Welcome to the pistol-forum.com.
Page 35 of 78 FirstFirst ... 25333435363745 ... LastLast
Results 341 to 350 of 779

Thread: A Glock 42?

  1. #341
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    northern Virginia
    Quote Originally Posted by GJM View Post
    Glock marketing has been busy:

    http://youtu.be/2EVj5NOywSY
    "Nice pistol"

    Yeah, I hear that often when I go to the range too.

  2. #342
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Walker,La.
    They will be available locally 01/20/2014.

  3. #343
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Northeast

    Help with Glock 42 brass to face issue

    Sorry, couldn't resist. Can't wait to spend this summer reading the one hundred plus pages we all know are coming!

  4. #344
    Quote Originally Posted by GJM View Post
    Glock marketing has been busy:

    http://youtu.be/2EVj5NOywSY
    All of a sudden I am very interested in taking Yoga.... wait, Glock, what?

    Quote Originally Posted by Doublestack45 View Post
    Sorry, couldn't resist. Can't wait to spend this summer reading the one hundred plus pages we all know are coming!
    You presume there will be enough people here on p-f.com interested in buying one to get to 100 pages....

    Honestly, I wouldn't even be THAT put off by the anemic nature of .380 terminal ballistics, if it didn't cost an arm and a leg for me to invest in a caliber I don't already stock normally. .

  5. #345
    Quote Originally Posted by GJM View Post
    That is an interesting question. Some possible answers are:

    1) Glock is completely out of touch, and made something in .380 in a complete vacuum without considering competing products.

    2) The size of the Glock 42 is the smallest package Glock could make such a pistol that would function reliably for thousands of rounds of use, and be comfortable to shoot.

    3) They plan on bringing out a 9mm in more or less the same size, and are trying to save development costs.
    Here is another possibility -- Mr. Glock wanted to personally carry a small, light pistol, and he wasn't going to carry a Ruger?
    Shoots for fun.

  6. #346
    Quote Originally Posted by GJM View Post
    Here is another possibility -- Mr. Glock wanted to personally carry a small, light pistol, and he wasn't going to carry a Ruger?
    He was probably upset he couldn't sell it as 9mm Kurz.

  7. #347
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by Nephrology View Post
    Except the shield has a stupid liability, er, sorry, useless thumb safety...
    Yeah, I'm generally not one of those people that refuse to have a manual safety on a pistol. Lots of talk on here in the Beretta threads about hating the FS models and loving the G's. I have an FS and the safety is a non-issue for me, it's a matter of weapon familiarity to me. The safety on my Shield is left in the off position, as in, I don't use it. I carry my Beretta with the safety off too. NOT a big deal.

  8. #348
    Quote Originally Posted by Nephrology View Post

    Honestly, I wouldn't even be THAT put off by the anemic nature of .380 terminal ballistics, if it didn't cost an arm and a leg for me to invest in a caliber I don't already stock normally. .
    Dude, it is like that Kubler-Ross thing:

    someone faced with the reality of impending death or other extreme, awful fate (such as carrying a .380) experiences a series of emotional stages:

    Denial
    Anger
    Bargaining
    Depression
    Acceptance.

    Face it, you will be carrying a 42 by summer. By then TLG will be teaching a special Aim with small/hit with small class exclusively for the 42, and the only question is who gets a coin first with the 42. My money is on Origami, using a prototype Keeper holster, probably while wearing a wig, so he has deniability it is he carrying a .380. Wonder if there is a GFA in the works for it?
    Shoots for fun.

  9. #349
    Quote Originally Posted by jkurtz7 View Post
    Yeah, I'm generally not one of those people that refuse to have a manual safety on a pistol. Lots of talk on here in the Beretta threads about hating the FS models and loving the G's. I have an FS and the safety is a non-issue for me, it's a matter of weapon familiarity to me. The safety on my Shield is left in the off position, as in, I don't use it. I carry my Beretta with the safety off too. NOT a big deal.
    My buddy's shield had the safety engage accidentally twice while carried IWB and he promptly sold it. This also killed any interest I had in the shield as I was planning on carrying it as you describe.

  10. #350
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by Nephrology View Post
    My buddy's shield had the safety engage accidentally twice while carried IWB and he promptly sold it. This also killed any interest I had in the shield as I was planning on carrying it as you describe.
    No issues with my safety. But, I would probably do the same if my safety was defective. I'd send it in for repair before I sold it though.

    Overall, you just need to use what works for you. All iterations of Glock do not work for me.

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Logout