GlockFan
Member
You also didn't learn not everyone is like you. Did you not see he also mentioned his wife? My Keltec p3at is as bad or worse than my Glock 19 btw.
Shot the Glock 42 yesterday
- Thread starter Ankeny
- Start date
- Status
You also didn't learn not everyone is like you. Did you not see he also mentioned his wife? My Keltec p3at is as bad or worse than my Glock 19 btw.
snooperman
Member
- Joined
- May 4, 2009
- Messages
- 2,143
I have the Ruger LCP as well as the blow-back SIG P230. The LCP is much smaller and lighter but does not kick as much as the older heavier SIG and is easier to rack than the SIG too. I think the Glock 42 will fill the Niche well for those wanting a light-weight 380 that is easy to rack and shoot, including me. It is a little lighter in weight than the Ruger LC380. I am going to get one when the buying frenzy is over. I like the 380 , and with the right kind of ammo, it is fine for a CCW. Quick follow-up shots can make a big difference in a gun like that. Especially for the elderly like me, people with arthritis and women who lack the strength to handle the "pocket nines".
Vodoun da Vinci
Member
Well, not your LCP...probably just the one we shot. In my Wife's hands the LCP yields more flip/recoil than our G26 which is 9mm. I shot the LCP and liked the gun but it kicks and snaps as hard as my Px4 subcompact in 9mm...I have no problem carrying the Px4 and the LCP's trigger is not so hot so for me it's a no brainer.
I'm sorry to be obtuse but I'm not dis respecting the LCP as much as I'm trying to tell people that smaller, inexperienced shooters (a lot of them in our study/support group - almost all of them) really want to like and buy the LCP because it's a Ruger and it's small, light, and easy to carry. But the recoil has them shooting one mag worth and putting the gun down for good. The display case of used guns at my LGS has more used LCP's than any other gun. People training for CCW here in Illinois buy them cause the salesman said so, they shoot 'em, then they sell 'em and get a larger heavier pistol in .380 and learn to carry/hide it.
VooDoo
BSA1
member
VooDoo makes a good point which is when it comes to small, lightweight guns that hotter the cartridge the more UNEQUAL the reaction will be. Guns like J Frames chambered in 357 magnum and the small, lightweight semi-autos that only allow a couple of fingers around the grip seem like a great c.c. option until the first time it is shot with full power loads.
That is the most common mistake older people and females make, as well as men. I saw a woman at the show on Sat. buying 2, S&W 357's,J frames as her first guns, it was sad, I almost intervened, she thought that Night sites were lasers, and she had never fired one that size, if at all. There was a robbery on her block, so now anything goes.
She needed a larger frame and lower pressure round, like a full size 9mm, with 147 grain rounds, or a 38 Ruger with 357 capability for later. Small guns with hi pressure rounds like 40, or 380, 357 sig, are bad for accuracy and intimidate new shooters.
She needed a larger frame and lower pressure round, like a full size 9mm, with 147 grain rounds, or a 38 Ruger with 357 capability for later. Small guns with hi pressure rounds like 40, or 380, 357 sig, are bad for accuracy and intimidate new shooters.
Nick Burkhardt
Member
The "reason" for the G42 is so people could have a .380 with a Glock trigger.
guyfromohio
Member
I don't buy a Ford because I hate Chevy. I won't buy a G42 because I'm getting rid of all my other guns. I'll get a G42 because I can. I enjoy .380s. I always have.
Big_John1961
Member
Wishoot said:
My guess would be that an even larger segment of their customer base was clamoring for a .380.
razorback2003
Member
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2008
- Messages
- 1,231
Is it very easy for someone with weak strength, such as an elderly person, to pull the slide back and disassemble the Glock 42?
If you are interested, they are up for sale on Slickguns.com again, as they were earlier, but the earlier one was LEO's only, this is for anyone who wants to spend 600 dollars on this gun. Here is what Maas wrote about it if anyone is interested, It's not my opinion so don't pop off at me about it either way please.
http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/
http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/
Vodoun da Vinci
Member
Excellent read - thanks for the link! 
I pretty much think exactly like Mr. Ayoob on this subject minus the personal experience with the G42 which I *will* gain as soon as I have access to one for purchase. Not for everyone - not for me but there are folks in my Family and my Group that will use, train with, and carry this pistol where other guns might not work so well for them. I'll likely keep to my Beretta Px4 SC and G26 but the G42 is fills a niche that will become very, very, popular.
...and training and carrying a G42 will make them safer than 90% of the general unarmed poplulation which is good for all of us.
Win/Win IMO.
VooDoo
I pretty much think exactly like Mr. Ayoob on this subject minus the personal experience with the G42 which I *will* gain as soon as I have access to one for purchase. Not for everyone - not for me but there are folks in my Family and my Group that will use, train with, and carry this pistol where other guns might not work so well for them. I'll likely keep to my Beretta Px4 SC and G26 but the G42 is fills a niche that will become very, very, popular.
...and training and carrying a G42 will make them safer than 90% of the general unarmed poplulation which is good for all of us.
Win/Win IMO.
VooDoo
jimbo555
Member
I think Glock is going to come out with the 9mm version next. Kind of a reverse of rugers lc9 and lc380.
Glock's production of .380s for American consumption has nothing to do with "standard" market research practices. Austrians are extremely logical people. Glock/Austria probably correctly assumed that any population that would elect Obammy as Prez of the U.S. would probably be be gullible enough to buy .380s. 
Quiet
Member
Glock 42
MSRP = $399
LE pricing (blue label) = $319
MSRP = $399
LE pricing (blue label) = $319
Ayoob wrote," I was impressed with its ease of operation, extremely mild “kick,” and accurate delivery of rapid fire. There are a helluva lot of people – petite females, the elderly, the disabled – who will shoot faster and straighter with this gun than with something more powerful. There, I think, is its market niche…"
I think he nailed it.
I think he nailed it.
JohnBiltz
Member
I bought a LCP and put a few hundred rounds through it. I really really did not like it. After putting a hundred rounds through it my finger joints were hurting bad. Accuracy was bad but I could have gotten that down with practice. The long double action trigger was something I was just not used to. The big trouble was I did not want to practice with it. It was just too unpleasant to shoot.
Do I want to own a G42? No not really, I carry a G26 now and the G42 is basically just thinner. So not enough gain in size for the loss of caliber and capacity. Here is the thing though, if I was asked for a recommendation of a gun by the elderly or a small woman who is having trouble pulling the slide back on a 9mm its probably going to be my recommendation in a year or two.
Do I want to own a G42? No not really, I carry a G26 now and the G42 is basically just thinner. So not enough gain in size for the loss of caliber and capacity. Here is the thing though, if I was asked for a recommendation of a gun by the elderly or a small woman who is having trouble pulling the slide back on a 9mm its probably going to be my recommendation in a year or two.
JohnBiltz
Member
No it doesn't kick like a mule or a magnum. A magnum produces more recoil but there is more to hang on to and ride the recoil. There just is not enough gun there for the recoil. Not enough weight and more important not enough gun to grip.
Here is the problem with your argument; we have shot it too. You are arguing your experience is superior to ours. Its not, its just different. Your basically saying are you going to believe me or your lying eyes.
razorback2003
Member
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2008
- Messages
- 1,231
Is the slide as easy as the Remington R51 to pull back for someone with weak hands?
Mass wrote more than the selected paragraph, I posted the link last night. here is what he wrote in it's entirety.Posted: 20 Jan 2014 08:00 AM PST
Looking through the relatively thin pickings of meaningful new gun designs in this year’s crop, I noticed that one I mentioned here, the Glock 42, a seven-shot .380 pistol, got a ton of comment on the internet. Much of that commentary was on the theme of “if I’m going to carry a gun that size, I’d want it in full power 9mm Parabellum, not a wussy .380 a/k/a 9mm Short.”
Let me make it clear: I’m not a .380 fan. In 40-plus years of studying gunfights – not just reading books, but personally debriefing survivors and going over autopsy reports – I’ve come to consider the .380 marginal if not sub-marginal as a defensive weapon. I’ve just seen too many cases of the bad guy sucking up bullet after .380 bullet in vital zones and still coming. But, I’ve also seen cases like the recent controversial Tampa shooting, in which a senior citizen dropped the man he shot with a single .380 to the chest. (I’ve seen one-shot stops with well-placed .22 bullets, too, but I don’t recommend a .22 for self-defense, either.)
If you go on the gun forums, you’ll find that a recurrent theme is “how much is enough to use for self-defense, and how much is too much?” And you’ll discover that there’s some ego investment in those discussions.
The meme seems to be, “If you carry more (more powerful ammo, more cartridges, even more guns) than I do, you’re paranoid. And if you carry less than I do, you’re a pathetic sheeple.”
Oh, good Lord…
First, if you’re carrying a seven-shot .380, you are better prepared to defend yourself against a homicidal armed criminal than a high 90th percentile of the population, who are carrying nothing at all which could realistically stop such an attack.
But, second, if that attack actually comes, you might wish you had something a little more than than a .380. The saying is: “You’ll never meet a gunfight survivor who says he wishes he’d had fewer, less powerful rounds.”
Having shot the new Glock 42 with more .380 rounds than most folks outside the Glock factory, I was impressed with its ease of operation, extremely mild “kick,” and accurate delivery of rapid fire. There are a helluva lot of people – petite females, the elderly, the disabled – who will shoot faster and straighter with this gun than with something more powerful. There, I think, is its market niche…wait a year or two, and see, but I expect it to become a best-seller.
Will I carry one? Probably not. Whenever a gun magazine asks me to test a .380, I feel like Ralph Nader test-driving a Corvair for Motor Trend. But as someone who trains others to shoot, I am going to see about buying my test sample to keep it on hand so students who don’t think or function as I do, can try it.
As I write this, I’m wearing a different Glock pistol. It’s much more powerful than a .380, and holds far more cartridges than the slim little G42, and I have a spare “high capacity” magazine on the opposite hip. That works for me, but I have to accept that some other people need something different to fit their abilities, their lifestyles, their dress codes.
God save us from BS memes. A center hit with a .380 beats a miss or even a peripheral hit with a .44 Magnum.
Something is better than nothing.
Looking through the relatively thin pickings of meaningful new gun designs in this year’s crop, I noticed that one I mentioned here, the Glock 42, a seven-shot .380 pistol, got a ton of comment on the internet. Much of that commentary was on the theme of “if I’m going to carry a gun that size, I’d want it in full power 9mm Parabellum, not a wussy .380 a/k/a 9mm Short.”
Let me make it clear: I’m not a .380 fan. In 40-plus years of studying gunfights – not just reading books, but personally debriefing survivors and going over autopsy reports – I’ve come to consider the .380 marginal if not sub-marginal as a defensive weapon. I’ve just seen too many cases of the bad guy sucking up bullet after .380 bullet in vital zones and still coming. But, I’ve also seen cases like the recent controversial Tampa shooting, in which a senior citizen dropped the man he shot with a single .380 to the chest. (I’ve seen one-shot stops with well-placed .22 bullets, too, but I don’t recommend a .22 for self-defense, either.)
If you go on the gun forums, you’ll find that a recurrent theme is “how much is enough to use for self-defense, and how much is too much?” And you’ll discover that there’s some ego investment in those discussions.
The meme seems to be, “If you carry more (more powerful ammo, more cartridges, even more guns) than I do, you’re paranoid. And if you carry less than I do, you’re a pathetic sheeple.”
Oh, good Lord…
First, if you’re carrying a seven-shot .380, you are better prepared to defend yourself against a homicidal armed criminal than a high 90th percentile of the population, who are carrying nothing at all which could realistically stop such an attack.
But, second, if that attack actually comes, you might wish you had something a little more than than a .380. The saying is: “You’ll never meet a gunfight survivor who says he wishes he’d had fewer, less powerful rounds.”
Having shot the new Glock 42 with more .380 rounds than most folks outside the Glock factory, I was impressed with its ease of operation, extremely mild “kick,” and accurate delivery of rapid fire. There are a helluva lot of people – petite females, the elderly, the disabled – who will shoot faster and straighter with this gun than with something more powerful. There, I think, is its market niche…wait a year or two, and see, but I expect it to become a best-seller.
Will I carry one? Probably not. Whenever a gun magazine asks me to test a .380, I feel like Ralph Nader test-driving a Corvair for Motor Trend. But as someone who trains others to shoot, I am going to see about buying my test sample to keep it on hand so students who don’t think or function as I do, can try it.
As I write this, I’m wearing a different Glock pistol. It’s much more powerful than a .380, and holds far more cartridges than the slim little G42, and I have a spare “high capacity” magazine on the opposite hip. That works for me, but I have to accept that some other people need something different to fit their abilities, their lifestyles, their dress codes.
God save us from BS memes. A center hit with a .380 beats a miss or even a peripheral hit with a .44 Magnum.
Something is better than nothing.
It seems to me this gun offers nothing over the 26/27/33 for general CCW. The height and length, as well as shape, make the biggest difference for most modes of carry. With that observation, I'll keep my 33 with 10-round capacity, and the ability to use an extra 15-round G31 mag. That said, it'll be great for those wanting something slightly slimmer, or something chambered in the same cartridge as their husband or wife's pistol.
- Status
