it's not ours. @Duffy Thanks for the insight. Any idea or info on why Glock moved to the the ejector system with reports that it was for improvement on optic mounting but then the elected to use a new mounting system that placed the mounting surfaces higher up on the Gen 6 compared to the Gen 5? The Gen 6 system seems to essentially place optics onto the top face of the slides instead of recessing them into the slide a bit which would seem to help with cowitness and creating a recoil lug face against the front of the optic. |
|
Originally Posted By Wangstang: @Duffy Thanks for the insight. Any idea or info on why Glock moved to the the ejector system with reports that it was for improvement on optic mounting but then the elected to use a new mounting system that placed the mounting surfaces higher up on the Gen 6 compared to the Gen 5? The Gen 6 system seems to essentially place optics onto the top face of the slides instead of recessing them into the slide a bit which would seem to help with cowitness and creating a recoil lug face against the front of the optic. I am hoping someone aftermarket mills the existing pocket deeper and adds holes for locating pins like the Echelon uses. |
|
When mounted nearly directly into the slide (the OEM insert is slightly proud of the bottom of the pocket, nearly flush but it isn't), RMR, RMSc and DPP will all be slightly lower than they are when they're mounted on plates on a Gen 5 slide, so the height reduction is there. This corroborates with the assessment, both the 6-32 and M4 tapped holes are very deep. That said, while RMR, RMSc and DPP now have a lower installed RDS height, the reverse will be true of P2s and MPSs. The dovetail required to mount an ACRO compatible sight must have a base that is fastened to either the M4 or 6-32 holes on the ORS slide, and the fastener's counter sink requires there be sufficient thickness on the base of the dovetail. A Gen 5 ACRO plate will come up to flush with the top of a Gen 5 slide, it will be taller on a Gen 6 ORS. We've so far seen some prototype plates with drastically reduced dovetail height, these plates are out of Aimpoint ACRO TDP specs, and we've seen how sights deal with them (not well). |
|
Originally Posted By Duffy: Probably won't be us, we're not in a race to come to market first, but only interested in being the best, we owe that to the users and agencies that use our Gen 5 plates. That’s OK, the GS one is surely to be a stop gap (literally) measure until a well polished one comes along. Excited to see your offerings. Were it not for the gaps the Glock factory arrangement seems suitable. There was definitely some plastic squish torquing the RMR to the proper setting. But I feel an aftermarket plate is necessary. |
|
Originally Posted By Duffy: When mounted nearly directly into the slide (the OEM insert is slightly proud of the bottom of the pocket, nearly flush but it isn't), RMR, RMSc and DPP will all be slightly lower than they are when they're mounted on plates on a Gen 5 slide, so the height reduction is there. This corroborates with the assessment, both the 6-32 and M4 tapped holes are very deep. That said, while RMR, RMSc and DPP now have a lower installed RDS height, the reverse will be true of P2s and MPSs. The dovetail required to mount an ACRO compatible sight must have a base that is fastened to either the M4 or 6-32 holes on the ORS slide, and the fastener's counter sink requires there be sufficient thickness on the base of the dovetail. A Gen 5 ACRO plate will come up to flush with the top of a Gen 5 slide, it will be taller on a Gen 6 ORS. We've so far seen some prototype plates with drastically reduced dovetail height, these plates are out of Aimpoint ACRO TDP specs, and we've seen how sights deal with them (not well). Understood. My dilemma is that most of my holsters can't accept a front sight taller than .375". I'm currently using the GL-470 2XL sights with my Gen 5 MOS with FCD ACRO P2. Will the Gen 6 with FCD ACRO P2 work with the GL-506 3XL sights? |
|
We will compile a Gen 6 compatible backup sights lis as we did with Gen 5 plates and supported optics, starting with 1XL, we'll have a bunch more in a week. We can't answer the P2 compatible height yet, but I imagine it'll be in the 0.365" to 0.407" front sight range, 0.350" might work. |
|
In the meantime..... I'll have my ACRO mounted by Monday on my gen 6 while patiently waiting for FCD.    Not real happy with Glock on the gaps between the front and rear of an RMR directly mounted or the fact that they have a c-more pattern insert but no Aimpoint insert. Aside from that, I LOVE my G19 gen 6. About 500 rounds down the pipe....  |
"Do not pray for easy lives. Pray for stronger men."
My friends call me "The Plug".
My friends call me "The Plug".
|
Originally Posted By 5pt56: Not real happy with Glock on the gaps between the front and rear of an RMR directly mounted or the fact that they have a c-more pattern insert but no Aimpoint insert. Aside from that, I LOVE my G19 gen 6. About 500 rounds down the pipe.... Same. Love the gun, hate the Rmr gaps. Should have made it easier for aftermarket to solve if they wanted to be universal with their cut. |