Do I need a Glock 42?

[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%20Am...0Protocol.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.