Glock GEN6 Images (Page 8 of 9)
|
Went into Scheels today and they had all the G6 COA’s, so I got a 45 COA to go with my 19 G6. Here was 51 rounds at 12 yards with the 45 COA. Attached File Same distance, 55 rounds with the 19 G6 and Vortex Defender ST Enclosed that I’ve had since January. Attached File Absolutely love the G6, will be getting a 17 COA at some point to round everything out. Put 400 rounds through the 45 today, and 353 through the 19 to put it at 3,147 rounds. Zero complaints. |
http://www.randomgunstuff.com/
|
For the arfcom cause!!! Enjoy you filthy animals!! Yes more coming soon and I take requests!! Think of it like OnlyFans just for guns!!! Attached File Attached File Attached File |
The frost sometimes makes the blade stick!!
|
45 Gen 6 on top 19 Gen 4 in middle 19 Gen 4 post-op (identifies as a 26L) on bottom need the medium backstrap on the Gen 6 to feel about the same size as my strapless Gen 4's. feels like they basically carried over the mods i (and many others) did to my Gen 4's to make the Gen 6: beavertail, texture higher on the grip. trigger feels slightly smoother than my Gen 4's when i bought them, but is still a dumb glock trigger. 
|
|
I don't think 4L (0.280" front sight height) will work well with RMR HD, it'd be very low, if at all visible. We found out rather quickly RMR HD can work with GL-429 with a 0.315" front sight height (very low in the window, I don't like it that low myself), whereas it needed at least a GL-470, preferably a GL-506 with a 0.365" front sight height. For RMR, we tested 4 different height sights, from 3L to 6L, and we'll be recommending 4L and 5L for RMR. For RMR HD, at least a 3XL (GL-429) for RMR HD, preferably a GL-470 with a 0.350" front sight. |
Joined:
Jun 2023
Posts:
28
EE: 0% (0)
FL, USA
|
Originally Posted By Duffy: I don't think 4L (0.280" front sight height) will work well with RMR HD, it'd be very low, if at all visible. We found out rather quickly RMR HD can work with GL-429 with a 0.315" front sight height (very low in the window, I don't like it that low myself), whereas it needed at least a GL-470, preferably a GL-506 with a 0.365" front sight height. For RMR, we tested 4 different height sights, from 3L to 6L, and we'll be recommending 4L and 5L for RMR. For RMR HD, at least a 3XL (GL-429) for RMR HD, preferably a GL-470 with a 0.350" front sight. I'll be adding an RMR HD to my Gen 6 once I get one of the FCD plates from the next restock. Trying to replicate the sight picture I get with my Gen 5 MOS, FCD plate, RMR and Ameriglo GL-429. Would you suggest the GL-429 or GL-470 for an equivalent sight picture on a Gen 6 with an RMR HD? |
|
My FCD plate finally arrived and installed. Need to get out tomorrow to rezero. As expected, looks fantastic. I'm using Ameriglo GL-429 irons and it's perfect for me -- I can just see them enough to use them but they are still nice and low and out of the way. As an aside, I got to handle a 17.6 and 19.6 COA today. I think a 17.6 COA is going to be my next Glock. |
I can’t stand it to think my life is going so fast and I’m not really living it.
Joined:
Jul 2025
Posts:
35
EE: 100% (6)
MN, USA
|
Does anyone have a recommendation on a good plate for an EPS? As an aside I had a 19 on pre-order from GT since December and I walked into a sportsmans warehouse and they had exactly one on the shelf. Ended up grabbing it. Guess it's my fault for ordering from what seems primarily to be an LEO vendor. Also the trigger on the 6 seems kind of bad. Even compared to previous stock glocks. Maybe it'll break in. |
|
Attached File These things are so much better than the factory plates, Glock should be embarassed. @Duffy these are a homerun!!! |
|
407 and 507 series sights work pretty well, they just can't be used with our 6-32 screws, users need to use Holosun supplied screws. 508T is an outlier, it's a sloppy fit and we do not recommend it in use with any of our RMR plates. Many "RMR footprint" sights only take a few dimensions into consideration, we use not just the lug hole sizes, depth, spacing, distance from lug holes to the front radius, OAL of the sight, etc. to make our RMR plates. 508T has always had a sloppy fit with our RMR plates (I suspect with most good RMR plates). If the lugs can't manage to hold the sight from moving, a lot of the recoil gets transferred to the screws, the sight hitting the screws eventually loosens them or shear them, depending on the quality of the screws. Do not use 508T with our plates, when it fails, we don't want to get blamed for it 
|
|
Originally Posted By Marksman14: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/6045/IMG_3948_jpeg-3751215.JPG These things are so much better than the factory plates, Glock should be embarassed. @Duffy these are a homerun!!!  I opened mine today and saw that pack of ramen and thought I'd been had. |
|
Our plates ship in clam shells, but Sol (Roof Top) likes smaller packaging, so many of our products are shipped in zip bags when we ship to him. I think Glock's plates are as meant to serve the same purpose as the factory plastic sights, they're usable, and they know most users will upgrade them anyway, the sights and plates are definitely functional, just don't drop or abuse them. LE and MIL users don't abuse them on purpose, but the heavy duty use, occasional rough handling and the environment in which they're used both require components as well made as the Glock pistols themselves, not a place holder. Our RMR and PDP plates will not be taller because they don't have to be. ACRO Gen 6 plates will be taller because ORS is only meant to mount RMR and DPP compatible sights, ACRO was curiously left out of the ORS consideration but P2s can fit with an aftermarket plate, they just have to sit taller than they do with Gen 5 MOS. To mount an ACRO, the base of the plate on which the dovetail sits must have sufficient thickness to accommodate the M4 or 6-32 screws countersink, this brings the dovetail itself above the top of the slide. It's not an issue, Gen 6 ACRO will require taller backup sights than Gen 5 MOS, with a front sight height of 0.365" or taller, these sights are already approved by many agencies and in wide use with Gen 5 MOS and RMR HD, RCR, and SRO. |
|
Tuesday I received FCD's OPF-G6, RMR plate from Rainier Arms and mounted a Trijicon RM02 with supplied Torx head screws and thread locker to my Glock 19 Gen 6. I used Ameriglo GL-429 sights and a Battle Werx black RMR sealing plate. Installation went smoothly. I have attached picks of the front and back clearance of the RMR to the FCD plate. I thought it was a great fit. Also sealing plate fit nice under the RM02, and sight cowitness was easily in the lower 1/3 maybe even 1/4 of the RMR. I am pleased with the result. Now it's RANGE TIME!!!!      
|
Warm winds blowing, heatin' blue sky, and a road that goes on forever. I'm glad I'm in Texas!!
Paul Nester, GLOCK Certified Armorer
Paul Nester, GLOCK Certified Armorer
|
Due to Gen 6 ORS slide tolerances, a very small gap between the rear fence and the slide may be present. Both the front and rear fences of OPF-G6, RMR are cosmetic with our RMR plate design, so is the tiny gap. Depending on the RDS, there may be a gap between the RMR, RMR HD, SRO and RCR and the rear fence, this too, is cosmetic. If we don't factor in sight tolerances, the plate would require fitting for many of the sights, or the sight simply will not fit. The picture below shows an RMR (with a gap), and RMR HD (without a gap) on the same OPF-G6, RMR plate. If we made the plate for that specific RMR only, chances are 100% it will require extensive fitting to fit another RMR, or RMR HD and RCR. For law enforcement agencies with tens, hundreds or thousands of sights and our plates, when one sight is too tight (within tolerance), the armorer can simply grab another sight that fits the same plate better. Officers and civilian users that purchase their own equipment may not have the luxury. We can't forfeit compatibility for the sake of cosmetics that serve no purpose on a defense firearm. Attached File The gap in the rear is already common with Gen 5 MOS plates, it's no different here, it's cosmetic only, and we can't "correct" it either way. Folks that have their plates or sights too tight want everything to be looser, folks that see a gap want things to be tighter, which camp do we tell to kick rocks? Neither, we do the best we can, given the sight's and slide's tolerances. The way ORS pocket is designed, there could also be an occasional gap in front, below the plate as well. None of our plates use that area exclusively to hold the them from moving, the gap will be asked about as well. Based on the slides (we have a dozen Gen 6 guns now, will be getting more every month) we've CMMed and the tolerances we've observed so far, the the depth of the front "step down" differs, there can be a gap there, depending on the slide's tolerance. |
|
Production OPF-G6, ACRO candidate. We use the entire ORS pocket to index the ACRO plate, there is a rear pocket that engages the locking tab in front of the rear sight. A relief (not a pocket) would allow the plate to sit on top of the locking tab but not engage it, a pocket as present on all of our G6 plate engages the tab, thus our Gen 6 plates must be installed with the rear of the plate inserted into the pocket at an angle first, then the front of the plate can swing down. Attached File From this picture, you can see why the plate must be as thick as it is to accommodate the M4 0.7 screws. Attached File |
Joined:
Jun 2023
Posts:
29
EE: 0% (0)
FL, USA
|
Originally Posted By FedDC: Are there any failures with the Gen 6 guns, being that they have new extractors and whatnot? Interested in this as well. I haven't seen anything that could definitvely be attributed to the change of the extractor but I did take my Gen 6 G19 and G17 to the range this morning and noticed some inconsitent ejection. My Gen 5 G19 and G17 always had very consistent ejection no matter what ammo used (mainly Blazer Brass 115gr). Today I shot 100 rounds of Blazer Brass 115gr and 50 rounds of Speer Gold Dot 124gr through each of them. The G19 seemed to have pretty consistent ejection with both ammo but the G17 would occasioanlly throw a case up and over my right shoulder or fling one forward with the Blazer Brass. Seemed to be consistent with the Speer Gold Dot though. Not a deal breaker but coming from my Gen 4 Glocks and the brass to face I had with those, I was really happy to have solved that issue with my Gen 5 Glocks. |
|
Originally Posted By Duffy: Production OPF-G6, ACRO candidate. We use the entire ORS pocket to index the ACRO plate, there is a rear pocket that engages the locking tab in front of the rear sight. A relief (not a pocket) would allow the plate to sit on top of the locking tab but not engage it, a pocket as present on all of our G6 plate engages the tab, thus our Gen 6 plates must be installed with the rear of the plate inserted into the pocket at an angle first, then the front of the plate can swing down. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/781/IMG_0626_jpeg-3751711.JPG From this picture, you can see why the plate must be as thick as it is to accommodate the M4 0.7 screws. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/781/IMG_0627_jpeg-3751712.JPG Is it going to come with the rubber thing that the Apex plate came/comes with? Still not sure what it does... |
|
No, we don't think it does enough to keep the plate from loosening screws, our plates have never had them and they perform better than the factory plates that do, it's well established for us at this point. I understand why folks think upward tension helps keep the screws from loosening, but that's a lot to ask of an O ring. We have always relied on and used tight tolerances and well designed and made plates to achieve the goal, which is to keep plate from loosening screws. Thus far, with HK, Staccato and SIG plates that use M4 screws, the only thing we had fixed was lighten the ACRO plates and change the screws length, this happened 4 or 5 years ago. A lightened plate has less reciprocating mass, longer M4 screws help distribute the force better (nothing to do with thread engagement, but deeper foundation, so to speak). Full ORS hourglass cutout conformity, tight tolerances and rear locking tab engagement is how we do ours, none of which could be replaced by an O ring with a shelf life. |
|
Originally Posted By FedDC: Are there any failures with the Gen 6 guns, being that they have new extractors and whatnot? This guy put 6k rounds through one without any problems.  Gen6 Glock 17- 6,000 Round Review |
|
@Colt653 Finally got my slide back. The Dawson plate fits fine. I couldn't find any rmrs in my parts bin. I think son was in here building stuff. I did find a holosun 407c. Everything fits fine. There is a small gap at the rear which is fine. I remember years ago when I had my issued gun cut for an RMR (auto adjust) that work issues and I hated it and got an RMR06 it wouldn't fit. It was too long for the cut. Maple Leaf said send the slide and new optic in and they fitted it. I was wondering why Glock did the MOS-5 gun with such huge gaps. --eta I forgot pics      |
|
Originally Posted By rotorblade: For the arfcom cause!!! Enjoy you filthy animals!! Yes more coming soon and I take requests!! Think of it like OnlyFans just for guns!!! https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/52316/IMG_0347_jpeg-3746914.JPG https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/52316/IMG_0333_jpeg-3746912.JPG https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/52316/IMG_0348_jpeg-3746913.JPG @rotorblade What is this circled? 
|
|
Originally Posted By Chowser: @Colt653 Finally got my slide back. The Dawson plate fits fine. I couldn't find any rmrs in my parts bin. I think son was in here building stuff. I did find a holosun 407c. Everything fits fine. There is a small gap at the rear which is fine. I remember years ago when I had my issued gun cut for an RMR (auto adjust) that work issues and I hated it and got an RMR06 it wouldn't fit. It was too long for the cut. Maple Leaf said send the slide and new optic in and they fitted it. I was wondering why Glock did the MOS-5 gun with such huge gaps. --eta I forgot pics https://i.postimg.cc/0j6GhTd7/IMG-1603.jpg https://i.postimg.cc/KjK7C6rY/IMG-1604.jpg https://i.postimg.cc/x8kGBwy1/IMG-1605.jpg https://i.postimg.cc/0j6GhTd5/IMG-1606.jpg https://i.postimg.cc/GtBP6WJh/IMG-1607.jpg @Chowser thanks  |
|
Originally Posted By Kiltakaze: Danger Close Armament plates arrived today. EPS mounted up like a champ. Nice and snug. Finally done with my new 19https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/293626/IMG_6286_jpeg-3741243.JPG https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/293626/IMG_6285_jpeg-3741246.JPG What sights are you using on that? |
|
Hey DUFFY What do you think about the Gen6 Guns.... It looks like an updated Gen5 to me BUT I have only ever been inside of 1 and it that was 3 years ago and only had 2 hours with it. Either the firing pin channel liner is metal or they got rid of it maybe they polish the inside of the channel..... As others have said some little differences throughout. Stuff we have been begging for for decades.... Originally Posted By Duffy: No, we don't think it does enough to keep the plate from loosening screws, our plates have never had them and they perform better than the factory plates that do, it's well established for us at this point. I understand why folks think upward tension helps keep the screws from loosening, but that's a lot to ask of an O ring. We have always relied on and used tight tolerances and well designed and made plates to achieve the goal, which is to keep plate from loosening screws. Thus far, with HK, Staccato and SIG plates that use M4 screws, the only thing we had fixed was lighten the ACRO plates and change the screws length, this happened 4 or 5 years ago. A lightened plate has less reciprocating mass, longer M4 screws help distribute the force better (nothing to do with thread engagement, but deeper foundation, so to speak). Full ORS hourglass cutout conformity, tight tolerances and rear locking tab engagement is how we do ours, none of which could be replaced by an O ring with a shelf life. |
The frost sometimes makes the blade stick!!
|
Originally Posted By Duffy: No, we don't think it does enough to keep the plate from loosening screws, our plates have never had them and they perform better than the factory plates that do, it's well established for us at this point. I understand why folks think upward tension helps keep the screws from loosening, but that's a lot to ask of an O ring. We have always relied on and used tight tolerances and well designed and made plates to achieve the goal, which is to keep plate from loosening screws. Thus far, with HK, Staccato and SIG plates that use M4 screws, the only thing we had fixed was lighten the ACRO plates and change the screws length, this happened 4 or 5 years ago. A lightened plate has less reciprocating mass, longer M4 screws help distribute the force better (nothing to do with thread engagement, but deeper foundation, so to speak). Full ORS hourglass cutout conformity, tight tolerances and rear locking tab engagement is how we do ours, none of which could be replaced by an O ring with a shelf life. Are you finding that its viable to mill out some of the heavier plates, like those for the ACRO? I see a lot of makers just leaving them solid...which leaves a lot of metal and weight? |
|
Re: ORS hour glass shaped cutout, we fill the shape nearly perfectly on the bottom of ours so the plate can't unduly move, it's the more expensive ways to gain the extra improved fit, it's the no compromise, no expense spared way to do it. Our Gen 6 ORS ACRO plate is lighter than the Gen 5 MOS ACRO plate. |
