Strike Industries Glock Universal Optics Mount

si-glock

It seems like more and more companies are coming out with optics mounts for pistols these days. There was the ALG Glock Optic Mount that was previewed last week and the new Glock MOS Modular Optic System that debuted at SHOT Show 2015. Well Strike Industries just released their new Glock Universal Optics Mount (G.U.M.) as well. Strike Industries claims their new mount has the lowest bore axis of any mount in the industry without having to cut into your slide. Their new mount is secured to your slide by the dove tail and 6 screws and should work with most red dot optics. It retails for $49.95 and is available now at StrikeIndustries.com.

glock_gum_main1

The Glock Universal (Optics) Mount. It has one of the lowest, if not the lowest bore axis in the industry without the hassle and cost of cutting your slide! We have put many hours and 1000’s of rounds down range with most of the more popular red dot optics on the market with no problems what so ever! This includes the Burris* fast* fire* II & III, Leupold* delta point* reflex sights, Doctors* II & III, EoTech* (MRDS*), Trijicon* RMR* and many others.

The mount itself is secured to the slide viva the dove tail with 6 set screws. Two in the dovetail cut and one forward and aft of the dovetail and two more to prevent any shift. This provides a steady sturdy and rugged mount that will hold your zero. Other mounting hardware that we include is 6mm, 8mm and 10mm screws (two of each) that are used to fit and secure most of the popular optics out there. (Depending on what optic you have you will need to find the screws to correlates with your particular optic. There are two special screws for Trijicon RMR. Once you secured the GUM to your slide and found the correct post ( two sets of reinforcing post included) for your optic, go ahead and mount your optic on the post and use the final two longer securing screws to secure your optic to the GUM.

Disclaimer- You may mark your slide when using this mount to properly secure the mount.

It is highly suggested you have a gunsmith install the GUM utilizing the correct tools for installation.

Leupold Delta Point* can be mounted but not with reinforced posts to secure 100%



Ray I.

Long time gun enthusiast, archery noob, Mazda fan, Sci-Fi nerd, Whiskey drinker, online marketer and blogger. My daily firearms musings can be found over at my gun blog ArmoryBlog.com and Instagram.

Shoot me an email at ray.i@staff.thefirearmblog.com


Advertisement

  • Hunting for the dot

    There’s no way to have a rear iron site. 0/10 – would not operate with.
    It would be easy for them to make this with a rear sight, which would make this actually desireable. No idea why they don’t.

    • hami

      My first impression is this: If a rear sight were mounted on top of the plate, which in turn is mounted on the slide, then the front post (mounted directly to the slide) would have to be very tall in order to reach the same plane as the rear. Taller, in my opinion, then any suppressor friendly front sight that i have ever seen.

      • Guest

        The argument has been made that high-end, modern optics can be more durable/reliable than iron sights. And batteries ceased to be an issue with good dot sights a long time ago.

        Furthermore, if the durability comparison is between a quality dot sight and the factory GLOCK plastic sights, the user isn’t really giving anything up in terms of reliability. I’d wager a hammer smash (for example) on an RMR would inflict less damage on the optic than the same hit on GLOCK’s plastic sight.

        And plenty of people are fine with only using the factory GLOCK polymer sights. It’s inconsistent to object to an optics-only configuration, but be OK with running a stock GLOCK… as long as it’s a good optic. I recognize that you might not fall into the “plastic sights are fine on a GLOCK” camp.

        I think the real debate should be over the idea of slide mounted dots versus frame mounted ones, instead of the “must have irons” angle. And, as we’re seeing greater numbers of both types of systems making it into the hands of more shooters, we’ll probably see a conclusive answer to that question within five years or so.

        I can understand the sentiment towards wanting a non-battery powered, concrete sighting system on the gun at all times. However, it just might not be necessary.

      • Hunting for the dot

        No. Standard height front sepressor sight matched with an integral rear sight at standard height minus the height over the slide. It would make for a low iron sight picture but it’s better than not having them. On a rifle your head is positioned in such a way that picking up the dot is fast and easy. This is not true on a handgun. It’s a common misunderstanding by people who have never handled these setups that irons don’t matter. Also, dots break.

        • You seem quite knowledgeable and experienced about this subject. How do the USPSA/IPSC open guys find their dots so quickly (sub 1- and 2-second draw/fire/hit in some cases) without any iron sights for reference?

          • Paul J.

            tl;dr – Training.

            I’ve run an RMR with suppressor-height BUIS on my carry Glocks for three years now. With a slide-mounted optic, the BUIS are almost indispensable to find the red dot and reacquire it after follow-up shots. In any situation, having that extra feedback is significant.

            For frame-mounted pistol optics, the sight picture does stay more consistent. But race guns are also usually shot with compensators and softer shooting match loads, meaning it’s easier to keep track of the dot from shot to shot. However, finding the dot is still an issue.

            Top-level competitors in open divisions are able to overcome the deficiencies of a frame-mounted optic without BUIS through regular training. It’s possible to run a red dot pistol well without BUIS, but it’s not easier.

            Having BUIS means I can rely on years of shooting with iron sights to facilitate shooting with a red dot, even when I can’t train as often as I’d like. And in the (hopefully) unlikely event that my optic fails, I’ve got the BUIS to fall back on.

          • Where does my dot hunt?

            This man gets it!

          • Fantastic input! Have you see any of the reliability issues mentioned above with your slide-mounted RMR?

          • Paul J.

            My first RMR would intermittently shut off during fire. I sent it back to Trijicon and haven’t had any issues in the 1000+ rounds I’ve fired since. I use the RM63 mount sealing plate and some electrical tape on the plate to make sure the battery and contacts don’t wiggle during fire. Most issues with a slide-mounted RMR can be resolved with proper insulation and mounting.

          • CommonSense23

            Pretty much everyone who is serious about Red dots on pistols will admit that the initial shot is quicker with irons, while RDS are far quicker for follow up shots.
            And sub one second draw and fire isn’t that impressive really, plenty of high level guys can pull off hitting 5 inch plates at 25 yards with irons all day in under a second. Those guys are relying tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands rounds to get there, you can take away irons or red dots and they will still outperform 98% of the population.

          • My point was that there are thousands of open shooters around the world who can go from holstered to a good sight picture without irons for a reference.

            Sub-one second draws and hits at that distance, on that target size, are impressive in my book no matter what gear you’re using.

            What would you consider to be an impressive time, at the same given distance and target size?

          • CommonSense23

            Which those people are capable of often doing similar task without any sights. They are making shots that they have practiced time and time again. They is a huge difference between gaming level shooting and combat shooting.

          • stephen

            Kip I think you hit the nail on the head.

            Its a training issue. Besides the majority of lethal force engagements happen at close distance (majority at 10′ or less so sights are rarely needed and/or not used).

            If you don’t train with your new equipment so you can use it quickly then stop whining and get training.

            With that said after a career in the army, in LE and teaching firearms, I like to have BUIS.

      • Phil Elliott

        Gabe Suarez has been putting these on Glocks for quite awhile, he enumerates the reason for backup sights (Suppressor sights). You need to co-witness the iron sights with the RMR, the sights will guide you to the red dot.

    • The argument has been made that high-end, modern optics can be more durable/reliable than iron sights. And batteries ceased to be an issue with good dot sights a long time ago.

      Furthermore, if the durability comparison is between a quality dot sight and the factory GLOCK plastic sights, the user isn’t really giving anything up in terms of reliability. I’d wager a hammer smash (for example) on an RMR would inflict less damage on the optic than the same hit on GLOCK’s plastic sight.

      And plenty of people are fine with only using the factory GLOCK polymer sights. It’s inconsistent to object to an optics-only configuration, but be OK with running a stock GLOCK… as long as it’s a good optic. I recognize that you might not fall into the “plastic sights are fine on a GLOCK” camp.

      I think the real debate should be over the idea of slide mounted dots versus frame mounted ones, instead of the “must have irons” angle. And, as we’re seeing greater numbers of both types of systems making it into the hands of more shooters, we’ll likely see a conclusive answer to that question within five years or so.

      I can understand the sentiment towards wanting a non-battery powered, concrete sighting system on the gun at all times. However, it just might not be necessary.

  • tony

    Ok, I will run this on my glock 27

  • Chase Buchanan

    They misspelled “Docter.”

  • Hunting for the dot

    You’re missing the point. The irons are a fail safe, it’s true, but that’s not the entire reason they are required. The bit about OEM Glock sights is unrelated to this discussion as they can’t be used with a red dot (aside from comical/impractical frame mounted options). You could have cited McDonald’s Happy Meal toy durability and it would have been as relevant.
    The irons guide the gun to the angle where the dot is visible FAR faster than without. Give someone a cheap version with no irons and a proper version with them and they will immediately be able to tell the major difference between the two configurations. Not having irons makes it a range only gun. By the time you’ve wiggled the gun around enough to find the dot it might be too late, in a DGU.

    Anyone who thinks any slide mounted dots are as rugged as (metal) irons has no idea what they are talking about. Go to any gun forum with widespread red dot gun ownership and you will find plenty of users with failures including with the RMR, which is the best option out there. The dual illuminated RMR is a poor compromise also and is not a real option for a defensive gun, either.

    Frame mounted optics are for race guns, currently. The new 6 second mount is very close, but not quite there as it looks like irons are not an option, yet.

    • Now THAT is a valid point, the idea that the irons initially guide the shooter to the proper head positioning. But, a front sight is required to do that as well. Just a rear sight integrated into the dot mount isn’t going to help anything, so we’re back to square one. I assume you’re meaning that the integrated rear would be used in conjunction with a tall front. You’re 100% right, some sort of co-witness or reference point is required.

      The OEM GLOCK sights are very relevant to this discussion. Many people don’t have a problem with having them on the gun, yet their durability is quite suspect (read about it on the forums). I myself have had issues (read about them at the link I posted).

      My point was that objectively, the RMR is more durable than a factory polymer GLOCK sight (I never compared them to metal sights). Whether or not that point is valid when placed in the context of the constant battery of a reciprocating slide may be questionable, but that leads into the next point I made: slide vs. frame mounts.

      And as I said, we’re going to see a consensus formed as more people use them. And, like you said, the forums are helping with that. My money is on the frame mounts.

      Interestingly, the six second mount was developed at the specific request of a certain counter-terror unit, for face-shooting bad guys in “offensive-gun-use”.

      They don’t seem to think the lack of irons inhibits speed one bit. So, there may be more than one way to address these ideas. Thanks for making me think about it!

      • CommonSense23

        Really curious what counter terror unit you are referring to consider that the one I think you are referring to gave up the pistol as a primary thing a long time ago.

        • Where’d my dot go?

          He doesn’t know what unit he’s talking about. He is referring to the product release put out by ALG Defense in which they claim that an unnamed unit asked them to make the 6 Second Mount (which is basically identical to what has been found on race guns for many years). They claim the reasoning was that their slide mounted dots had high failure rate. I don’t doubt that someone inexperienced with red dot pistols would want such a beast but I can’t see going from a proper setup to the 6 Second, which makes me doubt ALG’s claims. That said I still like the idea, it’s just missing the fundamental component of co-witnessed irons.

          • You would rather doubt the integrity of a company as well respected as ALG (Sister company to Bill Geissele, who’s reputation needs no introduction) than perhaps see that there may be more than one way to aim a pistol?

            Ok.

          • All I see are dots.

            I am aware of who Bill and Amy are, just as I am aware of the correct and optimal configuration of a red dot defensive pistol. There is more than one way and as well there is also the ideal way. I am not interested in mediocrity and refuse to accept it in items and techniques where life could be on the line. Those that wish to accept less are welcome to it.
            Marketing, how does it work?

    • BattleshipGrey

      Obviously if someone doesn’t trust the ruggedness of an RDS, they shouldn’t mount it to a defensive gun. However, if someone blindly trusted it and had to use it in a SD/HD scenario and it failed, the defender could still use the RDS as a peep sight. Or if no by-standers or other residents are around, one could point-shoot.

      The typical deadly force situation is rather close. Stand in front of a mirror from across the room and extend your arm (like you would with a gun) and with your thumb and index finger make a circle or square about the same size as a pistol mounted RDS. The center-mass of your mirrored self should fit in that circle. Is that ideal? No, but it doesn’t make the gun useless.

      I don’t think the plastic sight reference was completely off target (pun kind of intended). There are also plenty of stories of the factory plastic sights flying off of Glocks. Which also hinders accurate fire.

    • Dan

      If you are seriously that worried about the optic failing then take the optic out of the equation. Enough people have used iron sights only in situations far worse than a lot of us here will ever experience.

      • Where’d my dot go?

        This is sound advice. We should forego the advantages of the red dot due to the possibility of a failure where we would have to rely on something else to fall back on. Just as we should stick to walking instead of driving since having to rely on the seat belts is not worth the effort.

        • Dan

          So stick a red dot on a pistol for an advantage then cry about not having the very sights you just wanted to replace? Quit being a little girl about it. If you need irons to help index the weapon to find the dot then hey stupid just use the iron sights. And if I was seriously scared enough of something, I would want a back up in case it failed then I’m not going to use it in the first place. Why not carry two handguns what if the first on fails?? Better wear two condoms incase the first one fails. Can I get two brake systems installed on my car incase the first one fails? I want a red dot on my handgun because it is an advantage but I was Buis to help me index the weapon so I can see the dot. Give me a break.

  • Squirreltakular

    It’ll be a cold day in hell before I or anyone else serious about self defense/ protection/ combat uses any kind of optic on a carbine or pistol without some sort of backup.

    • Vitsaus

      After the “high speed, low drag” absurdity blows over, and people stop acting like an aluminum rear sight some how will add excessive weight to the rifle to the point where it is unusable in any defensive application, people may look back on these days and think “duh… iron sights…”

  • Mike

    What the freak is up with all the redirects? I just got redirected seven times trying to open this story.

  • WV Cycling

    I wish they would make something like this for the Ruger Mk”X” series.

    • STRIKE

      We hear your voice!

  • HSR47

    What Glock puts on the majority of their pistols are not sights, but are instead simply plastic dovetail protectors.

    Further, I’m pretty sure I’ve read the same article you’re talking about with regard to the reliability of iron sights. Specifically, that article was referring to iron sights on a RIFLE which are typically raised and adjustable, meaning that they can potentially be bent and/or have their calibration thrown off.

    In my experience, non-adjustable pistol iron sights tend to be sized for an interference fit with their respective dovetails. In other words, they’re not at all likely to get damaged or thrown out of calibration.

    As far as slide vs frame mounted optics, it’s all about what you want to do. Frame-mounted optics, due to their bulk and associated holster selection issues, are suited to range/competition use and little else. Slide mounted optics are thus the only real option for defense uses.