Do I need a Glock 42?

[camsdaddy]

I have a 642 and a Glock 43 I often pocket carry. I realize need has little to do with many gun choices. I'm trying to decide if I need a 42. There are situations where the 642 shines and times where the 43 gets the nod. There are also times I wish I had something a little smaller. Normally this is due to pocket shape or size. Is the 42 smaller enough to make a difference or woukd I have to step down to an Lcp?

The 42 will have less recoil than the other choices. The 42 will be a little larger than the 43 and maybe the same the 642. I have seen reports of the 42 being quite shoot able and accurate. I carry wadcutters in the 642 and federal 145's in the 43.

[Gater]

I'm there with you. Have a 442 and a G43...teetering on the edge of a G42 purchase, despite my reservations about .380.

I've probably read this thread completely 10 times:

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?30871-Glock-42-best-Glock-pistol-there-is

GJM 's post #22 sums it up. It weighs the same or less than the 442, to boot. It prompted me to dig up a used G42 blue gun and try out some holsters...from that, I think it is way more suitable to pocket carry than the G43. The Blue Force Gear holster GJM mentioned works way better than the others I have tried.

[jetfire]

I have a 642 and a Glock 43 I often pocket carry. I realize need has little to do with many gun choices. I'm trying to decide if I need a 42. There are situations where the 642 shines and times where the 43 gets the nod. There are also times I wish I had something a little smaller. Normally this is due to pocket shape or size. Is the 42 smaller enough to make a difference or woukd I have to step down to an Lcp?

The 42 will have less recoil than the other choices. The 42 will be a little larger than the 43 and maybe the same the 642. I have seen reports of the 42 being quite shoot able and accurate. I carry wadcutters in the 642 and federal 145's in the 43.

I had a 42 and eventually ditched it because it didn't do anything I couldn't do better with a small revolver. The "problem" I had with the 42 is that in its performance envelope, it was basically the same as a gun at the useful end of my revolver curve, but lacked the unique niche performance capabilities of a wheelgun.

[Doc_Glock]

The "problem" I had with the 42 is that in its performance envelope, it was basically the same as a gun at the useful end of my revolver curve, but lacked the unique niche performance capabilities of a wheelgun.

Care to elaborate on this niche performance capabilities.

[Doc_Glock]

I like the G42, but I am on again, off again with it. Currently on again.

Pros:
Lightweight, 16.3oz loaded with 7. Lighter than a 642 with 5. Much lighter than a G43 at 21.8oz loaded.

Extremely reliable. I have had two come through 2k tests with zero stoppages not attributable to ammo defects.

Small enough to hide.

Absolutely delightful and non punishing to shoot. Almost .22 level fun.

Cons: 4oz heavier and significantly bigger than the LCP which shoots as well, but is not nearly as fun or reliable. I think the G42 is kind of big for the pocket. But it is probably the smallest thing that is stone cold reliable. Certainly the smallest semi auto pistol.

.380 ballistics are marginal.

I personally am at a quandary. I want a reliable, lightweight pocket gun and am caliber agnostic about it. I have tried many over the years and am currently trialing a G42 versus a LCR in .38. They both feel quite large, heavy and obvious versus an LCP in the pocket which absolutely disappears. The LCP just doesn’t meet my reliability standard though.

Both the G42 and .38 LCR hover at 16.2-3 oz loaded so they are similar in weight. The G42 shoots much better, and seems much less bulky in pocket. The LCR draws amazing and has a heavier and perhaps safer trigger, but is shootability hampered next to the G42.

Other guns I have tried:

Unreliable: P3AT, Beretta Bobcat, Boberg R9.

Too heavy: G43, Rohrbaugh R9

Pretty decent, on the heavy side and sometimes unreliable (mine wasn’t). Sold because it felt unbalanced compared to the G42: Kahr PM9.

The G42 might be the best of all the bad choices.

If you just want a gun with you that will almost certainly bang once, with the least bother: Ruger LCP.

[camsdaddy]

I'm there with you. Have a 442 and a G43...teetering on the edge of a G42 purchase, despite my reservations about .380.

I've probably read this thread completely 10 times:

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?30871-Glock-42-best-Glock-pistol-there-is

The 42 will add another round to load for. I have also read that thread and a few more. A lot of good info. Most of the talk on the 42 are pre 43 threads.


I had a 42 and eventually ditched it because it didn't do anything I couldn't do better with a small revolver. The "problem" I had with the 42 is that in its performance envelope, it was basically the same as a gun at the useful end of my revolver curve, but lacked the unique niche performance capabilities of a wheelgun.
I load my 642 with wadcutters. I think that levels out the performance side between the 42 and 642. The 42 can shoot the hottest round comfortably, easier to reload and an additional round.


I like the G42, but I am on again, off again with it. Currently on again.

Pros:
Lightweight, 16.3oz loaded with 7. Lighter than a 642 with 5. Much lighter than a G43 at 21.8oz loaded.

Extremely reliable. I have had two come through 2k tests with zero stoppages not attributable to ammo defects.

Small enough to hide.

Absolutely delightful and non punishing to shoot. Almost .22 level fun.

Cons: 4oz heavier and significantly bigger than the LCP which shoots as well, but is not nearly as fun or reliable. I think the G42 is kind of big for the pocket. But it is probably the smallest thing that is stone cold reliable. Certainly the smallest semi auto pistol.

.380 ballistics are marginal.

I personally am at a quandary. I want a reliable, lightweight pocket gun and am caliber agnostic about it. I have tried many over the years and am currently trialing a G42 versus a LCR in .38. They both feel quite large, heavy and obvious versus an LCP in the pocket which absolutely disappears. The LCP just doesn’t meet my reliability standard though.

Both the G42 and .38 LCR hover at 16.2-3 oz loaded so they are similar in weight. The G42 shoots much better, and seems much less bulky in pocket. The LCR draws amazing and has a heavier and perhaps safer trigger, but is shootability hampered next to the G42.

Other guns I have tried:

Unreliable: P3AT, Beretta Bobcat, Boberg R9.

Too heavy: G43, Rohrbaugh R9

Pretty decent, on the heavy side and sometimes unreliable (mine wasn’t). Sold because it felt unbalanced compared to the G42: Kahr PM9.

The G42 might be the best of all the bad choices.

If you just want a gun with you that will almost certainly bang once, with the least bother: Ruger LCP.
The LCP I had was reliable. I didn't find it fun to shoot. I think the 42 is a good compromise.

[jetfire]

Care to elaborate on this niche performance capabilities.

Small revolvers are (in my opinion) better for deep concealment and entangled gunfighting than small semi-autos. Since the capacities are largely the same, if I'm not going to carry a full size gun, I can do more with a wheelgun than I can with an auto of similar size.

[Cookie Monster]

Yes you do.

[Totem Polar]

Others, especially E/doc_glock have covered the pros/cons on paper. I’ll just note that I’ve owned 2 G43s and 3 642s, and they’ve all moved on. I still have the 42 (and an LCR, for C/jetfire’s reasons).

The 42—at least the current production—is one sweet, reliable, easy shooter. I really like that user-friendly little gun.

Everyone has an opinion, and mine is that Glocks are cheap enough to split around the 43, with a 42 and, say, a 48 or 26–making the 43 pretty useless to me. Like I say, JMO.

[Holmes375]

I acquired a G42 a couple years or so ago in a multiple used gun purchase. Figured I'd keep it around for an intro gun.

Once I started shooting it I quickly fell in love with the damned thing. Super smooth and more accurate than I ever expected. Play around with one at 75 yards - it'll surprise ya.

I geared up for the G42 and started carrying it. More pleasure. And with some of the rather spirited Underwood loads I have a fair amount of confidence in the little Glock

Now I'm caught up in an extended medical issue thing and lightweight, slim and low recoil are quite important to me. The 42 has worked well enough for my new reality that I decided to buy a second one. Winter's comin'. One on me and one in the coat pocket.

The Glock 42 is a pistol I never wanted yet it has become a favorite. Ya just never know what life is going to throw at you. Sooo.... yes, I say you should indeed buy a G42 ;)

42833

[EJO]

I had a 42 and eventually ditched it because it didn't do anything I couldn't do better with a small revolver. The "problem" I had with the 42 is that in its performance envelope, it was basically the same as a gun at the useful end of my revolver curve, but lacked the unique niche performance capabilities of a wheelgun.

I've owned two and sold two. Great little pistol, a pleasure to shoot but I just cannot get past how anemic the 380 round is.

[Btp2332]

Now you guys have me thinking about one also. 27 is the smallest I have right now other then a lcp ll I carry if I’m riding my bicycle around a park or grilling on the patio. Other than that it’s an issued 23 everyday all day.

[jetfire]

I've owned two and sold two. Great little pistol, a pleasure to shoot but I just cannot get past how anemic the 380 round is.

That's really not the issue, I carry full wadcutters in my .38s. A .380 FMJ will penetrate pert near clean through a dude. Expansion out of little baby guns is never going to happen, so penetration is job #1. 38s and .380s will adequately penetrate. One of the problems with an FMJ is that it's more likely to glance off bone structures.

[Duelist]

Since I mostly load my 642 with the lightest recoiling rounds I can, I also consider the 642 and G42 to be essentially on par ballistically. I carry whichever suits the attire of the day better except when I’m going to work - then, I either don’t take anything or take the 642 b/c I’m supposed to unload before I get there and lock up in the car. .380 JHPs don’t really like being repeatedly cycled through the action, while .38s don’t care how many times they are removed and replaced in the cylinder.

The G42 is lighter, thinner, holds a couple more rounds, has better sights, and we have two because my wife will actually shoot hers, unlike just about anything else that isn’t a .22. It never draws blood from the hand that shoots it. The 642 might.

I have no use for the G43. I have a G26, G42, and 642. G43 seems kind of superfluous.

All that said, I just bought a S&W 60LS because ... reasons. Including being able to actually shoot it without feeling masochistic or loading mouse-fart handloads for it. I may only shoot the 642 once or twice a year after this. Or maybe never.

[TheNewbie]

My grip causes malfunctions in the G42. Yet, my LCP works, as did a previous one.


The LCP is the only .380 I can think of that has been reliable for me. P232, G42, M&P EZ Shield have all had issue.


The LCP is not fun to shoot, but it disappears better than either a G42 or j frame, and has been reliable in my experience. Plus the LONG trigger pull gives you some safety for its intended role.


I am not opposed to a .380 in a bigger gun, but I need it to be reliable.

[El Cid]

That's really not the issue, I carry full wadcutters in my .38s. A .380 FMJ will penetrate pert near clean through a dude. Expansion out of little baby guns is never going to happen, so penetration is job #1. 38s and .380s will adequately penetrate. One of the problems with an FMJ is that it's more likely to glance off bone structures.

I haven’t had issues with my G43 in a pocket. But if I had to carry a .380 I suspect I’d stuff it full of the solid copper bullets from Lehigh/Underwood. (Extreme Penetrator)

[Doc_Glock]

My grip causes malfunctions in the G42. Yet, my LCP works, as did a previous one.


The LCP is the only .380 I can think of that has been reliable for me. P232, G42, M&P EZ Shield have all had issue.


The LCP is not fun to shoot, but it disappears better than either a G42 or j frame, and has been reliable in my experience. Plus the LONG trigger pull gives you some safety for its intended role.


I am not opposed to a .380 in a bigger gun, but I need it to be reliable.

I have never had an LCP (out of two) go 500 rounds without malfunction. The most recent did 303 which is a decent run without cleaning, but I guess I just want it better before I trust them.

If I knew it would go 200 rounds without cleaning and oiling, and do that every time for 1000 rounds total I would call that good to go.

[Doc_Glock]

For context: I don’t carry any of these pocket pistols as a primary except lounging around the house, workout clothes, etc. A Rule 1 gun so to speak.

Mostly they are to give me the option for a ‘hand on the gun,’ gun, in addition to the usual AIWB. Timmy fantasy football in my case, but I like to experiment.

I don’t think pocket carry alone is ideal.

[Blades]

I was looking at the HandgunHero website (https://www.handgunhero.com/compare/glock-g42-vs-ruger-lcp-ii) today comparing the G42 and LCP II. Since Glock is having Blue Label pricing for veterans till Veterans Day I'm leaning towards the G42 for pocket carry but the LCP II is a wee bit smaller/lighter. I don't know. :confused:

[Shawn Dodson]

I wear Carhartt B357 shorts most of the year. I prefer to pocket carry a G43 whenever I can, however the front pockets on some of my shorts aren't as deep as the others and with these particular shorts I carry a G42. I use a Boraii Eagle pocket holster for both.

[Rex G]

The G42 is the smallest auto-pistol that I have found, which I can use with a proper two-handed, thumbs-forward grip. So, its accuracy potential is far better than anything smaller. Actually, the G42 fits me notably better than some pistols which are quite a bit larger than the G42. This fit equation is, of course, with my individual, unique hands, so may not apply to others.

.380 ACP cannot smash through intervening cover as well as service cartridges, but can break bones, and has adequate penetration, so fits within my level of acceptability for unarmored opponents.

Age, wear, and tear have not been kind to my right thumb, hand, wrist, arm, and shoulder. J-Snubs now torture the base joint of my right thumb, at least with any .38 Special load. Compact nines, to include the G19, are now lefty-only weapons for me. The G42 has become my “old man’s” compact handgun. Just about any handgun, with a grip frame that does not fully bridge from the web of my hand, to the deepest point of the heel of my hand, is now problematic for me. The auto-pistols I will still shoot right-handed are either full-duty/service-sized, or, G42. The G42 is a uniquely helpful wee beastie, at least for now, for my aging hand(s), subject to change. (I can get all of my skinny fingers firmly on a G19 grip, but G19’s backstrap does not quite reach the bone at the deepest point of the heel of my hand, so, a G19, unless it has a WML or a comp to damp recoil, has joined the list of handguns I will no longer shoot right-handed*.)

In short, the G42 is, at least for this moment in time, a uniquely gentle weapon, for me to shoot.

The pocket-carry factor favors the J-Snub, especially in the event of a FUT, but some of my pockets pockets are more-or-less OK, if not ideal, with the G42. The G42 cannot totally replace the J-Snub as a pocket weapon, for me, but has largely replaced the J-Snub in this role, especially when a stout blade is added to the equation.

I need a G42, enough that I bought a second one. My wife is probably going to start carrying one of mine, soon, so, I will probably buy another G42, or more, soon.

I see the G42, as a personal need, for me.

*Though left-handed, I am right-armed. I chose to carry primary at 0300, in 1983, while learning DA revolvering at a police academy. So, having to mostly shoot lefty is not a scary prospect; I have been functionally ambidextrous with most of my handguns, for quite a while. The challenge, if/when I elect to transition to left-side primary, will be remembering the change of position(s) of the weapon(s).

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I've commented on both a G42 vs a 642 in several threads on P-F. I like both. I can shoot both decently. I will shoot them in IDPA for grins and practice.
I had bought one of the first G42s out there. Mistake, it was a horror and had to go back. Since then it runs well. The G42 is much easier on the hands than a 642. I might switch to wadcutters in the next ammo buy.

The Js somethings fit my pocket better. Carry the extra ammo - speed strip for the 642 (slow). Extra mags for G42: Since I pocket carry the G42 mostly (only use a holster at matches), where to put the extra. Well - suprisingly in Dockers (OH, no - Levis, boycott them, Boycott Walmart, Chik-Fil-A, fossil fuels, oh my), some have a neat pocket inside the right pocket that fits a G42 mag. For cargo pants, I found, DeSantis makes a two mag pocket mag pouch.

Finding a left handed OWB for a G42 was a pain. Haven't looked recently.

If you have J frame, you really don't need a G42 but I like mine.

[ranger]

I bought a G42 when they first came out. Great pistol - accurate, easy to shoot, reliable. I bought a G43 when they came out and sold the G42. I decided I wanted the 9mm over the 380.

[Blades]

The pocket-carry factor favors the J-Snub, especially in the event of a FUT, but some of my pockets pockets are more-or-less OK, if not ideal, with the G42. The G42 cannot totally replace the J-Snub as a pocket weapon, for me, but has largely replaced the J-Snub in this role, especially when a stout blade is added to the equation.



First, what is a FUT? I feel like I should know but I've don't. :(


Second: I don't own a J frame or a small pocket carry semi-auto so I've been reading/researching and watching youtube videos about J frames, LCR's, and small semi-autos. I like the flatness os a semi-auto for pocket carry, but I also like the simplicity of a revolver for pocket carry. I'll probably end up with both someday, but I don't know what I should purchase first. I almost had a J frame but the buyer changed his mind and kept it. Now after reading about the G42 and I like Glocks, I think I need the G42 first. Maybe. :confused:
Those with G42's are there any pants it doesn't work with? I wear jeans(cheap jeans) 99.9% of the time(#blessed) so I assume I can carry a G42 all the time.

[Rex G]

First, what is a FUT? I feel like I should know but I've don't. :(


Second: I don't own a J frame or a small pocket carry semi-auto so I've been reading/researching and watching youtube videos about J frames, LCR's, and small semi-autos. I like the flatness os a semi-auto for pocket carry, but I also like the simplicity of a revolver for pocket carry. I'll probably end up with both someday, but I don't know what I should purchase first. I almost had a J frame but the buyer changed his mind and kept it. Now after reading about the G42 and I like Glocks, I think I need the G42 first. Maybe. :confused:
Those with G42's are there any pants it doesn't work with? I wear jeans(cheap jeans) 99.9% of the time(#blessed) so I assume I can carry a G42 all the time.

FUT = eFfed-Up Tangle, or something like that. Shivworks/SouthNarc language.

Different weapons shapes work better in different pockets. All else being equal, it is easier to get a good grasp on a rounded-grip object than a flat, three-dimensional rectangle.

A protruding, blocky rear portion of a striker-fired auto-pistol slide can interfere with a smooth, swift exit from a pocket. pocket. The smaller the pocket opening, the worse it gets. The tighter the pocket, the worse it gets.

I have non-cheap jeans, Wranger “pro rodeo,” or something like that, and one pair of terrible 5.11 “tactical” jeans, none of which can accommodate a G42 or a J-Snub. I have given up on jeans, for carrying anything in the pockets.

Watch and listen to the P&S video, on the subject of snubbies.

Watch and listen to the P&S video, on the subject of snubbies.

Watch and listen to the P&S video, on the subject of snubbies.

[Joe Mac]

I have non-cheap jeans, Wranger “pro rodeo,” or something like that, and one pair of terrible 5.11 “tactical” jeans, none of which can accommodate a G42 or a J-Snub. I have given up on jeans, for carrying anything in the pockets.


Will you get kicked out of Texas if you wear your jeans looser? :)

Levis #550, waist size 2" larger than my actual waist, allows me to front-pocket carry up to a G26 -- which is a bit uncomfortable for extended carry, but a G43 is no problem.

[JHC]

Will you get kicked out of Texas if you wear your jeans looser? :)

Levis #550, waist size 2" larger than my actual waist, allows me to front-pocket carry up to a G26 -- which is a bit uncomfortable for extended carry, but a G43 is no problem.


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sN9IRfniuWI

I’d run into that too. I get your point.

[Totem Polar]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sN9IRfniuWI

I’d run into that too. I get your point.

Does Steven Seagal know you posted that vid?

[mmc45414]

Does Steven Seagal know you posted that vid?I think they have been on the outs for quite some time now...

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

[JHC]

Does Steven Seagal know you posted that vid?

Hope not!

[Totem Polar]

Hope not!

I’ve seen that dude in person. Pretty sure you can outrun him, while surfing P-F on your phone.

[Blades]

FUT = eFfed-Up Tangle, or something like that. Shivworks/SouthNarc language.

Different weapons shapes work better in different pockets. All else being equal, it is easier to get a good grasp on a rounded-grip object than a flat, three-dimensional rectangle.

A protruding, blocky rear portion of a striker-fired auto-pistol slide can interfere with a smooth, swift exit from a pocket. pocket. The smaller the pocket opening, the worse it gets. The tighter the pocket, the worse it gets.

I have non-cheap jeans, Wranger “pro rodeo,” or something like that, and one pair of terrible 5.11 “tactical” jeans, none of which can accommodate a G42 or a J-Snub. I have given up on jeans, for carrying anything in the pockets.

Watch and listen to the P&S video, on the subject of snubbies.

Watch and listen to the P&S video, on the subject of snubbies.

Watch and listen to the P&S video, on the subject of snubbies.


Good to know about the jeans. I have watched and listened to the P&S video/podcast and that is what put me on the path of trying to acquire an MP340. Then more reading had me worried the cylinder would be too bulky in my pocket so I was looking at small semi-autos. :confused:

[fixer]

The Glock 42 is a pistol I never wanted yet it has become a favorite. Ya just never know what life is going to throw at you. Sooo.... yes, I say you should indeed buy a G42 ;)


This is me too.

[JAD]

I have avoided buying one because I’m concerned I’d carry it.

[JHC]

I have avoided buying one because I’m concerned I’d carry it.

Nice! :D

I gave mine to one of my DIL's a few years ago but am reminded now that I should replace it. They're just that cool IMO. Wish they'd bring out .22 versions of it and the 43.

[JodyH]

I went back and forth on pocket carrying a G42 for a few months.
I'm currently back to a Kahr PM9.
It's hard to justify the G42 .380 when I get the exact same number of 9mm rounds in a fractionally smaller dimensioned package (although slightly heavier) with the Kahr.
I also prefer the PM9's revolver like trigger for pocket carry.
The usual caveat with Kahrs must apply though... mine has proven itself absolutely reliable (after a bit of tinkering when I first got it).
My G42 OTOH has been 100% with Underwood +P Penetrators but very inconsistent with FMJ practice ammo (so kinda confidence inspiring and kinda not).

The only reason I keep a J-frame (M&P 340) around is because it has a Clip-Draw installed on it and makes late evening runs to the alley trash can (or the car in a motel parking lot) in basketball shorts and flip-flops a grab-n-go affair.

[camsdaddy]

I think one reason I have held onto the 642 with wadcutters is the fact the wadcutter has been used to put down wounded animals for years. I dont know why I would think the j frame would do a better job on a wounded animal than a warm 380. I probably (I hope) stand a better chance of a finishing shot on a deer than I do a human. I guess that would come down to penetration.

[camsdaddy]

I have avoided buying one because I’m concerned I’d carry it.

I totally get this. I pocket carry at work. I had hernia surgery a few weeks ago and have not gone back to carrying aiwb so pocket carry has become my primary.

[Joe Mac]

Hope not!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA4UZMHTjRA

[GJM]

My wife used to frequently carry a 42 when the 43 was too large for her attire, but since she got a 365, it has replaced 42/43/43X.

[10mmfanboy]

I went backwards, I waited for the 43 to come out instead of buying the 42. However I bought a 42 a little over a year ago, because the g43 and I never really fell in love. My opinion is the 42 is the better gun without question. So far it has been 100% reliable, even with my girl friend shooting it. I make my own ammo though and load it hot. Underwood xtreme penetrators have been 100% and that is what I carry in it. To me it is a perfect pocket gun and I can draw it just as easy as my lcr's it conceals better too. My lcp custom never gets carried anymore since I got the g42.

Pretty hard to go wrong in buying one. I'd sell my g43 in a heartbeat.

[zaitcev]

My experience with Glock 42 reliability was that it likes heavier bullets (tested on 2 guns). Within that subset, it is agnostic to the shape of the bullet: blunt nose FMJ, round nose FMJ, pointy nose Hornady FTX - they all feed perfectly. Once I figured that out, I started buying 95 grain ammunition and my 42s became completely reliable, doing 500-round strings with ease. This is bad news if you like modern all-copper or composite bullets like ARX.

I took the G42 to a class by Mr. Jeff Gonzales out of Austin, TX. He normally prohibits .380 guns in his classes, but with some negotiation I obtained a dispensation. It was a 2-day class for about 500 rounds. The G42 performed well there. Because some drills required more load-out, I used ETS 12-round magazines. I asked after the class what his problem with .380 was, and Jeff said that previously, whenever students brought .380 guns to classes, they were clearing malfunctions too much and it was disrupting the flow of the class for other students.

[Rex G]

My experience with Glock 42 reliability was that it likes heavier bullets (tested on 2 guns). Within that subset, it is agnostic to the shape of the bullet: blunt nose FMJ, round nose FMJ, pointy nose Hornady FTX - they all feed perfectly. Once I figured that out, I started buying 95 grain ammunition and my 42s became completely reliable, doing 500-round strings with ease. This is bad news if you like modern all-copper or composite bullets like ARX.

I took the G42 to a class by Mr. Jeff Gonzales out of Austin, TX. He normally prohibits .380 guns in his classes, but with some negotiation I obtained a dispensation. It was a 2-day class for about 500 rounds. The G42 performed well there. Because some drills required more load-out, I used ETS 12-round magazines. I asked after the class what his problem with .380 was, and Jeff said that previously, whenever students brought .380 guns to classes, they were clearing malfunctions too much and it was disrupting the flow of the class for other students.

Good to know this. Thanks for posting.

[fatdog]

it likes heavier bullets .... This is bad news if you like modern all-copper or composite bullets like ARX.

I share this observation, the only malfunctions I ever had in mine were with one or two rounds of the Black Hills loading of the 60gr solid copper Lehigh bullets, but the 90gr Lehigh solid copper penetrators loaded by Underwood have been perfect.

[Gater]

Bumping this one up as I *think* it was the latest permutation of an oft asked question.

Sooo...

...I did it: ordered one today. It's new, from a distributor, so at this point in 2020 I'm not expecting any issues with it not having the factory "upgrades" (err, fixes), but short of a detail strip, what are the easiest things to look for? Still "03" mags? Anything else?

[echo5charlie]

Bumping this one up as I *think* it was the latest permutation of an oft asked question.

Sooo...

...I did it: ordered one today. It's new, from a distributor, so at this point in 2020 I'm not expecting any issues with it not having the factory "upgrades" (err, fixes), but short of a detail strip, what are the easiest things to look for? Still "03" mags? Anything else?

You'll be fine. My AAPR-prefix G42 has turned out to be a lemon - well over 1000 rounds with zero failures* which, according to the internet, is impossible.


* - I did have a single box of older Fiocchi ammo that choked the G42, but it was VERY light recoiling. My LCP choked equally as hard so I do not count it against the G42 (or LCP)

[jandbj]

You'll be fine. My AAPR-prefix G42 has turned out to be a lemon - well over 1000 rounds with zero failures* which, according to the internet, is impossible.


* - I did have a single box of older Fiocchi ammo that choked the G42, but it was VERY light recoiling. My LCP choked equally as hard so I do not count it against the G42 (or LCP)

Am I the only one that finds it amusing that at some point there will be 1000 G42’s with the serial number prefix of “AARP?” Confirming it’s status as an old man gun, while simultaneously kicking sand in AARP’s anti-gun stance.

[Gater]

Am I the only one that finds it amusing that at some point there will be 1000 G42’s with the serial number prefix of “AARP?” Confirming it’s status as an old man gun, while simultaneously kicking sand in AARP’s anti-gun stance.

I thought the same thing. :)

Ironically, an AARP card has arrived since then but the 42 has not. :(

Fortunately, l still have some young man guns around.

[zaitcev]

Since I posted the above, I had a malfunction on G42: an FTF, round partially chambered. I slammed the back to the slide to make it work. I didn't tap-rack it because I saw the slide way out of battery. The ammunition was Aguila and magazine ETS 12-rounder.

By my approximation it was around 800 or 900 round count when the string terminated. So far I cannot seem to see G42 through a 1000-round string without a malfunction. It does 500-round strings easily.

One other thing. In the recent months I put about 2500 rounds through my P320, and one of my instructors made me grip it using my thumbs early on. Before, I strived to imitate Jerry Miculek, who lets his thumbs stick out. This new for me gripping with thumbs works fine on a large gun. However, when I got back to G42, I started inducing premature lock-backs with my right thumb. My support (left) hand jammed it against the slide stop. When it happened for the first time, I immediately loaded a new magazine. Never was an issue before! In one of the drills I ended harvesting rounds from partially empty magazines in my dump poach, it was that bad.

[TheNewbie]

Since I posted the above, I had a malfunction on G42: an FTF, round partially chambered. I slammed the back to the slide to make it work. I didn't tap-rack it because I saw the slide way out of battery. The ammunition was Aguila and magazine ETS 12-rounder.

By my approximation it was around 800 or 900 round count when the string terminated. So far I cannot seem to see G42 through a 1000-round string without a malfunction. It does 500-round strings easily.

One other thing. In the recent months I put about 2500 rounds through my P320, and one of my instructors made me grip it using my thumbs early on. Before, I strived to imitate Jerry Miculek, who lets his thumbs stick out. This new for me gripping with thumbs works fine on a large gun. However, when I got back to G42, I started inducing premature lock-backs with my right thumb. My support (left) hand jammed it against the slide stop. When it happened for the first time, I immediately loaded a new magazine. Never was an issue before! In one of the drills I ended harvesting rounds from partially empty magazines in my dump poach, it was that bad.


My thumb was causing my G42 to malfunction. I assume it was that because it happened to two different ones.

[Navin Johnson]

Since I posted the above, I had a malfunction on G42: an FTF, round partially chambered. I slammed the back to the slide to make it work. I didn't tap-rack it because I saw the slide way out of battery. The ammunition was Aguila and magazine ETS 12-rounder.

By my approximation it was around 800 or 900 round count when the string terminated. So far I cannot seem to see G42 through a 1000-round string without a malfunction. It does 500-round strings easily.

One other thing. In the recent months I put about 2500 rounds through my P320, and one of my instructors made me grip it using my thumbs early on. Before, I strived to imitate Jerry Miculek, who lets his thumbs stick out. This new for me gripping with thumbs works fine on a large gun. However, when I got back to G42, I started inducing premature lock-backs with my right thumb. My support (left) hand jammed it against the slide stop. When it happened for the first time, I immediately loaded a new magazine. Never was an issue before! In one of the drills I ended harvesting rounds from partially empty magazines in my dump poach, it was that bad.

Can you get through 1K rounds with factory mags?

[BigT]

Since I posted the above, I had a malfunction on G42: an FTF, round partially chambered. I slammed the back to the slide to make it work. I didn't tap-rack it because I saw the slide way out of battery. The ammunition was Aguila and magazine ETS 12-rounder.

By my approximation it was around 800 or 900 round count when the string terminated. So far I cannot seem to see G42 through a 1000-round string without a malfunction. It does 500-round strings easily.

One other thing. In the recent months I put about 2500 rounds through my P320, and one of my instructors made me grip it using my thumbs early on. Before, I strived to imitate Jerry Miculek, who lets his thumbs stick out. This new for me gripping with thumbs works fine on a large gun. However, when I got back to G42, I started inducing premature lock-backs with my right thumb. My support (left) hand jammed it against the slide stop. When it happened for the first time, I immediately loaded a new magazine. Never was an issue before! In one of the drills I ended harvesting rounds from partially empty magazines in my dump poach, it was that bad.


Yeah try it with factory mags. In my experience ETS are rubbish.

[Sero Sed Serio]

Now that I've gotten my G42 set up and vetted (SCD, Ameriglo Agent sights, and Overwatch Precision DAT), I'm embracing the G42 lifestyle for short, quick trips. As temperatures rise in AZ I spend a lot of time in shorts, flip-flops, and t-shirts, and the G42 in a JMCK AIWB steel clip holster disappears even in this getup (or gym shorts or even pajama pants) while still remaining an incredibly shootable gun. I am seriously considering a second dedicated trainer given the amount that I see myself carrying this little pistol.

[No.6]

Yes, you do.

Much is made of the .380’s alleged weakness. Nobody should think it’s the new barrier-penetrating FBI round but for the purpose of defense, very sufficient.

I’ve scavenged the net for data and compiled well over 300 gel tests and applied data science magik to them. Unmonetized blog with graphs and data at https://wereratgames.azurewebsites.net/.

(tl;dr: there’s a big difference in G42 and such vs tiny barreled guns, but you don’t have to resort to JHP. Ironically I set out with a hope of proving STB410’s snarky YouTube face wrong and wound up substantiating him ... for the micro LCP and similar true pocket pistols. G42 owners and me with my PPK have more choices.)

[HopetonBrown]

Yes, you do.

Much is made of the .380’s alleged weakness. Nobody should think it’s the new barrier-penetrating FBI round but for the purpose of defense, very sufficient.


DocGKR seemed to think the opposite, has there been advances or has he changed his mind?

https://www.lightfighter.net/topic/bug-s-380-acp-vs-38-sp

[ldunnmobile]

Recently I had a serious upper body injury. The only Pistol I could run well during my recovery was a G42. It made me a believer.

[peterb]

DocGKR seemed to think the opposite, has there been advances or has he changed his mind?

https://www.lightfighter.net/topic/bug-s-380-acp-vs-38-sp

It’d be foolish to argue with his level of expertise.

But as has often been discussed here, a big part of effectiveness is getting good hits. Some folks shoot a .380 pistol like a G42 better than they do a small .38 revolver.

I have a couple of J-frames, and like them, but when I switch from a J-frame to the G42 in a practice session the difference in the clarity of the sight picture(Ameriglo) is dramatic. It’s easy to see why someone might be more accurate with a G42.

[No.6]

DocGKR seemed to think the opposite, has there been advances or has he changed his mind?

https://www.lightfighter.net/topic/bug-s-380-acp-vs-38-sp

I honestly can’t tell why he has his opinion; there’s no specific data cited to argue about. My bit used 300+ samples, none of which are “mine” (I didn’t shoot them, but aggregated results from Lucky Gunner, Ammo to Go, Ammo Quest (Shooting the Bull 410) and others).

The idea is that by collecting so many vs. a 5 shot string, variations from one box or setup or pistol are accounted for and I could visualize trends in results.

All the graphs are there and the data’s sourced back to each original site or video, so make your own mind up and/or feel free to ask follow up questions on the blog or data.

[Navin Johnson]

I honestly can’t tell why he has his opinion; there’s no specific data cited to argue about. My bit used 300+ samples, none of which are “mine” (I didn’t shoot them, but aggregated results from Lucky Gunner, Ammo to Go, Ammo Quest (Shooting the Bull 410) and others).

The idea is that by collecting so many vs. a 5 shot string, variations from one box or setup or pistol are accounted for and I could visualize trends in results.

All the graphs are there and the data’s sourced back to each original site or video, so make your own mind up and/or feel free to ask follow up questions on the blog or data.


If you honestly can't tell why he has his opinion.....start by reading every sticky in the ammunition section..... Then you could use Google......

After you know his body of work and his background you could compare and contrast it with yours..... Then you might understand the push back from long term members here.

[No.6]

Ok, I’ve fired up his name and found a vast body of podcasts and other info. Since I’d like to answer the post without first undertaking a three month study in anyone’s video series, I’ll go straight to a salient point.


The use of .380 ACP and smaller caliber weapons is really not recommended for LE use and many savvy agencies prohibit them.

That is the punch line from the above cited article, and I agree with it 100%. —>For LE use<— .380 is a poor choice. I wrote the same in part 1 of the series. We’re not writing to the same end, so I have nothing to dispute with him, or you, about.

The bit I wrote is about whether the body of .380 results suffice for civilian self defense, set against a benchmark of the FBI spec for the denim/gel test (NOT the hard barrier tests!!). One could look at the results and say, hey, I don’t see many results with both ideal penetration and expansion; forget about this .380. That’s a viable conclusion! Some put a preponderance on penetration as long as there’s any expansion, and might be encouraged by these findings.

Personally my take as applied daily is that I won’t be buying that Pico I really like, but find the G42 and others with 3”+ barrels OK; and I’m still choosing my 19.2 by preference when possible :). Enjoy the data as additive to others, not argumentative, please.

[Beat Trash]

I guess I'm missing something here. What is the difference between a violent armed individual trying to use lethal force against a LEO vs. the same violent armed individual trying to use lethal force against a civilian? I don't see that it matters if it's a LEO or a non-LEO defending themselves, the suspect's anatomy doesn't change. The mechanics involved in wound ballistics doesn't change.

I understand the argument for those who can not conceal anything larger, or due to injury can not effectively shoot anything larger. But human anatomy is human anatomy, no matter who the defender is.

[Velo Dog]

The mechanics involved in wound ballistics doesn't change.

One of the problems with discussing .380 Auto terminal ballistics is the constant "lowering of the bar".

The FBI wants EVERY bullet to penetrate a MINIMUM of 12 inches, but PREFERS AT LEAST 14 inches of penetration in validated 10% organic ballistic gelatin.

http://www.brassfetcher.com/FBI%20Ammunition%20Protocol/FBI%20Ammunition%20Protocol.html

That is NOT the same as an average or mean of 12 inches in clear gel.


The Glock 42 is a very easy pocket pistol to shoot well, but the reliability is not equal to the larger Glocks in my limited experience.

[No.6]

I guess I'm missing something here. What is the difference between a violent armed individual trying to use lethal force against a LEO vs. the same violent armed individual trying to use lethal force against a civilian? I don't see that it matters if it's a LEO or a non-LEO defending themselves, the suspect's anatomy doesn't change. The mechanics involved in wound ballistics doesn't change.

I understand the argument for those who can not conceal anything larger, or due to injury can not effectively shoot anything larger. But human anatomy is human anatomy, no matter who the defender is.

Some of the FBI tests involve penetrating drywall, wood, or car glass. An officer might be required to apprehend or stop a suspect hiding behind such a barrier, or fleeing in a vehicle. A citizen only needs to defend himself and has no duty to engage. To put it in another way, the victory conditions are different. Similarly, a soldier's objectives are different from both the officer and the citizen. If there was only one situation, we'd all have the same hardware...

[Navin Johnson]

Some of the FBI tests involve penetrating drywall, wood, or car glass. An officer might be required to apprehend or stop a suspect hiding behind such a barrier, or fleeing in a vehicle. A citizen only needs to defend himself and has no duty to engage. To put it in another way, the victory conditions are different. Similarly, a soldier's objectives are different from both the officer and the citizen. If there was only one situation, we'd all have the same hardware...

So you assume as a civilian you'd only have an unobscured frontal shot if you had to use a firearm?

Also....some of the testing you used in your data points use clear gel which is not a tissue simulant and not accepted or used by any military or law enforcement agency for testing.

Of the tests that you use as data points ....those that were performed with properly prepared gelatin .... what is the background and experience of those doing the tests? What military or law enforcement or ammunition manufacturer uses their data to help test and/or design products?

It is best to spend some time reading before posting.

That being said I will probably own a g42 before long. Understanding it's limitations compared to a real service caliber.

[WobblyPossum]

Some of the FBI tests involve penetrating drywall, wood, or car glass. An officer might be required to apprehend or stop a suspect hiding behind such a barrier, or fleeing in a vehicle. A citizen only needs to defend himself and has no duty to engage. To put it in another way, the victory conditions are different. Similarly, a soldier's objectives are different from both the officer and the citizen. If there was only one situation, we'd all have the same hardware...

The intermediate barrier tests like the auto glass test also correspond to penetrating things such as bones. You might have to shoot through an assailant’s arms to reach their upper thoracic cavity. A round that does poorly when tested on auto glass might not deliver adequate results when you need to reach a guy’s heart through his arm.

The fact that clear gel doesn’t correspond to living tissue like ordinance gel does has already been mentioned.

[PNWTO]

I bought a G42 for my wife, vetted it with the Lehigh Penetrators, added a TLR-6 and didn’t really look at it again.

Then on a lark I bought a pocket holster from Blue Force Gear and have been playing with it fairly often. For a pocket gun and NPE I now want one of my own. Definitely better in performance for me than the 340PD or 442 I normally rely on and an overall better shooting experience than a 43. Not to preach to the choir but the B-8 and timer have decided. I may even get a Null SMZ for the “hoody, tee shirt, board shorts, and flip flop” days where a fanny pack may not be appropriate; despite that holster design have some worries for a SFA pistol.

The ballistic piece is what it is... underwhelming and I think it folly to believe that a civilian’s physical world is somehow more impediment-free than the world others exist in.

[No.6]

Of the tests that you use as data points ....those that were performed with properly prepared gelatin .... what is the background and experience of those doing the tests? What military or law enforcement or ammunition manufacturer uses their data to help test and/or design products?

It is best to spend some time reading before posting.


Appeals to authority are silly. I've posted this elsewhere, and not here largely because as a whole this group is not typically following the mouseguns.
I only threw this in here because the G42 is the topic. I will refrain from telling you how long I read this forum before signing up lately to post something over on the unarmed forum, but one shouldn't assume that people sign up the moment they first discover a BBS.

The tests are not mine and come from these sources (he says, grabbing the source column of my data and pulling the distinct values):
Range Hot
Handguns Mag
Lucky Gunner
Ammo Quest
Ammo to Go
Mouse Gun Addict
tnoutdoors9
MakarovShooter 9x18
Guns and Ammo Feb/Mar 2008
American Rifleman
GeographyCzar
Ballistics by the Inch

(URLs were tracked too, so I can go back to the sources, but as many of them are a YouTube video it's a long list...) If it's actually interesting to you, I could toss it up on the blog. Why these? This is what you can find on the net if you take time to dig out data, so anyone can get this same info.)

As you noted, some are gel-only and most gel+denim; as that makes a difference, it was tracked. Some of the 336 samples only have FPS data and were only used to show trend of a given round vs. barrel length. Correlations are also weakened because some sources didn't align their FPS, penetration, and expansion by round but presented them sorted in each category.


The intermediate barrier tests like the auto glass test also correspond to penetrating things such as bones.

Take it up with the sources, and tell them to buy the other gel and redo their tests against the full FBI spec before they publish results and sell ammunition. I'll wait. Seriously, all I'm doing is showing what the data that exists implied. If you don't like the data, it's not my doing. If you have more, I'll add it and be grateful.


I bought a G42 for my wife...The ballistic piece is what it is... underwhelming

I'm pretty sure you didn't mean it to come out poorly but this doesn't read well. Why would you do that to someone you love? :)

I've found these responses to be informative. 6 pages of praise for the G42, but a pretty virulent negative response to the idea that anyone should actually defend themselves with it. That means to me that the answer to the question "Do I need a Glock 42?" from this group is "only if you are bored and want a fun toy." Seems like a lot of expense so as to buy a more expensive round for entertainment purposes, if that's really your opinion.

[PNWTO]

Appeals to authority are silly. I've posted this elsewhere, and not here largely because as a whole this group is not typically following the mouseguns.

...

I'm pretty sure you didn't mean it to come out poorly but this doesn't read well. Why would you do that to someone you love? :)

I will hold off on a more colorful reply to your insinuation about my purchase for my wife. There’s a certain weakness of character revealed when one tries to leverage an argument in such a way. I’ll be quick and say the axioms of “Rule #1” and “something is better than nothing” and maybe even that a “Glock is a Glock”.

I think this forum has a lot of knowledgeable users with some authority in their assertions; and I have yet to find a group that follows firearms development as close as some here.

I would also say “read more, post less, unsubscribe the ego” but you’re obviously on a mission to be an ass. So Godspeed and let us hope this ends the ballistic derail of a good thread.

[No.6]

I hold off on a more colorful reply to your insinuation about my purchase for my wife. I’ll be quick and say the axioms of “Rule #1” and “something is better than nothing” and maybe even that a “Glock is a Glock”.

I think this forum has a lot of knowledgeable users with some authority in their assertions; and I have yet to find a group that follows firearms development as close as some here.

I would also say “read more, post less, unsubscribe the ego” but you’re obviously on a mission to be an ass. So Godspeed.

No, just tossing a bit back at the "shut up newb" dig and it wasn't seriously meant.

If the info is really all that inconsequential to you, why are you posting so vehemently about it?

[LittleLebowski]

We are now civil again.

[TheNewbie]

I really wish the G42 worked for me. This thread makes me want another one.

[BehindBlueI's]

I guess I'm missing something here. What is the difference between a violent armed individual trying to use lethal force against a LEO vs. the same violent armed individual trying to use lethal force against a civilian?

Generally, psychology, both of the moment and of the top of criminal who engages in the act. Someone engaging a cop expects armed resistance if they can't rapidly incapacitate the target, someone engaging a civilian has probably done it multiple times before with no resistance offered. OODA loop comes into play, as they get complacent as well. I've seen plenty of incidents of shooting the gun empty or shooting until incapacitated engaging with the police since they know if they don't take us out we've got a radio and a bunch of armed friends coming. With random crime it's much more likely they don't seriously engage, sometimes literally firing over their shoulder as they flee. There's no incentive to stay in the fight in random crime. Un-ass the area and stake out the ATM the next night instead. "Professional" criminals especially understand that a Murder gets more attention and more resources to catching the suspect then a Robbery. Completely different mindset, even if the anatomy is the same.


Some of the FBI tests involve penetrating drywall, wood, or car glass. An officer might be required to apprehend or stop a suspect hiding behind such a barrier, or fleeing in a vehicle. A citizen only needs to defend himself and has no duty to engage.


And if the threat is outside your car window while you're boxed in? Do you know the most common intermediate barrier civilians and LE alike face? Forearms. Someone pointing a gun at you has their forearms obscuring much of the area we train to shoot at. Which means performance against bone and then an air gap matters. Which leads to...


The intermediate barrier tests like the auto glass test also correspond to penetrating things such as bones. You might have to shoot through an assailant’s arms to reach their upper thoracic cavity.

That sort of comment, which is exactly correct.


Appeals to authority are silly.

Appeal to authority =/= recognizing the value of expert opinions. When you go to the doctor do you figure his janitor's hypothesis of your ailment has equal weight as the doc's? No, that's stupid. If you did you wouldn't go to the doctor. How DocGKR knows what he knows isn't hard to find. My background and how many shootings I've investigated isn't either.

My personal opinion is the .380 is the bare minimum but you gain a lot by stepping up to a 9mm, primarily barrier blindness in expanding ammunition. .380 FMJ is the smallest common cartridge I've seen that will reliable break an adult femur and will completely penetrate an adult's torso. I've yet to see an expanding .380 I would feel comfortable recommending, but I haven't seen everything that exists, either.

[Beat Trash]

To be honest, my reply was meant to be a touch sarcastic.

I conferred with Dr. Gary Roberts in 2011 when my agency was looking at a much needed upgrade to duty ammunition. His expertise, as well as those he’s worked with transcends the world of YouTube videos, blogs and Internet forums.

I appreciate No. 6's enlightenment when he stated that an officer, “might be required to apprehend or stop a suspect hiding behind a barrier, or fleeing in a vehicle”. I try hard not to shoot at an individual fleeing in a car. Tennessee v. Garner says that’s a bad thing...

I’ve been present at various ballistic workshops hosted by my agency with the major ammunition companies. I’m aware of the FBI testing protocol. I’m also aware of the IWBA protocol. Which is why I’d always have a 4 layer denim test added along with the standard FBI tests.

Over the last 28 years, I’ve also seen, first hand, people shot with just about every caliber that a person could steal. My posts are based off of my experiences, personal and professional. Not off of an article or a post on the Internet.

From a physical standpoint, I still feel that the factors involved in incapacitating an adversary remains the same, no matter what the defender's profession may be. Threats don’t always face you head on. Sometimes they are at an angle which forces your round to have to go through an arm. Threats aren’t always naked. Although sometimes they can be. You might have to go through layers of heavy clothing. Especially in the winter months. And we are a nation dealing with obesity, so your threat might be a rather large individual with layers of fat that your round may have to go through first. Sometimes people can sustain a lethal sound and still fight on. In other words, they’re dead, they just don’t know it quite yet. Yes a .22lr round can and does kill people. But quickly incapacitate? Not so well.

A LEO has resources that a private citizen doesn’t have. A radio to call for assistance. A partner. A private citizen is likely to be without these resources. To me, that means the private citizen really should take advantage of any opportunity to neutralize and stop the threat as soon as possible. No matter the profession of the defender, the goal is the same. To still be alive after the incident is over.

I get some of the logic behind wanting to carry a 380 pistol. And IF I were inclined to do so, a Glock 42 would be my choice. But with just a little more effort one has a variety of very small yet manageable 9mm pistols to chose from. I have personally included 3” 9mm pistols like the PM9 and the G43 in ballistic workshops. The same design of bullet in 380 was always tested also. The performance gained by going from 380 to a 9mm in these tests are substantial enough that I sold off my G42.

Many of you are choosing the G42 after understanding the limitations the round has. That’s your informed choice and I respect that. But this topic went from a conversation about the gun to a debate about the caliber. I would make the argument that there is nothing to debate. It is what it is. But what the 380 is not is in the same league as the 9mm as it relates to terminal effectiveness.

[secondstoryguy]

Chiming in late but I like my 42. I've qualified with it a few times and use it for NPE or gym shorts gun. It shoots great, is reliable, and is very thin/small. I used to carry a 642 but I like the 42 better even with the .380's "inferior" ballistics. My normal off duty carry is a 43X or a G19 depending on where I'm going and the 42 fits a niche in this rotation.

[GJM]

To me, the 42 is not a substitute for a 9mm. It is for carrying a gun when you would otherwise not, or as a BUG.

[HeavyDuty]

To me, the 42 is not a substitute for a 9mm. It is for carrying a gun when you would otherwise not, or as a BUG.

This. For me it is a pocket gun for when even my 43 would be difficult to carry.

[OlongJohnson]

I honestly can’t tell why he has his opinion; there’s no specific data cited to argue about. My bit used 300+ samples, none of which are “mine” (I didn’t shoot them, but aggregated results from Lucky Gunner, Ammo to Go, Ammo Quest (Shooting the Bull 410) and others).

I have also looked up many available "tests" of .380 cartridges, even compiled and analyzed some of the results in significant detail. From those, it appears that the Hornady 90gr XTP is likely to make the 12-14 inches of penetration with well-controlled expansion if it is fired at the right range of muzzle velocity - not too fast, not too slow. However, the most clear-cut and "pretty" results to that effect use clear gel.

Note that physical inspection of the bullet reveals it has a significantly different set of dimensions for the hollow point, whereas most JHPs oriented toward .380 ACP use have basically the same HP design as a heavier 9mm bullet. At one time, I concluded that the XTP was actually designed to work well as a .380, with the energy available to a .380 bullet, and that is what set it apart. I continue to think it's probably the best JHP .380 option.

However...

DocGKR has stated that the 90gr XTP does not perform reliably and consistently in rigorous testing. I've asked about specific test data that is available publicly (not in PMs, but in discussion in other threads), without really getting a response. What he has said very adamantly, repeatedly, and consistently, is that clear gel does not match the results obtained from true ballistic gel across a wide range of conditions. My understanding is that the farther one gets from the center of the point cloud, the more results are likely to differ. It is reasonable to me that the low KE and marginal, "will it/won't it" performance in both expansion and penetration likely places any .380 out at the fringes of non-correspondence. I have concluded that the good dentist has indeed seen the results of properly conducted testing, and that those results are as he says, but that the circumstances surrounding said testing do not permit publication of the data. I don't believe there should be any question that he is privy to much information that cannot be published. So, I'm forced to rely on his position of authority and widely recognized expertise. Such is the world, until I or someone else is willing to spend the money for true ballistic gel testing for publication.


Down a different path, the flat nose FMJ sold by Olin under the Winchester and Browning brand names is interesting as a potentially best FMJ option, but I've seen so much poor quality Winchester brass in factory loaded ammo of multiple different calibers that using that for defense would be an "inspect every cartridge carefully" situation. Also, the edges of the meplat may be relatively sharp and crisp, or quite rounded, with quite a bit of scatter away from each end of the distribution. I've seen both general configurations in boxes of the same SKU on the shelf next to each other, so there's really no way to know which one you'd get except by buying in meatspace and opening each box before you put it in your basket. And it goes without saying that your gun should be vetted with the shape you carry, if you go this route. Vetting it with the rounded edges and loading it with the crisper edge because it's from a box of the same SKU could go badly, for example.

[WobblyPossum]

One of the things that sucks about ballistics discussions is that the test results, from in-depth testing that’s conducted in a scientifically sound manner, are often restricted and can’t be disseminated online. The results are often designated “For Official Use Only” or “Law Enforcement Sensitive.” In theory, some of the testing could be actually classified “Secret” or higher. For example, when I obtained copies of the FBI test data in an effort to transition my previous agency to 9mm, I had to agree not to disseminate the data outside of my agency. When people like Dr. Roberts recommend using this round or not using this other round, that’s often the best they can do without breaking NDAs, agency policy, or federal law. I don’t like it but I have to abide by it.

[DocGKR]

Why would someone want to use a .380 as a BUG or for off-duty carry when they can use a similar size 9 mm like an S&W Shield or G43? I get that the G42 is easy to shoot--more so than a J-frame, but the 13 oz G42 holds only half the rounds compared to the more effective 21 oz G26 that is also easy to shoot; moving to an easily concealed, very capable compact handgun like a G48, G19, M&Pc, etc… is far superior to a .380 Auto in almost every respect. In addition, as a BUG, the G26 uses the same mags as a G34/17/19 primary pistol, much like running an M&Pc as a BUG to an M&P duty pistol--this has a LOT of advantages in a duty BUG role.

In general, friends don't let friends carry .380's...

But Rule 1 applies—having a .380 Auto beats not having a firearm. So if a sub-compact .380 is what you must go with due to size issues or limitations on limb function, so be it. Just make sure your .380 Auto handgun is reliable.

Most of our .380 and .38 sp testing has been done for LE agencies, so you will not find the data on the internet. The FBI has also done extensive testing and has come to the same conclusion--that no .380 loads meet the minimum penetration, expansion, and barrier requirements.

Again--there are NO .380 loads that meet the FBI BRF/IWBA/JSWB-IPT standard test protocols.

The .380 Auto tends to always wind up as a compromise, with the end-user having to choose the best option from a bunch of less than desirable choices. Obviously FMJ penetrates well, but offers no expansion (this includes the Lehigh Defense XP) and beware that some bulk FMJ offers suspect QC compared to duty ammo. With expanding designs, the best of the worst in .380 seem to be the Hornady 90 gr XTP (poor expansion), Federal 90 gr HydraShok (inconsistent expansion), and Speer 90 gr Gold Dot (a bit shallow on penetration) and all three are poor against intermediate barriers. Function is also an issue in some .380 pistols, with FMJ sometimes offering superior feeding reliability.

This cannot be emphasized enough--ensure your .380 Auto handgun is reliable with the carry ammo you select.

[zaitcev]

I guess I'm missing something here. What is the difference between a violent armed individual trying to use lethal force against a LEO vs. the same violent armed individual trying to use lethal force against a civilian?

What you're missing is that while in theory, the theory and practice are the same, in practice they are different. You aren't going to use your .380 to fire 200 times at a UPS van without identifying your target and kill the hostage. In fact if you did that, you'd be on trial for murder. But cops do just that. They are concerned with barrier penetration, and you are not. If Jack Wilson's P229 were loaded with .380 ACP and not .357 SIG, the result would be exactly the same.

That said, of course I would carry a 9mm if I could. The cost of training ammunition alone makes it worth a consideration.

[DocGKR]

Uh....no.

I am aware of multiple instances where civilians had need for a barrier blind projectile in order to successfully stop an attack.

[Beat Trash]

What you're missing is that while in theory, the theory and practice are the same, in practice they are different. You aren't going to use your .380 to fire 200 times at a UPS van without identifying your target and kill the hostage. In fact if you did that, you'd be on trial for murder. But cops do just that. They are concerned with barrier penetration, and you are not. If Jack Wilson's P229 were loaded with .380 ACP and not .357 SIG, the result would be exactly the same.

That said, of course I would carry a 9mm if I could. The cost of training ammunition alone makes it worth a consideration.

“Cops do that”? I’m not sure which “cops” you’re referring to that fire into a UPS van 200 times.

I do know that I’ve been an inter city LEO with a department of slightly over 1,000 sworn officers for the last 28 years, and a front line supervisor (Sergeant) for 19 years. Firing into a van 200 times...? I’d be interested in hearing where this actually occurred.

I stand by my earlier statement that the mechanics involved to incapacitate a violent threat remain the same for the defender, no matter what their occupation.

But at this point, I’m tagging out on this topic.

[Gater]

Bumping this one back up, as it still appears to be the most current on the G42. Totally understand the caliber issue. I have a 442, G26, and a G43 at hand, and I still think the G42 has things to offer that none of them can. That said, Karma is apparently sending me a clear message (today, from "my" FFL) about the G42. Thought I had one on the way, done deal, four months ago, but...nope. Not much supply now in Covid times. Question for the collective: is there a cut line (date or SN range) where I'd be pretty sure I'm was getting something that has the fixes incorporated to address the early G42 problems?

[Beat Trash]

The various panic buying that’s been going on throughout 2020 has mostly cleared out existing inventory of defensive handguns nationwide.

If I were in the market for a Glock 42, I’d be ok with a newly manufactured one, as it’s a good bet that any that are actually in stock are of recent manufacture.