Front cocking serrations, revisited -- be honest

Status
Not open for further replies.
But somehow when Glock releases a model (admittedly, about the ugliest implimentation) it becomes a hot debate.

Well, when you spend decades(?) marketing your existing products as having reached "perfection," then making a change in something that was otherwise consistent (e.g., adding front serrations where none were previously used) necessarily raises the question about whether you have de-perfected the new item. Glock kind of brought this on themselves, no? :p
 
Well, when you spend decades(?) marketing your existing products as having reached "perfection," then making a change in something that was otherwise consistent (e.g., adding front serrations where none were previously used) necessarily raises the question about whether you have de-perfected the new item. Glock kind of brought this on themselves, no? :p

I guess only if you actually buy marketing hype buzz words. I put them in the same category as politician's promises :)
 
rskent: said:
It shoots better than it looks. Or so I have heard.

It shoots just like my 19x which is one of my best shooting guns. That Model 45 is a winner, the only one I’ve seen so far at an LGS went home with the customer who looked at it right after I did. And that was with 10 rd. mags since 17 round mags aren’t CO legal.
 
Front cocking serrations were invented for competition shooters because they have to constantly unload and show clear in front of a range officer. Reaching over the top of the slide and covering the ejection port is generally frowned upon or prohibited by many R.O.s. Coming up from under the slide and using FCS is permitted and allows the R.O. a clear view of the chamber. Once something is adopted by the majority of competition shooters then EVERYONE wants it on their gun even if they never shoot a match. Just like FLGRs and magwells.
 
That is the one feature on my Les Baer pistols that I don’t care for.
Years ago, I had a Springfield Armory Loaded model that had them. The SA serrations were much coarser than the serrations on my Baer pistols. They didn’t deburr the slots very well and the corners were sharp. They shredded my leather holsters and also made the gun hard to draw because it cut leather on every insertion and draw.
I thought about radiusing the corners but decided it was too much trouble since I had other 1911s that I liked better so I sold it.
 
Front cocking serrations were invented for competition shooters because they have to constantly unload and show clear in front of a range officer.
I remember hearing it a bit differently from a gunsmith who was there when they became popular...he now wishes he'd never added them; but that's another story for another time...and his timeline aligns with my first memory of their introduction.

When IPSC/USPSA shooters first started adding optics...imagine a "AA" EOTech... to the 1911s, they were attached using cantilevered mounts off the right grip panel. These mounts blocked access to the rear cocking serrations and , at the time, no one had thought of adding a cocking handle to the rear sight dovetail.

FCS allowed the shooter to rack the slide from underneath the frame
 
FCS have never bothered me one way or the other, but I recently bought a G19 MOS that made me rethink things for that particular gun. I mounted an optic on it which makes it hard to rack the gun. Being left handed it is also hard for me to hit the slide release, so I have been looking for someone to add FCS to my G19.
 
They shredded my leather holsters and also made the gun hard to draw because it cut leather on every insertion and draw.

I can only imagine what they would do your hands and fingers if you actually used them. I hope no one suffered any permanent damage!
 
I can only imagine what they would do your hands and fingers if you actually used them. I hope no one suffered any permanent damage!

Sounds like you'd instantly lose them! Are we sure it was a FCS and not a blender?

FWIW, thinking back on it, I used a Ruger SR9c for a while in a Milt Sparks for a few years, a P07 in leather and routinely use my Kimber Warrior and R1 Enhanced in a Simply Rugged Cuda for woods work.

None were unduly shredded by the FCS.
 
Sounds like you'd instantly lose them! Are we sure it was a FCS and not a blender?

Good question.

I'm not sure but I think FCS's do have a use for those who compete in carry optics division. My understanding is this allows for a good grip and not straddling the optic?
 
i agree fcs on a hard fit 1911 seems useless especially before the first several thousand rounds. i think it detracts from the appearance but the fine fcs on baers are less obtrusive than most.
 
Looking over my own collection, I think I like the way they are one on my Sig 226 Legion best. Smaller, only half the slide, unobtrusive.

Would I prefer a clean slide? Probably, but still not too bad. Not nearly as ugly as the full cuts on my Warrior and R1
 
FCS are good if you have an optic mounted that blocks the rear serrations. Other than that, they're useless with proper gun handling.
Light rails were brought up in the discussion. Not pretty, but highly functional. My CCW gun doesn't have a light mounted because of bulk, but I carry a handheld. All the "house guns" have lights.
 
I use the forward slide serations all the time for press checks, very useful particularly in the dark because the forward serations make it easier to feel for a round in the chamber with a finger on my dominant hand.
 
I have them one my my handguns. I admit I didn't know they had actual purpose. Don't mind them at all.
 
Front cocking serrations were invented for competition shooters because they have to constantly unload and show clear in front of a range officer. Reaching over the top of the slide and covering the ejection port is generally frowned upon or prohibited by many R.O.s. Coming up from under the slide and using FCS is permitted and allows the R.O. a clear view of the chamber. Once something is adopted by the majority of competition shooters then EVERYONE wants it on their gun even if they never shoot a match. Just like FLGRs and magwells.
This was strictly a pattern adopted by a few ... it's entirely easy to show clear by grasping the rear of the slide with thumb and forefinger and pulling back the slide (uh, yeah, we did this for years); one doesn't need to use an overhand grip. Funny how the gun games end up causing the industry to make certain things seem desirable on the guns.

I started the thread because I've been involved in firearms training since the early '80s; after an active-duty career of more than two decades (during which I spent some tours as an MP and part-time/reserve law enforcement was a sideline) and then transitioning into full-time law enforcement after leaving the military where I continued as a small-arms instructor, the use of front-cocking serrations has been something that's not been taught nor common practice anywhere I've ever worked.

Even were one to indulge in the practice of the "press-check," it's easily accomplished on any modern auto-pistols without the addition of the FCS (we did this for decades with the slick-slide Gov't Model 1911s).

Additionally, I've found that the sharply cut FCS have chewed up the insides of many a custom leather holster I've owned.

Finally, no serious pistoleros with any real-world experience of my acquaintance (and I know a few) admit to requiring FCS on their semi-autos. I don't like the looks, and have never needed 'em, hence my OP asking how many really use them ... For those of you who think they're cool, or feel you need 'em on your pistols, more power to you. For those of you who aren't serious competition shooters or don't carry handguns professionally, please tell me why you think that FCS are necessary.
 
I suppose it is possible that they were intended to make ULSC easier, but that’s not how I see some competitive shooters using them today. As I wrote above, they can be used to make certain gun handling/manipulation faster than is possible with just the rear serrations.

It is, undoubtedly, something of an advanced technique, and not something one would likely teach to novice shooters, nor even to a group of folks trying to pass quals. It doesn’t require muzzling your weak hand, but it puts your weak hand closer to the muzzle - a couple of inches closer to a mistake.
 
For those of you who aren't serious competition shooters or don't carry handguns professionally, please tell me why you think that FCS are necessary.
Necessary?

Heck, lots of things aren't necessary on a gun. How about a hammer or a striker? Night sights? Four pound, five pound, etc., trigger? Button mag release? Double column mag? Lightweight frame?

Very few things are necessary, but chances are good you, and just about everybody else, have preferences they choose on their guns that make using them more advantageous.
 
Last edited:
Trends in firearms come and go, and some stick around. Back in the day FSC were a custom item that people paid extra to have put on their guns. Most of these were competitive shooters. Now days they come standard on many guns. If you don’t like them, then just don’t buy a gun that has them, or just grind them off.
Here is a novel idea. Someone start a poll, FSC with three options, like, don’t like and doesn’t matter. Only allow one choice. Maybe this will end a debate that will change nothing.
 
For those of you who aren't serious competition shooters or don't carry handguns professionally, please tell me why you think that FCS are necessary.

I dont. But these days, as I posted above, it's pretty difficult to find a new gun design without them. They seem to be pretty much standard in the non-1911 category.
 
Count me in the minority, I think some FCS can balance the look of of a full length slide on a 1911.
Do I use them, yes. Always, no. If it is advantageous at the time, yes. That can depend on what gun, where my hand position is at the time, etc.
My only dislike about them is that they add to the time it takes to clean the gun.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top