The picture below depicts the sealant I'm referring to. I'm shocked at the number of glass specialists and restoration specialists that aren't aware of the need for a sealant on ANY glass that uses a rubber seal that has to be roped in. Mercedes did this at the factory, and they didn't do it for laughs. It was done to keep water out because this type of seal around glass is not water tight.
This sealant requires a standard caulking gun that you can buy at any hardware store or home improvement store. You can also buy the more expensive pneumatic caulking gun if you wish. The sealant is applied to the inner channel of the opening on the chassis. The glass is then roped in. After the glass is roped in, you pry back the seal from the glass, insert the plastic tip on the tube of sealant, and then inject the sealant to seal the glass to the rubber seal. Not doing this is only doing half the job. Water ingress will occur otherwise.
At the factory, they used what was more of a glazing putty that plumbers use on sink drains to basins. If you're an originality nut you can use plumbers putty and achieve the same sealing results as you can with the newer glass sealant Mercedes sells. The problem with the plumbers glazing putty is that it turns rick hard after 20-30 years.....but with daily use a windshield seal needs to be replaced every 10-12 years. But no one EVER did that.
It's a common misconception that a windshield seal is good for the life of the car. To suggest one replace their windshield seal at 10-12 year intervals is absolute nonsense to most. (because they know best, right?) No, this wasn't in the factory literature, and no it wasn't commonly practiced. But remember that just because it's not in the service book doesn't mean it's good for the life of the car. The same convention can be applied to timing chains. ....they are NOT good for the life of the engine. Would any of you not ever replace your drive belts or radiator hoses on the engine because they "look" ok? Probably not.