The rabbi and I stopped by GT Distributors yesterday. And there it was: the GLOCK 42. It’s so cute! Just like a regular GLOCK only dainty. Seriously, the GLOCK 42 is a highly concealable pistol that looks and feels like its big brothers, only totes adorbs! The size difference between my diminutive Kahr PM9 and the itty bitty GLOCK 42 is about as dramatic as sailboat racing. (Comparo pics and few more after the jump.) In other words, the GLOCK 42’s a hit. Yes but – the Kahr fires 9mm cartridges while Gaston’s gat spits out .380’s. That’s a BIG difference. “Don’t talk to me about shot placement,” the rabbi said before I opened my mouth. “You try hitting a moving target during a defensive gun use. You want as large a caliber as possible to inflict the maximum damage possible.” A gun better than no gun? “A small gun can give a shooter a false sense of confidence,” he opined. “They might be more likely to stay and fight when they should be running.” That rabbi…so serious! Anyway, Remington R51 anyone?
I actually had one in my hand a couple days ago and it is still .380. That one small defect is just hard to step over.
Glock should have just gone straight to a single stack 9mm and saved themselves a lot of heart break.
Naw…it’s all about marketing. Glock will throw this .380 on the market for a year or so and let all the glockoholics (present company included) snatch these up. All the while we complain we wish it were a 9mm. And much to our “not” surprise, Glock releases the much wanted single stack 9mm a year or so later (enter another mad rush).
And before they do that , i will be walkind around with a rem R51 in my pocket
Man who showed it to us has it simply because he is a Glocker, Glockite, a collector. He has it to add to his collection and called it “a nice little throw down piece”. Retired with 36 years LEO and is working as a security specialist for an IT company, and he was joking about carrying it. His main EDC is a full frame 1911, backup is a cutdown 1911. Wears loose sports and business jackets over loose and untucked polo shirts and is kinda a big guy(6,4 or 5, 190 odd).
Next year they will release this in 9mm and all will be right in the world of Glock
Yeah, this might be like Springfield releasing the XD-s in .45 first: whet some appetites for the 9mm version. Although coming out with the .45 first also gave them some novelty factor (a .45! This small!) since I don’t think there were that many .45s in that size range. Anything for some buzz.
Isn’t that what we have been saying about Glock for years? Next year a single stack 9?
By this time next year my CCW dollars will already have been used up on putting a couple thousand rounds down a R51.
I agree, I’m excited for the R51. I believe my Shield will still sit in its place in my waistband holster but as an CPL instructor (especially for that price) I want one. I admit that the want is all about the look, I don’t need it. It’s just freakin’ neat! and should it prove reliable, a viable CC option
I think Glock has it in for me. They made what SHOULD have been a single stack 9mm in a mouse gun caliber just to get my goat. They couldn’t even offer it in 9mm Makarov to try and make a marginally more decent concealed carry gun out of it.
As it stands, If I’m going to carry a mouse gun, I’d rather carry an 8 shot P32 Keltec that’s much easier to conceal than a 380 that’s the size of a 9. And just watch, when they finally come out with a 9mm version it will be the same size a Glock 19 only it will be singe-stack,
I don’t know what I ever did to Gaston Glock to deserve this. True, I used to bad-mouth Tupperware but I ended up getting a G19 and a G20 and doing trigger jobs on both and likeing them as much as my 1911, so why me?
I’ll be complementing my G23 with a Baretta Nano in a couple months. If I get a .380 it will be a true pocket gun used as a backup.
The Beretta Nano should not be used with low-powered ammo. Beretta is now saying you shouldn’t fire 115 grainers out of it as it will be liable to jam. I can confirm this from personal experience. Unfortunately I’ve had it bobble twice (out of a hundred rounds) with 124 grain Winchester NATO, which *should* be good enough to get it to cycle. I’ve actually had better luck with Fiocchi 115 grain which are loaded pretty hot for ball ammo.
The Nano will NOT be a cheap gun to practice with; I can find 9mm practice ammo fairly readily nowadays, but it’s usually pretty cheap, anemic stuff. I don’t know how to get enough cheap but hot ammo to prove to myself it won’t choke in a firefight (where I’d be using gold dot, which costs over a dollar a round, so I am not going to spend that kind of money putting 200 rounds through it to satisfy my uneasy feeling).
All that having been said, if I were confident the gun would NOT malfunction with my defensive ammo, I really wouldn’t care what it did with practice ammo, and I’d shoot economy crap through it all day, and take the malf clearing as a good drill. But mine has malfed often enough that, until I can locate a LOT of hot practice ammo to prove that weak ammo is the ONLY issue with it, I can’t trust it with my Gold Dots. So I am starting to look at my old Makarov again. Or just figure out how to conceal a full size during the summer.
Wow. Interesting stuff, thanks.
I’m not sure if it’s a “generation of manufacture” difference or what, but I’ve been one of the Nano owners not hit with the 115 gr failures. I tend to carry heavy for caliber anyway, so 147 gr for my EDC rounds, and then practice with 147 FMJ. The only failures I’ve had with it regardless of cartridge size have been with the extended magazine. Even after breaking it in, trying to smooth its action, etc., it just doesn’t reliably feed. So I no longer use it even at the range. But with standard ammo and the standard flush-mount mags my Nano has been good to go. But gosh, seem s like a lot of people have been hit with that issue with lower power or lower weight rounds and it really could shake your confidence in it as an EDC firearm.
All of that said, I’m still grabbing a single stack 9 from Glock if they ever release one 🙂
My nano is fairly new, five digit serial number NU03XXXX. I have heard a lot of early ones had issues. Mine might too. That 124 grain NATO is apparently just barely above the borderline of “should be adequate”
The problem these days is finding stouter practice ammo than the weak stuff like 115 grain WWB or Federal Champion or Blazer Brass. Winchester 124 grain NATO is the only other stuff I can routinely find for sale around here. So I have no real way to test this gun under conditions more like gold dot.
Though I did just look on the ammo shelf here and spot two boxes of 147 WWB that apparently I’ve had forever and forgot about.
Mine has a late enough serial number I think it’s recent. The first ones seemed to have problems.
I can’t get good practice ammo around here at all–anemic garbage or those NATO spec rounds, which are apparently marginal. So I can’t tell whether the gun would work fine with good, powerful ammo or not. Not without shooting more gold dots through it (15 of them worked, but that’s not enough to tell). I did just find a bunch of 147 grain ammo in my ammo stash that I have had for years; I should probably just go shoot it up.
After a lot of tries, apparently it was choking on my attempt to partially quote my serial number.
Yes, ’twas the ‘xxx’ in your serial number. If your comment disappears into the ether with no sign, it got spam filtered. You can either wait a bit for me to see it (and I will see it eventually), or if it’s really important, send an email and I’ll free it up.
The problem is, when all it does is reload the page and put me at the top, I don’t KNOW that the comment got into the spam bucket; I just know that it got lost in the ozone. I assume the page is glitchy and I try again. I only started to suspect the spam filter when I tried to edit a shorter comment to include the info I was trying to post, and THEN it said, “sorry this is spam”
Only about fifteen minutes later did I see all my attempts posted with “this is awaiting moderation.” Had that happened immediately, we BOTH could have been saved a bunch of effort; I would have been confident a human would approve the comment eventually.
@SteveInCo: For future reference (and for others), anytime you see that behavior, where the page recycles but your comment isn’t there, you got spam-filtered. You can take that as gospel. For confirmation, look at the URL in the address bar. If it ends in a comment number (http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/01/robert-farago/spotted-in-the-wild-glock-42/#comment-1484225), then your comment didn’t disappear, it exists in the system, it’s just filtered. It doesn’t give an immediate message that it’s spam, only after you bounce off the filter 3-4 times will it start telling you that.
That “awaiting moderation” step you saw was me moving it out of the spam filter. It’s a two step process—spam filter > moderation queue > approval—and you just happen to see it mid-evolution. Sorry for the trouble, and I am constantly tweaking the filter to try to eliminate every possible false positive. I look at every message that gets spammed incorrectly to try to figure out why, to see if I can tweak the filter so it doesn’t happen again.
SteveInCo, I’m surprised you’re having trouble with the 124 grain nato standard. That stuff is loaded to +p standards even though it’s fmj. My sigma loves it and since it matched the profile and power level of the Golden Saber +p hollowpoints in 124 grain I used it a lot for practice before the ammo drought.
I also have a Mak. I had some Russian 115 grain hollowpoints for it that I used up and can’t find any more. That was a stout load from a Mak.
If it does indeed match the golden saber, then I am really in trouble; it probably is a close match for gold dots as well. In which case the gun is unsuitable for concealed carry as is.
Might as well throw it in the frigging trash can as I cannot in good conscience sell it to someone else.
And yes, that’s one HECK of a load for a Makarov. I do need to line up a supply of practice ammo for it if I will be carrying it. (I’ve got enough CorBon defense loads to hold me quite a while, as infrequently as I rotate it.) But at least I *trust* it.
One other Nano comment, at least from what I’ve seen on the Net, even the weaker loads seem to work just fine once the Nano is broken in. That’s the catch right now, though, limited 9mm practice ammo to break it in with – so that it can feed the 9mm practice ammo!
I know this sounds like a strange thing to do during a playoff game but you could just grab your gun (your Nano, mind you) and work the slide for a while – also, after your multiple safety checks, dry fire it a bunch. One knock on the Nano is that the trigger is lonnnnnng and rough. After a lot of dry fire (even just working it through the range of travel just shy of firing) the trigger is markedly smoother. Not the same as live fire stress on the mechanism, obviously, but a cheap and easy way to put some wear through the system for break-in.
Oh the weak 9mm ammo is not the issue; I’ve got enough on hand to break it in.
If it will break in. Ever. I’ve just utterly lost confidence in it. I do realize that another nano might make a good gun; this one is at this point probably going to go into my gun safe to rust.
Understood Steve – even if theoretically it will break in, your EDC confidence in it is gone – I totally understand that. And even though I will carry the Nano, I still whenever I can carry the 26 or 19. I trust the Nano, but TRUST the Glocks 🙂
In the way I trust my CZs or my Beretta 92 or Makarov or even my Glocks. (I don’t love Glocks like I do my CZs, but I trust them to go bang and prepare to go bang again, and a G20 does nightstand duty.)
I don’t know, I’ve never had a problem with the Nano cycling with Remington UMC or more importantly Hornady critical defense. I have had FTEs with Winchester White Box and with Blazer brass. I would think it would more problems with heavier bullets unless they were +P rounds.
Apparently the thing to do is multiply bullet weight by velocity (in grains and FPS) then divide by a hundred to get a “power factor”.
Blazer brass, Federal Champion and WWB 115 grain come in really poorly on this, in the 130s. Nato 124 grain is 141 and a fraction. Fiocchi 115 grain is 142 and a fraction. NATO caused two jams in 100 rounds, Fiocchi zero jams in 75 rounds. Other sources say that 141/142 is right on the ragged edge of what it’s designed to shoot. I’d shoot nothing but Fiocchi in it for a while, except I can’t find any. I do have another 3 1/2 boxes of it, but do I want to use it up knowing I might not ever see any again?
Oh and apparently there are two kinds of Remington UMC–the white and green stuff is a lot hotter than the yellow and black box.
“Beretta is now saying you shouldn’t fire 115 grainers out of it as it will be liable to jam.”
I’m pretty sure this is not a “now” thing but a “then” thing. When the Nano was new, it did not run well on light target/plinking/range ammo. Not that it was designed for this, and nobody had issues with any defensive loads. Regardless, Beretta redesigned the barrel hood and guns produced after that should cycle 115 grain with no issues at all. You can easily look at your barrel hood and tell: OLD DESIGN and link to NEW DESIGN. < << see that milled 'dent' or whatever you'd call it at the front of the old barrel hood and how it isn't on the new one? Apparently it was causing some resistance to the slide reciprocating and 115 grn ammo didn't reliably do the trick. The new ones are totally slick and straight on all sides and edges. My Nano was made not long after the redesign and has never had a stoppage for any reason. The first thing I did was shoot a couple hundred of the barely-makes-minor-power-factor 115 grain reloads that I shoot most, and it ran right through them. Then a clean and light lube, a box of factory 115 grain (was probably PMC Bronze), and a couple boxes of Federal HST 124 grn +P and a couple boxes of HST 147 grn standard pressure (which is my carry load). NO stoppages. Since this I have shot hundreds more 115 grain bullets though it and a few 147 grn HST just to cycle out carried and chambered ammo. 100% reliable. Love the NANO.
Mine is new design, as it turns out. But it has the old behavior nonetheless; slightly worse than it should be apparently.
All I take away from this is that the Glock 42 frame is 100% capable of supporting 9mm, yet for some unknown reason, Glock decided against it.
It is curious, isn’t it? One possibility is that they are aiming their marketing to shooters who would prefer .380 to 9mm recoil. It might have a big play with the rapidly increasing female CCW market. I can easily imagine some women saying, “It fits my hand well, is easier to shoot, fits nicely in my bag, and it’s a Glock.”
Why could they not have done both?
Because Glock marketing is hoping that a bunch of impatient Glock fanboys will buy the 380 first and a 9mm later (but wouldn’t buy both if a 9mm came first so therefore the 380 comes first).
The only problem with that marketing plan is that they didn’t count on the R51 showing up and they may lose much bigger bunch of people buying that instead of a Glock and thus they lost all those potential 9mm sales.
Arrogance and complacency.
Glock is already behind the ball, Springfield, Beretta and Smith already have similar size 9 mm out there. How much market share is the Remington going to swallow? Remington is fairly new to the pistol market (again).Remington has a nice 1911 but they don’t fly off the shelves as fast as other brands in my area.
The more buzz I hear about the Glock 42, the more my interest rises regarding the new Remington.
Ditto.
Complaining about the caliber? Get a Glock 36.
Exactly!
Am I the only one okay with .380?
That said, I’m too young to actually carry so take my thoughts on the matter with a grain of salt.
Nope. Right there with you.
Right now my options are a Glock 36 or I’m going to buy a used G17 frame and cut it to G19 Mags.
I don’t see the point to it for me but I know it will be just the ticket for a lot of people.
I’d call .380 the perfect everyday CCW caliber if I could just find the stuff. Then I’d happily buy a PPK or Sig P232 as well.
I agree. I own bigger caliber pistols, but there is something sexy to a ,380 and I like this gun. Has there ever been a story about a DGU where the outcome went badly for the good guy because he only had a .380 instead of a 9mm? If memory serves me right, just displaying the gun diffuses the situation more often than not and no shots even had to be fired and no one has to be shot, killed or hurt.
Unfortunate for the DGUser some areas will charge you with brandishing if your not shooting.
So you pull the gun, and if the guy runs away AND the police come and threaten to charge you (unlikely if there are no witnesses, the bad guy won’t report you, he’s just glad he didn’t get shot) tell them, “And I was about to shoot but he stopped the attack right then and there.”
In my case it would be true; if I draw, I will fire unless the situation de-escalates Right Now.
All I would say to the cops would be that the perp became aware that I was a concealed carrier and took off. Repeat if necassary but I wouldstill want to report the attempted crime to get the punk off the street(for at least 20 min).
There’s a place for a .380 but that place has been more ably filled by other more concealable handguns.
Quote: “Am I the only one okay with .380?”
The .380 has it’s place in this world, But it’s a narrow one. It’s better than having no gun at all but if you carry the same size gun chambered for the Nine millimeter Parabellum that would reliably feed any kind of cheap 9mm ammo, to allow a lot of practice, and something with a good trigger so that you could shoot it accurately, you’d have just about the world’s perfect 24-7-365 carry gun.
I say this with the knowledge and experience of having owned Glocks and witnessed their reliability and also seen how their triggers can be reworked to a high degree of functionality. I can only hope that Glock USA will hear all these complaints an get their act together and come out with the same sized gun in 9mm.
There is nothing wrong with this gun in and of itself. It’s an interesting novelty but with limited applications in the real world but would be fun to own and play around with. But Glock needs to get serious and come out with the real thing in 9mm.
Cute. Now where’s the 9mm BTF version?
I still don’t know who the hell “the rabbi” is, and this is like the third or fourth article he’s been mentioned in.
an occasional writer for TTAG. he carries 3 at a time, with a unique outlook.
I was confused, too, when I first started reading TTAG. For quite a while, I thought “the Rabbi” was just Robert’s alter ego, a fictional character like his mental muse or something. The Rabbi may play such a role, but he is an actual person; David Kenik. Here’s a link to his business website for a little background on him and his experience: http://www.armedresponsetraining.com/Articles.asp?ID=254
So, not just the rabbi, he is your war daddy, too. Cool!
I respectfully disagree with the man of the cloth when it comes to the .380. It’s the perfect summer pocket gun (P238) caliber. But I’m not surprised, after all he carries three guns at a time.
I see this as an impaired gun. Not that the gun is impaired, but for the arthritic, those with carpal tunnel, and the diminutive or inexperienced. Not every gun is for the operationally bearded operators operating in operations.
Interesting take on it. Although, for me, racking the action on a smaller .380 seems to take even more hand strength than a next step up subcompact 9mm does. Seems there’s just less slide to grip, so I have to grab what’s there more tightly. Plus I have to be especially careful not to catch a finger in the ejection port. Maybe it would be different for someone with smaller hands or, as you say, an impairment. Interesting.
Not the P238. The slide is extremely easy to rack once the hammers is cocked. Goes like this: Pistol empty – no magazine. Pull hammer back. Engage the safety. Insert magazine. Pull slide all the way back and release. Done.
The trick is that the P238 allows you to rack the slide with the safety on. Much of the force when racking a slide of most guns (strikers excluded) goes into cocking the hammer.
Of course there are other guns that let you rack with the safety on, but don’t let you have the hammer down with the safety on, e.g. the Beretta 92.
Yup, Me too. Some people can operate, or grow beards, not every one can do both. Ninjas were reliably beardless for instance. A ninja with a Glock 42 is THAT much more dangerous. Cavemen were renown for their beard, now give one a Glock 42 even in the “puny” .380, and see how long the mastodons would have lasted then….. This is part of the reason I have not gotten my mother a .45, the beard she would develop from becoming a .45 master would affect my world view, as well as hers…..
.380 blow backs have the stronger recoil spring and are harder to rack such as my son’s PPK is like that compared to my wife’s PK380 which is breech lock and the slide racks like the SR22
Is it a blowback? I have no idea, but if it is, then you are right….. But if it is a locked/tilting breech like their other US pistols… by the nature of that design the recoil spring would have to be lighter…..
I would never recommend a Glock to an inexperienced shooter. Like new drivers and aviators, a new shooter is more prone to make a fatal mistake and a Glock is an easy gun to make mistake with. When asked by a new shooter what gun he/she should get as first gun. I recommend a Springfield, Beretta or even an M&P.
I agree. The .380 ain’t perfect, but its definitely better than nothing. I’ll have my wife try this. She’s not an operator.
Wasted effort, would rather see factory offered stainless slides than this lame attempt to capture some of the LCP and P3AT market. 380 is crap.
A valid opinion, until you get shot with one.
If I got the choice I would take a shot from a 380 over any major caliber. Hopefully my G27 prevents that from happening.
A 380 offering is a natural choice for Glock to add to the lineup, it fills a void that others have been cleaning up on, the CCW market who want something docile to shoot and easy to hide.
As a Glock fan some stainless options are what I would like to see. Also a true micro gun in 32ACP thats only as big as a credit card, the Glock version of a NAA revolver in semi form. Thats something that would be noteworthy.
Now I can have a pocket gun without contaminating my safe with imperfection.
I was thinking along similar lines, although in my case it would give my CZs something to laugh at. Gotta keep the arms entertained.
😉
+1 on that, from a guy who owns three bits of glorious czechnology now. I’ve yet to try a RAMI though.
Good one!
I have my share of Glocks, but this strikes me as the proverbial solution in search of a problem.
The insistence that .380 is too weak for defensive gun use befuddles me.A casual search will find the following cases:
Officer Stacy Lim took a .357 magnum to the chest at bad breath range.She took her issue LAPD 9mm and put down the dirtbag who shot her whilst bleeding from a magnum size hole in her chest.
Case two of ,well, a lot: on this very website there’s video of a dirtbag taking a fatal .40 S&W round to the chest.He remains standing , shoots the LEO, and gets into his car to die a mile down the road.
Shot placement , I’d submit, is a VERY necessary component when running the weak ass platform called a handgun .A shooter who puts 1000 rounds of work behind an “anemic” .380 is better prepared for a fight then someone with 500 rounds behind an R51, for example. Unless you’re packing a 12 gauge with 00 buck, a different long arm, or a radio on the airstrike frequency you don’t get to say you have “stopping power”.
And though I NEVER want to get an A-10 warthog mad at me, it probably wouldn’t respond to my airstrike call fast enough to save my bacon in a bad-breath-range confrontation.
Those that worship on the alter of shot placement forget that “good” shot placement is a function of caliber. I am with the Rabbi on this when it comes to firearms a bigger round is a better a round because the lethality footprint is bigger. Give me a 45, and a 7.62 NATO or 30-06 any day.
It is a combination of a multitude of factors, and always has been. Any combat handgun will have less lethality and stopping power than a 12 / 20 gauge or the 5.56 / 6.8 / 7.62 rifle. A 10mm auto, for instance, pushes a heavier bullet faster than the .380 / 9mm / .38 / .40 / .45 can manage. Even deer don’t instantly die when hit with rifles, although the three whitetails I’ve heart shot with .45-70 325 grain LeverEvolution were knocked down and stayed down. I’ve heart about a dozen deer with .308 and .30-06 and had them run 0-50 yards, depending on the circumstances. Those that were lung shot went further.
When hunting big game, or dangerous game, it is obvious that bigger calibers with more energy and momentum have more stopping power. This is not opinion, but can be objectively measured. A buffalo hunter may face a minimum caliber option of a .300 Win Mag or a .45-70 +P for example. A .338 Lapua or .375 H&H would offer more energy, bullet diameter, and stopping power. Similarly, most guides require a .375 H&H minimum for hunting dangerous game.
Some people seem to ignore energy, momentum, and bullet diameter in regards to handguns. I see these things as objective facts. What constitutes a good defensive caliber is much more hotly contested. Shooting the Bull has shown us that a select few .380 loads that can achieve 12″ of penetration and 1.5 caliber expansion in ballistic gel. Personally, I consider that to be a minimum in an SD caliber, which the .380 barely meets. With the right loads. YMMV.
There is good reason for a move and shoot combined with cover and concealment doctrine in self defense shooting. People may not immediately stop their violent attack from a single or multiple handgun hits. Sure a .22 or .380 can work, and they are better than nothing, but not ideal. A 12 gauge or 5.56 would arguably be ideal. When it comes to handguns, I’m really starting to like the Rabbi’s philosophy about carrying more heat, and may purchase a Glock 42 .380 or LC9 to back up my usual Glock 23 / 27 carry guns. Hey, options are a good thing.
You pick up a firearm and it just seems like it is an extension of your hand. I think everyone who carries has that one special firearm that feels that way to them. I carry either a S&W 3914, Glock 30 or a Kimber CDP but my favorite handgun is a Beretta Cheetah Model 84. In my 30+ years of carrying and shooting handguns it is my all time favorite pistol. It just fits me better than anything else I have had in my hand. In those 30+ years I have carried it no more than 5 days. It is a 380.
I always said if they made the Model 84 in 9X19 I would own 10 of them and it would be my only carry gun. Again the 84 is a 380. I have searched and waited for that magic round for a 380 that would make it powerful enough to be my only carry gun. It has not happened yet and I doubt if it ever does. I can still hope.
I have instructed many in WV and OH to obtain their carry permit. The 380 is very popular for so many. I tell them to carry the biggest round they can control. That the 38 special is the smallest I would carry. That the 380 is better than nothing but if you are going to carry carry something more powerful. They stick with their 380. Glock is just filling a void they have in their line. A compact 380. That is what people want and Glock is a company that has to meet customer demand. Demand for the 380 is way up and you have to look no further than the Ruger LCP.
I wonder if one could cram a 26 barrel into that slide. If it would fit, and 9mm will physically fit and cycle, boom! nine mil pocket glock. All for the price of…two glocks.
Let’s see a comparison of the Glock-brand Glock 42, an LC380, and a screen door on a submarine! How about a Desert Eagle with a chambering in .22lr?
Good lordy, who’d want to chamber a desert eagle in a round that doesn’t exist?
Oh, but it does exist! My cousin’s girlfriend’s uncle has a buddy who saw some. For real.
Next you will tell me he saw a unicorn. Riiiiight.
I saw some of that rimfire stuff today. It was behind glass and rationed at great cost. It does exist. But why buy something that will cost more to feed than a centerfire.
I’m thinking of donating my collection of rimfire firearms to a museum.
Bwahaha! I was cleaning up my long-disused reloading room about half an hour ago, because I am thinking about taking it up again… and found two bricks of unobtainium, I mean, .22LR.
I’d buy that for a Dollar!
This is a win and will replace my PM9, caliber be damned. It will shoot very nicely with Glock’s trigger and the lower powered, and plenty powerful enough round.
If Rabbi wants to carry around a ton of extra weight (which clearly does not bother him), more power to him.
Can’t wait to shoot the new Glock. Wonder if it’ll have less recoil than the LCP .380 and Bodyguard .380. I carry a Sig P238 daily because it’s easy/invisible to carry in the appendix position, accurate, and low recoil. I do occasionally carry my G19 as well but the .380 is easier to hide on my frame. I agree with the comment above, “Not every gun is for the operationally bearded operators operating in operations.” And truly, shot placement is crucial. Yet another cop told me a couple weeks ago that he’s seen more deaths from a .22 than any other caliber. For women in particular a gun that is easy to shoot and easy to carry all the time trumps a large caliber that’s hard to hide so is never carried.
Absolutely nothing wrong with carrying a .380, unless you can comfortably carry and conceal and shoot more. It is substantially more powerful as a carry piece than the .500 magnum you left at home. (I personally can deal with nines, so I do.) I get impatient with the people further upthread who simply call it “crap.”
I *do* think Glock should have released this size handgun in both calibers. And we don’t know what the Glock 40 will be. (Or was it 41 they skipped over.)
Wouldn’t it be awesome if the Glock 40 (that they skipped) became a dedicated 22lr? Then the 22 would be 40 and the 40 would be 22.
Just like I think Kansas City, Kansas, should change its name to Missouri City just to avoid confusion with Kansas City, Missouri.
Oh, a .22 will kill you all day long… but when I say that I mean it will take all day to do it. Will a larger round cause an immediate ‘stop’? Maybe… the psychological impact of being shot (and the force imparted) should not be thrown out. But even if it’s not immediate, the shock caused by damage from a larger wound will incapacitate more quickly than a smaller round.
A gun’s better than no gun, a bigger (handgun) round is generally better. There are always diminishing returns, of course, and those will depend on the shooter (clothing, recoil control, magazine capacity, cost, etc).
This is a business move by glock and a good one at that. If they release the 9mm and 380 at the same time with identical dimensions the 380 won’t sell well. Pump out the 380 this year and then everyone wants the 9 or 40 when they release that. They end up selling multiple guns to the same buyers. Personally I love my 26, conceal it easily, and am satisfied with the capacity. If a single stack nine came out that I would still need to carry iwb, it wouldn’t replace my 26.
Yes, the PM9 is narrower and shorter…and 9mm!!!
And even the PM9 isn’t exactly a pocket gun. My Kahr P380, now THAT is a pocket gun. The G42 being a .380 that is larger than the PM9 and more expensive than a CM9 makes it a no-go for me.
That sums it up for me, gonna spend that kinda money for a Glock it will not be .380.
Yeah… still just not impressed by this thing.
To the absurd number of haters for Glock’s latest offering (I’m not a glock fanboy, btw.)
A gun is better than no gun.
A weaker round you can control is better than a powerful round you cannot.
.380 > 22lr/.25/.32 ACP
This gun is perfect for shooters with small and or weak hands. “Mouse gun” calibers almost always come in ridiculously small packages, which can make them almost as difficult to control as their larger, bigger bore brethren. The Glock 42 gives an easily controllable, reliable caliber a decent platform to shoot it from, in a size that the smaller framed will appreciate. The market has ignored smaller shooters for years, much the way bolt actions ignored lefties. I would advise all you haters to look at the Glock 42 the way a right handed person looks at a left sided bolt action. No, it’s not the gun for you. It wasn’t designed for you.
There are already plenty of single stack 9mms on the market. In fact, just about EVERY GUN on the market was designed for those of you with standard size and strength hands. Enough hating. Just move on and let those who have been waiting for a gun like this enjoy it.
As a guy who packs a G19, I’m kinda curious about the G42…..I’d rather wait for one in 9mm but I think the G42 will be all about brand loyalty for most purchasers.
Is it just me, or are other people getting tired of hearing the whole “it needs to be in (insert caliber here).” If you do not like the .380, don’t buy one! But do not try to deny the other shooters who may like this gun, or find the .380 the perfect round for recoil or other reasons. Stop trying to be so damn macho. If you all want a pocket gun in a bigger caliber like .50AE, go start up a freaking gun company.
Yeah, because that’s what people are asking for. Get off your strawman and, while you’re at it, leave the internet if you don’t like opinions.
Love glocks. Like I said though this isn’t glock marketing a gun to smaller shooter. Just a business move….. Nothing more. Nothing wrong with that. A firearm company is a business first and foremost. They don’t release products in an order or configuration we want they do it in a way that will bring in the most money.
And I still hold the opinion that this one is out in 380 because they know that they’ll still sell a bunch of them, but since it is a single stack system, and I believe some other manufacturing changes as well ( ? ), they want to make sure they have the system nailed down tight before a 9 comes out.
Glock first releasing a single stack 9 instead of 380, everyone in the world buying one, and everyone angry if there’s any problems in the shakedown period with a new pistol – not a chance they’re willing to take.
Think of the 380 as the “beta” release before the 9 comes out
if you want a .380 then it seems nice. if you want what every one has been telling glock to make for the past 5 years (single stack 9mm), then it just seems like a teaser.
i would be way more interested in the r51 than the glock 42, but i am a slave to the golden state. i will not buy any gun that has micro stamping.
Their hate is based on their Socialist educations , and the fact they no longer can think independently ,,, that is why communism had so many people follow so easy. they have to reach the point when they see everyone going to the gas chamber/firing/hanging than it is too late for such poor fools……… As the saying goes first they came for (the guns)……..that is what we need to show where the road of socialism end , (in the end they kill everyone)!
Wow, you hate 380s a lot, don’t ya? 🙂
wat
Um, wrong post, dude.
Huh? You’re a socialist/communist if you would have preferred Glock to come out with a 9mm instead of a 380? Does not compute.
I think LMO dropped that in the wrong thread. Or is that hope? I mix those up a lot.
I recall the rants many years ago that 9mm’s of any flavor were underpowered and would endanger your life if a defensive shot wasn’t placed into a vital spot…..now 9mm’s are considered very effective…some still contend that if you spend your money for a handgun…why not buy a 40 S&W. And further…Walther PPK’s were highly prised as “THE” concealed carry firearm when I had a carry permit for a PPKS in 380 years ago. PPK/S’s are still a fine weapon though I suppose it is a dinosaur in many peoples mind…so wouldn’t this make the 1911’s dinosaurs using this mindset?
WHAT HAPPENED?!! I contend that if you carry a concealed weapon the first lesson in self defensive is just leave if possible depite any macho man attitude. If you must pull your weapon…the 2nd lesson is to still back away and leave if possible. What is the usual hot zone for any shooting in self defensive shootings or encounters? 10 to 17 feet….hmmmmm…..I contend that a 22 longrifle rimfire is ample firepower at 10 to 17 feet and allows rapid recovery and repeated fire.
Now….I ‘ve lived alot (Another way of saying I’ve been around awhile.)….and sadly…I have seen a dead person shot with a 380. He is still dead to this day.
Back in the day 9mm was only available in light weight loads, the standard German military loads being considered to heavy for most users and hollow points being frowned upon. Most shooters wanted heavier loads, so manufacturers started upping their products and introducing JHP rds. Once heavier loads became widely available people in America started taking 9mm seriously.
I like .45, learned to shoot pistol using .45 revolver and 1911. Problem is all the idiots have driven the price of .45 semi-autos right through the roof, which is why I bought and regularly carry a Walther P1. 9 rds in the piece when pulled, 2 backup mags, got a problem that ammo load can’t handle then I am hauling my a$$ to a rifle as fast as possible.
There are something like nine cases of 1911s at the LGS I frequent. During the last panic, for a while those cases were the only ones (other than the ones for .22s) that had more than two or three handguns in them. If even the recent panic couldn’t clean them out, I’d say at this point they are a glut on the market, so perhaps there will be a correction soon.
I shoot glocks very well. They are light, reliable and hi cap. However, reguardless of caliber, they also hideously blocky, have a long mushy trigger. And most of all; a glock’s only safety is – and it’s is only safe when it’s in -a holster. Any “pocket glock” is a recipe for disaster.
I’m gonna disagree with you on the safety issue. Plenty of people pocket carry guns without safeties, the key is just to make sure you use a pocket holster. My LCP rides in my pocket all day. No safety, no problem. Just don’t forget to use a pocket holster.
I carry a Beretta M21 in pocket a lot, only trouble is the hammer wears through the cloth fairly quickly. Other than that it is golden.
I don’t know why everyone is so upset. There will be a 9mm version in a few months. Then a .40. Relax
Hell I may buy the Glock 42…I am thinking the discontend observed is due to the cost of 380 ammo vs 9mm. I sure as hell wouldn’t want to get shot with a 380.
It cost me $3.50 to reload a box of 9mm…..isn’t gonna cost me any more/less to reload for a 380. I tiny less amount of power to reload for a 380 isn’t worth counting.
What was the price on it?
I want to like it, and I might. The G42 just doesn’t have a place in my carry line up. I have no issue concealing the G26 or G19 in an IWB holster. More rounds, better caliber. I need a gun for when I cannot carry a belt holster. The G42 is just too big and long to justify its purchase. Had it been an inch shorter, I would buy one.
The saddest part of this discussion is the presumption about marketing strategies from people whp apparently don’t own a Glock. I’m likely to purchase a G42. As well as a similarly framed 9mm. Glocks are like that potato chip – you can’t just have one! I may or may not be typical, owning 2 Glock 19s, & 1 each Glock 22, 23, 26, & 35. Plus 4 revolvers, 5 other semi-auto pistols. Shooting is fun, right? My edc is the Glock 23, with the barrel swapped out to .357 sig. But hot summer weather really puts a crimp in carrying that, so the PPK/s has to fill in. I’d prefer the Glock trigger since it’s already in memory. Glock already knows its customers will buy all variants they produce.
I have a few…wink…pistols of different makes/calibers/etc….I have my Glocks and proud of it. As one feller stated to me about my Glocks…”So you moved to the darkside eh?!”
You bet I did!
I often carry the Nano for a single stack 9 but you’re right – I love my 19, my 26, and my 29 as well. Like chips, you can’t have just one – but I think my wife wishes the chips were a little less expensive 🙂
That is one reason…among others…that I’m not married. I shack up with a gal and that’s as far as it gets with me!! Hhahaha…yeah I’m thinking she’d cut my b***s off for sayiing that…but hell..she doesn’t want marriage either!! I’ve got the best deal going!!
Still cost money though…dammit!
Yep, multiple guns in multiple caliber to cover multiple uses. I don’t disparage anyone for their informed choices. Except maybe HK, and that’s because they hated me first.
Sailboat racing can be very dramatic…especially when you’re a young teen in the mid 2000’s working race committee when a couple of two ton yachts decide to slam into each other. Hmmf!
Sailboat racing? Unfortunately I own a hole in the water, complete with mast & sails. That plus maintaining a huge bag of photo gear means I’m always cash poor. And 2 Jeeps. But sailboat racing… the fastest 5 miles an hour on earth (we ain’t leaning until someone’s screaming!).
That explains why I prefer to crew on someone else’s boat. I willingly put in the hours of boat work in the spring and fall, but at least my major financial investment (other than foulies, my pfd, and some other gear) is limited to bringing beer or lunches.
I’m going to make two assumptions.
1. The 42 was actually designed for concealed carry in Euro countries that prohibit 9mm, 45, etc.
2. Bringing it to the US factory was just a market expansion for a gun that already was designed.
Otherwise why should this exist?
Because it will sell.
Correct. This is a world wide market gun. Most countries don’t allow 9mm – as a military caliber – and .380 is the largest caliber that can be legally carried. Glock will sell a boatload worldwide. The US is a secondary market, but they will sell here as well. It’s a Glock and it always goes bang. If you want a polymer single stack 9mm that always goes bang, get a Springfield XD-S.
Think of all the pissed off responses from people wanted a .380 if Glock had released the 9mm first. Can’t please everyone all of the time.
I have not heard anyone begging for .380.
What an adorable little popgun! Does anyone know if that company also makes guns for men?
Tell you what, Ralph, old chap, how about you let me empty the magazine into your chest from ten feet away and then tell me more about how adorable it is and not for men, mmmk???
Somebody get this man some Preparation H and a beer so he can chill out. Yeesh.
Then you can get another magazine from your purse and shoot some more.
It’s not for women either, or at least my wife. She packs a full sized M-9 most of the time.
An excellent choice on her part. The big reason I switched to CZ 75B is I decided I wanted a cocked and locked style operating mode. A side benefit or two was an extra round of capacity and a smaller, better (for my hands at least) grip–the sucker points perfectly for me. Beretta 92/M9 grips are a touch fat for my hands.
LOL! Good one Ralph. Haven’t seen such good troll material on the blog in some time. Snorted scotch out of my nose on that one :).
I can tell you from personal experience that typical .380 micro pistols are plain tough to shoot. Uncomfortable as all Hell, and this even from someone who’s nigh recoil insensitive, I would rather shoot my M&P .40 with DoubleTap 200-grain (which scoots along at close to 1,100 FPS).
I don’t even have big hands, either.
The G42 would be perfect for those who can’t be bothered with 9MM, but want something that will fill their hand enough to not beat their little paws to death.
Recoil and ease of shooting is a factor for many shooters. I believe the Model 42 is going to be a very soft shooting, accurate pistol. This will appeal to lots of people. I’ve shot just about most all calibers on different guns. I can narrow down recoil and ease of shooting using handguns like this – in ascending order of ease of use, your mileage may vary:
Worst ever: Smith model 29 2.5″ barrel with .44 mag w/240 grain loads. The muzzle flash was incredible.
Second worst: Glock model 27 with 180 grain Gold Dots. Talk about Skippy.
Good: Glock 27 with .357 Sig ported barrel. Ports tame the Skippy :). Excellent, very accurate round.
Good: Colt Python 6-inch with full power .357 Magnum loads
Better: Smith model 29 8-3/8 barrel with full power .44 magnum loads. My best gun ever.
Better: Glock model 35. No Skippy at all
Better: Any of the 1911s, including the 3.5-inch Dan Wesson ECO
Second best: Sig P238 – no recoil to speak off.
Best: 4.62 inch Ruger single six convertible (.22LR/.22WRM) – Did it go off?
Yeah…the Ruger Single Six Convertible….I always like that single action gun and shot a hellava lot of 22’s thru both cylinders…someone decided that they wanted it more that I did. It turned up years later in a town over 100 miles away. Was told the gun was in pretty bad shape when it was recovered. Since the insurance company paid for the value of the revolver and I would have to repay the insurance company…I let it ride.
I’d say we all would rather fill our hands with a full sized or near to full sized pistol (There are still those however that perfer the dinosaurs of revolvers) but let us all bring into the mindset that if…and god forbid this ever happens to anyone…if the chips get down and one is forced to point a pistol at another…and forced to shoot…I do not believe that you or I would even think about recoil nor feel any discomfort at that point.I’ve shot a few powerhouse rifles (And pistols too!)that you’d almost despise to shoot at the range due to heavy recoil. Shoot at a elk or deer? The recoil is mute and not even noticed. Even muzzle blast is not noticeabe at that point. And I’ve taken a fair amount of deer/antelope/elk/etc using 243’s to 300 Winmags. Many with a 270’s and 30-06 ass kickers on the bench! Always figured that if a 300 wouldn’t kill a large animal…I didn’t need to try.
“Cute” is NOT the adjective I’d have hung that thing with!
I have always contended that subcompacts and micropistols are for backup or special purpose and not for everyday carry. I think it’s funny how people knock those of us who carry a single stack 1911 with 7 or 8+1 of 45 ACP yet think nothing of going out with a single stack mouse gun with the same or fewer rounds of puny 380, The only reason for that this Virginia family Diesel carries our little Nano is when we are in polite company and a full sized pistol would be fashion malfunction.
“I think it’s funny how people knock those of us who carry a single stack 1911 with 7 or 8+1 of 45 ACP yet think nothing of going out with a single stack mouse gun with the same or fewer rounds of puny 380,”
Because the two cases are not necessarily parallel (and are you sure it’s the SAME people?). A backup gun makes capacity and caliber compromises by its very nature. If someone has to carry a backup that’s what’s going to happen to them.
On the other hand if you are able and willing to carry a full size gun, it should hold a hell of a lot more than 7-8 (+1) rounds, or you’ve tossed away a lot of the benefit of its size. So if people knock the one and not the other, that’s why.
Now I do knock 1911s from time to time, but not really for that reason. It’s because I see them jam at the range a lot, then 20 minutes later the owner is bragging about what a wonderful gun it is. Really? That same gun I just saw jam a couple of times? I would find performance like that totally unacceptable (see my comments re the Nano earlier), but when it’s Job Lowe’s 1911 that jammed three times while I was watching him shoot it, It’s God John Moses Browning so it must be wonderful. I guess my real complaint is with 1911 fanboys who are oblivious to how jamamatic their own 1911s are, that then go on a tear about cheeze whiz tupperware guns–which at least work. I’d actually, if I had to chose between a NIB Glock 17 with seven rounds loaded in it, and a NIB 1911 with seven rounds in it, right now because a BG is coming through the door, I’d pick up the Glock–even with 9mm in it, because I would have 100 times the confidence that it would work.
If your 1911 is flawless, good for you, by the way. A *reliable* 1911 is a joy to shoot and own no doubt.
You miss the point. If someone thinks an 8 round capacity is not enough it’s not enough whether comes in a big package or small one. There are many easy to carry double stack compacts with 13-15 rounds. There is no reason a pocket pistol should be used for other than backup.
I never have known a full sized 1911 to have reliability issues unless it was a very expensive precision built target pistol that is not meant for self defense. I have seen lot of people limp wrist a polymer causing fte and ftfs.
Now are we talking about compacts (like the G19, 23 or CZ-75 compact–and why the heck didn’t Glock make a 10mm or 45 in that size?) or the really tiny guns like a Nano or those Glocks you can’t put your pinky on without an extended magazine? A compact (as I am using the term here) isn’t all that much smaller than a full size, so of course you can double stack em and get a nice capacity (14+1 for the CZ, 15+1 for the G19), but they won’t fit in a pocket or be of the size class of a typical .380. (But they are wonderful in a bucket seat.) We are talking here about the single stack mouse gun, a different tool for a different job. (Well OK putting down BGs who are acting up isn’t a *different* job, but the environment is different.)
In any case, yes people bust on 1911s for small capacity. That’s in part because the gun is of a class that one would think would have more capacity. If they give a mouse gun a pass, it might be because they realize the mouse gun is being all it can be. But I am speculating on what is going on in their heads. I know my thought process, I don’t know theirs.
If their stated rationale is *simply* that the 1911 only carries 7 or 8 rounds in the mag, then they are, to be sure, being sloppy in either thought or statement. So I’d have to say on balance you are probably right, depending on what’s going on inside the skull of the basher.
As for the 1911 reliability issue; I see plain janes models malf just on the range with practice ammo. (Isn’t ball supposed to be their strength?) I had a friend once who went through FOUR lemon 1911s in a row, different brands, and they weren’t finely tuned range guns either. He could not get any of them to function with defensive ammo, period. (He finally gave up and bought a Beretta 92–the firing pin on which eventually broke.) I personally have no trust in them and it seems like the first step with one is invariably to send it off to some guy to get it worked on, after spending a lot more on it than I’ve ever spent on any handgun.
Yes that is the biggest disadvantage to a Glock, is its sensitivity to limp-wristing. Apparently almost all semiautos have this but the Glock is notably worse at it. If you aren’t in the habit of limp-wristing, it won’t be an issue. No gun is perfect for everyone. The trick is to not assume that just because a gun is bad for you, it’s bad for everyone (as many here will). And also to remember one bad gun doesn’t make the whole model run crap either. (I am not, for example, condemning all Beretta Nanos, just mine.) The countervailing trick is to figure out when you can *legitimately* blame the ammo or the shooter, and when it is that you must decide the gun is just too damn finicky. Is sensitivity to limp wristing a problem with the gun or is the problem that the shooter is a limp-wrister? Is failing to function on really weak 9mm a problem with my gun, or is it that the ammo is really too weak to qualify as 9mm spec? (Leaving aside for the moment that even stronger ammo is currently giving that gun fits, which makes it more clear-cut: the gun is broke.) It’s those sorts of arguments that are endless fodder for argument in places like this.
Bottom line, I shot 1911s for 40 years. For me, it is the most accurate pistol I own and I own a lot of them.
one thing i do give to the 1911 is the trigger.
Note in the top picture of the glock laying on the blueprints that the mag release is a honking big square sticking out from the gun. Then note the 2 pictures of said glock in a persons hand. That mag release is covered. How much you want to bet that small gun with big mag release is going to result in mags escaping into the wilds to run free.
Glock fanboys will love it even if its chambered in .25acp. There is just no accounting for some people…
Sadly, just a POS.
Define “POS”. I mean, I know what the acronym stands for, but is it about this gun that *makes* it a Piece of Sierra Hotel India Tango?
If it’s anything at all like Glock’s typical output, it will function flawlessly unless you limp wrist it. So there’s no reason to believe, certainly not this early, that it’s Piece of Sierra Hotel India Tango because it’s a jamamatic you don’t dare trust your life to in a gunfight.
So I’d have to guess that you must be judging by some other criteria.
Maybe it’s esthetics (looks blocky and ugly to you, and to me for that matter–but I know plenty of people who’d beg to differ) or caliber (you have no personal use for the .380 caliber, and neither do I for that matter–but I know plenty of people who do). If it’s one of those then really, the gun isn’t for you (and it isn’t for me either), but that wouldn’t really make it a Piece of Sierra Hotel India Tango, now would it? Or did Someone Up There die, and cause you to inherit the title “God” and thereby make your *tastes* intrinsically correct?
Or maybe you are just one of those clowns who has an inordinate prejudice against polymer guns, and has to resort to namecalling because, embarrassingly for you, the things work and are popular, and there is no real basis for your dislike?
Which is it? Your posting doesn’t give anyone any clue as to your rationale, so I’d say until proven otherwise, there probably isn’t a rationale worthy of the name “rationale.”
Wow. A bit verbose are we? Why, we cross SteveInCO?
POS I define it as…an unoriginal thought, design….stuck in the mind of “our way or the highway”…….Square, plastic. I mean plastic is moldable and easy configured into much more aesthetically pleasing shapes. Really. Why the booger picking corner on the trigger guard? On a “pocketgun” no less. .380…marginally better than a .25acp. Brilliant piece of work that.
If you want to worship it, please. Do so. And do so heartily!
You seem to lack reading comprehension. I made it pretty clear I *don’t* worship Glocks; I did say it was not for me, I find it aesthetically unappealing and don’t care for the caliber. Read what I put between parentheses. I just don’t think those are valid reasons to call it a POS.
You gave no reason to justify calling it a POS in your original post, you just called it a POS. THAT was my larger point. I see lots of people doing this and occasionally get sick and tired of it enough to respond to a more egregious offender.
And now that you’ve actually given a rationale, it turns out you are calling it a POS because you think it’s ugly, and you don’t like the caliber Well, so do I, but that doesn’t make it a POS. Issues of personal taste and situation don’t make a gun crappy, they make it not have a home in my gun safe or nightstand or EDC holster–just as well because I can’t possibly own everything anyway.
So my initial guess was correct: your judgement–that this gun is a Piece of Shit–wasn’t backed up by anything that would justify it.
Here’s my judgement. I don’t want one, though others might and it will probably serve them well–hardly a reason to call it a “piece of shit.” It may or may not be interesting to me in 9mm but probably not, I don’t love Glocks. I *do* respect them though.
Yep, verbose.
You and I have a different definition of POS is all. Trust me, I’m not losing any sleep on this disagreement.
“You and I have a different definition of POS is all.”
That much is certain.
What do our different definitions say about the person who chooses to buy a G42? Yours is insulting to them, mine isn’t, as long as their rationale for buying it makes sense in their context. Of course you probably lose any sleep over being insulting to people whose tastes differ from yours, either.
I see no reason to insult anyone. But if after logic fails them, and they still insist on buying a POS when there are far better choices, then that is their problem not mine friendo.
But you HAVE insulted them, for no reason other than that their taste and/or circumstances differ from yours.
Omg omg a gun company is offering a gun in another caliber !
I am a big guy. 6’4″. I do not have a bunch of bananas for hands, but I have big hands. I love to shoot my Wife’s Kahr P380. A tough, accurate, low recoiling little pistol. It also disappears in a pocket. I have no trouble shooting the gun.
Rabbi ?
WTF ?
Useless .
Not volunteering to get shot with a .380, and certainly not volunteering to buy one. My Kahr pm9 fits in regular pants pockets or easily disappears in cargo & coat pockets. Totally disappears in a small iwb crossbreed. No desire at all to buy a Glock that is about the same size but uses a caliber I don’t already shoot which is also MORE expensive to buy and practice with.
If Glock makes this exact gun in 9mm though, I will buy it the first second I can. I’m begging you Glock, TAKE MY MONEY.
The last time I was in a gun shop a couple week’s ago I asked if the .380 Glock was available to public yet and was told no. In the US, .380 Glock goes to law enforcement officer’s only!
The GLOCK 42 will be offered in 9mm Luger. It was designed for it. The locking breech is not necessary for a .380. The magazine has more polymer on it than other GLOCK mags. It looks like it would take a different magazine and a different recoil spring to convert it. Hard to tell what model designation it will get but it won’t be a model 42 in 9mm.
It could even be made in .40 but it would lose a round of capacity.
Rabbi’s logic kind of flawed, since that logic can be applied to literally any gun. (shrug)
I’d carry it.
Oh, but I do concur on the R-51 thing, haha. I think I’ll be all over that.
For what reason?Wake me up when Glock comes out with something that makes sense/might interest me in any way.
Comments are closed.