That there’s the new Gen 4 GLOCK 17 FS. The “FS” standing for “Front Serrations.” Yes, those ridges are such a big deal that the GLOCK 17, so equipped, gets its own model designation! I guess they couldn’t name the “new” gun after the steel sights. A Teutonic GLOCK SS might not fly so well in the U.S. market. Anyway . . .

What’s the point? To ruin the GLOCK’s deadly-dull aesthetics? No, of course not. You can use the front serrations to “pinch check” your firearm: pull back the slide to make sure there’s a cartridge in the chamber. (See: Jeff Gonzales: The Folly of the ‘Press Check’.)

So, what’s your take? GLOCK front slide serrations: yes, no or who gives a sh*t?

If you’re in the latter camp, remember: first it’s front slide serrations. Next thing you know, you’ve got an extended mag release button and slide stop, a better trigger — why can’t they just leave Brittany alone?  I mean GLOCK.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

58 COMMENTS

  1. Looks great. No reason to be upset, it’s just a special run, standard models are without.

  3. I’m 100% behind having front serrations. I just wish it was available on the still-made Gen3 models.

    Press-check? No interest one way or the other. I really like pistol optics like the RMR, and I prefer to not grab the optic when manipulating the slide.

  4. WGAS. I check my GLOCK by touching the extractor, which is also a loaded-chamber indicator.

  6. It’s as if Glock has the laziest design engineers. They could’ve angled the front serrations. These look ugly AF.

  7. Why don’t they just offer some sort of “custom shop” upgrade system for their product and include all sorts of nifty stuff besides just front serrations?

    Stuff like custom stippling, sight upgrades, etc,etc?

    I know Glock is the king of KISS, but why not?

    • Because it would take another $2000 to make it pretty… and you’d end up with a Glock that looks like a 1911.

      • Yeah, but you know how it is- the heart wants what the heart wants.

        I’m sure loads of people would pay for a custom glock, done by glock…..

  8. I love my Glock and all… but this seems like a marketing gimmick to keep sales up post Obama/Clinton.

  11. Nope. Don’t use ’em and it’s extra work and lines. It’s a minor thing, there’re a million other things I look at in a gun, but for what it’s worth I’m 100% against it.

  12. I don’t give a shit. But I don’t know if it going to change a customers mind over buying an XD, XDm, M&P, PPQ, Ruger American, CZ, Sig 320, or Canik. All of which I would buy before a Glock.

  13. They don’t detract from the pistol, and I find myself doing way more press checks since Jeff Gonzales told me not to. IMO, Glock is trying to do things (this and the MOS) to keep the sales strong until they eventually release the M/Gen 5 series to the public.

  15. Too little, too late, from Glock. They could have done so much with that platform, and they’ve done so little. Look to other companies for innovation.

  17. Id like them if theyd put any kind of effort into their design, that 90° angle makes them look like last ditch glocks from the upcoming WW3. Would it have killed them to put them at any kind of angle or at least make them not look like a damn crosswalk?

    • Yeah, because there’s definitely a “right” and a “wrong” way to do these.
      *eyeroll*

  19. Don’t care.
    One Glock is more than enough and its a gen1. Did I say don’t care?

  20. Front serrations are, as Jeff Cooper said on a different subject, “The answer to a question nobody asked.” They are a butt-ugly, useless affectation.

  25. I have never used front serrations for anything, on any handgun. Mostly they just look stupid.

    It’s a legacy of the old open class shooting disciplines where folks put optics on 1911s and thus couldn’t grasp the rear serrations. Hate them on 1911’s and they look just as stupid on Glocks.

  26. This is CA. Those serrations make it an entirely new pistol that has to be submitted, along with a fee, to be tested before it can be approved on our list.

    • And we know that isn’t going to happen because of the micro-stamping BS. So many offerings in the market that we will never see here.

    • Hell, in CA a different frame COLOR makes it an entirely new pistol that has to be submitted, along with a fee, to be tested before it can be approved on your list.

  27. i prefer the look without the front slide serrations, but if i ever saw a good deal on one with them, it wouldn’t be a deal breaker

  28. A left handed shooter just might want the front serrations because it would be easier to release the slide lock on the Glock. Or he can just buy and use a CZ that can be used either way. I have seen guys show how to use your index finger on the left hand to control the slide release or the index or middle finger to drop the mag.
    If that is your main 99% of the time shooting plastic, that is ok, but right handed handguns are not all the same, many of the buttons and levers are in other places that are covered by the fingers on you left hand, so there is a huge learning curve.
    being able the rack the slide from the front allows you the use of your right thumb to release it.

  33. Honestly, I never really saw the need for rear serrations either. I’ve never encountered a pistol with recoils springs so strong that I couldn’t just grip it and rack the slide. If I’m firing a new pistol, or one that I’m not familiar with, then I will occasionally do a “pinch check” (I didn’t know there was a name for it) just to make sure a round got chambered properly. But even then, if it doesn’t have front serrations, and my hands are oily or sweaty, I still don’t have trouble scootching the slide back half an inch to verify. But that’s just me; I’m sure there are dangerous men in muddy places who need serrations.

    • They’re helpful for clearing some jams (cheap aluminum cased shitastic ammo… never again split a couple cases). But also sometimes wet and/or freezing conditions (particularly when it’s snowing and I’m wearing gloves) they are really helpful.

      • That’s fair. I guess old people with arthritis or whatever could probably benefit from them too.

  34. I’ve always hated the look of Glock pistols, which are as attractive as bricks with muzzles, but WOW! FRONT SLIDE SERRATIONS! My opinion is now completely turned around! Glocks are beautiful! I must have one!

    /sarc

    • If someone had a Glock pointed at me, last thing I would think of is to insult their pistol.

  35. One step toward perfection now replace trigger, sights, recoil spring, guide rod, change slide to stainless, change grip angle, strengthen polymer so it’s not so flexible, oh lower the price

  36. It’s not something i would have noticed. I don’t use them. Therefore i do not care

  38. WGAS. The rear grooves are about useless. Just put more useless features on it. If Glock had any imagination, they’d copy the trigger on my Buckmark.

  39. I’m not going to say who cares because that is a question and someone might answer that, but I don’t care.
    I never touch the front portion of my slide so…can’t see the need for extra grip there.

  40. I’ll take what Glock does over SIG and Kimber with all of their weird colors and finishes.

  42. Glocks with front serrations don’t interest me. If forward serrations were my #1 concern with a new pistol, I’d get a vp9/p30 (and i did). Gimme a gen 4 with fish gills, night sights and RTF texture or better yet, a 19m…..

  44. My P229 Elite has front serrations. It looks nice, but as far having any practical usefulness, I have found none.
    It’s like its Rosewood grips, they have no real practicality, they are entirely aesthetics. They don’t add a tacticool element, but rather an elegance.

  45. There’s nothing wrong with a Glock that a rounded or tapered slide profile, polished bluing and wood grips wouldn’t fix. Well all that and a decent safety. Oh, and a crisp trigger.

Comments are closed.