Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 82

Thread: Do I need a Glock 42?

  1. #71
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Texas
    I really wish the G42 worked for me. This thread makes me want another one.

  2. #72
    Moderator BehindBlueI's's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Midwest
    Quote Originally Posted by Beat Trash View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by No.6 View Post
    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...

    Quote Originally Posted by DanM View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by No.6 View Post
    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.
    Last edited by BehindBlueI's; 03-29-2020 at 05:50 PM.
    Interested in a PF hat? Take the survey here: https://forms.gle/1E7ihN776ve3NY957

    Quote Originally Posted by UNM1136 View Post
    Maybe with talented students I would lube up with baby oil and then go at it.

  3. #73
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    S.W. Ohio
    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.
    Last edited by Beat Trash; 03-29-2020 at 09:14 PM.

  4. #74
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Austin,TX
    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.

  5. #75
    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.
    Likes pretty much everything in every caliber.

  6. #76
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Northern Illinois
    Quote Originally Posted by GJM View Post
    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.
    Ken

    BBI: ...”you better not forget the safe word because shit's about to get weird”...

  7. #77
    Old man yelling at cloud OlongJohnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    "carbine-infested rural (and suburban) areas"
    Quote Originally Posted by No.6 View Post
    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.
    .
    -----------------------------------------
    Not another dime.

  8. #78
    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.
    –————————————————
    My posts only represent my personal opinion and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or official policies of my employer. Obvious spelling errors are likely the result of an iPhone keyboard.

  9. #79
    Site Supporter DocGKR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Palo Alto, CA
    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.
    Facts matter...Feelings Can Lie

  10. #80
    Member zaitcev's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    Austin, Texas, U.S.A.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beat Trash View Post
    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.
    Last edited by zaitcev; 03-31-2020 at 10:51 AM.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

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