A Glock 42?

[SamuelBLong]

The fun starts at around 8:15

This has not been the experience of the g42 owners I know... Myself included. Several of our Albuquerque PF members have them and so far so good.

Look Jody, I'm with you about the whole have a 9 vs 380 for the same size thing... But the fact is it's shaping up to be a good gun... Especially using it in transitioning weaker & new shooters from a .22 to a 9/40/45.

And regardless of how much we all bitch and protest that they didn't make it a single stack 9, they're going to sell a bajillion of them.

[SamuelBLong]

I heard somewhere there were no plans to turn the G42 into a 9mm. I don't think the current platform
would support 9mm. That was my impression at least and I have no additional details.

If they do build a 9mm they'll have to basically build it from the ground up.

I think the good news is that if this .380 sells very well (and it probably will) then perhaps it will convince Glock that the market is there for a similarly sized 9mm.

I'd show y'all using pictures, but my 42 is on loan to Tom_Jones to evaluate if the gadget can be scaled to work on them....

But in my own research, and in briefly talking with Tom about his initial opinions, to make the 42 a 9mm they'd have to do some significant redesign & scaling. It would be much easier to scale down a 26.

[JR1572]

A couple of comparison pictures:



Shield with flush fit magazine.



Shield with extended magazine.



View of bottom of magazines lined up for flush fit magazine comparison.





Difference in frame height.



Close up of difference in slide height.



Difference in slide length.



Overall slide comparison.

The differences are noticeable.

JR1572

[john556]

From a mechanical standpoint? I'll leave that for the experts to decide. From a carry standpoint? I don't see much of a difference.

[JodyH]

I am starting to wonder if Kahr Arms bought the "JodyH" screen name.

If so they're getting gipped because I have hardly touched my PM9 since the weather cooled off and I'm not wearing shorts very often.
P2000SK fits in my Duluth firehose pants pocket or P2000 AIWB for me right now (unless I'm in a NPE then it's the LCP that functions with Barnes Tac-XPD).

[VolGrad]

One really disappointing thing other than caliber. It only comes with two magazines. Every other blue label I've ever purchased has shipped with three magazines .

I didn't think the subs came with 3 mags even in blue label guns. Mine didn't.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JBP55]

I didn't think the subs came with 3 mags even in blue label guns. Mine didn't.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Only on the Gen 4 models.

[MGW]

I didn't think the subs came with 3 mags even in blue label guns. Mine didn't.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Never bought a new Gen 3 subcompact. That would probably explain it.

[VolGrad]

Only on the Gen 4 models.

My last G26 was a blue label Gen4. I honestly can't recall how many mags were in the box. I have a bunch now and don't recall which were OEM and which I added later.

[TGS]

It's unfortunate that the G42 didn't seem to like the Barnes in that video. IF I knew someone who was intent on carrying a suboptimal caliber, Barnes would be my first choice of ammunition to recommend.

While Barnes makes some excellent bullets, I wouldn't carry them in the .380, 8" in gelatin is not enough penetration IMHO

Agreed. Seeing that STB test linked to earlier in this thread surprised me a lot; I would have thought the SCHPs would perform better. My .380 currently has DoubleTap Barnes in it, and I guess I'll be switching them out to the .380 Hydra-Shoks I have. That seems to be a decent round for .380, fairly consistent 12"+ with expansion to the .4x" range. I'm comfortable with that for my BUG/NPE gun which is only 4.48"x3.64" big. Honestly, after reading some articles from the FirearmsTactical.com archives, I'd be comfortable with anything down to 10" penetration for a pocket pistol.