Glock 42 Reliability

[jh9]

I don't know what the difference is, then.

It's got a ramp thingy.

The top one has what looks like little m4 feed ramps cut in the throat between the ramp and the chamber. The bottom one doesn't. That little divot standing up in the middle of the throat on the older barrel (top pic) caused some issues with feeding. (Especially with hollowpoints on mine.)

[TGS]

The top one has what looks like little m4 feed ramps cut in the throat between the ramp and the chamber. The bottom one doesn't. That little divot standing up in the middle of the throat on the older barrel (top pic) caused some issues with feeding. (Especially with hollowpoints on mine.)

I believe I have the first one, then. The M4 cuts don't look as pronounced as the ones in that photo, but that might be my eyes playing tricks on me.

[Lon]

I’ve got one that gets used primarily as a back up at work. Have a few hundred rounds through it without issue.

[jh9]

I believe I have the first one, then. The M4 cuts don't look as pronounced as the ones in that photo, but that might be my eyes playing tricks on me.

That could explain the nose dives. I think they might have changed the angle on the ramp in addition to the difference in the throat.

Mine still worked fine with ball with the old barrel profile but since Glock will probably replace the barrel for free might as well give it a try. Mostly I had issues with flat points and JHPs.

[TGS]

Thanks, I'll give them a call then.

It didn't really concern me since it's only when initially loading using the slide lock lever. No problems when actually firing. But, if it's something on recall that they'll replace for free then I might as well avail myself of it.

[Sig_Fiend]

This year I took a G42 off @Sig_Fiend and it has had no problems or stoppages in 400 rounds of S&B and Hydrashok. I have two brand new 6 round mags that it will nosedive on when initially chambering a round using the slide-stop, but not when manually racking and not when shooting so I don't care as I don't plan on carrying 6 round mags as a reload for it. The 8 round mags that SigFiend gave me work great, no issues.

Maybe he can comment about whatever stoppages or issues he encountered in his ownership, if any. I'm happy with it in my short 400 rounds, though.

I will say that I do not have big hands and using it without a Hogue slip-on grip is pretty annoying. Almost feels like my hands are cramping. The Hogue grip makes all the difference so I put it back on.

Been awhile, so my memory is rusty. I did have nosedive problems with 1 or 2 mag configurations. I tried Magguts followers for the increased capacity. Definitely had nosedive issues with those and would not recommend them for serious use. Didn't have any issues with the TTI +1 or Vickers extensions.

I remember having the distinct impression that mag spring tension with any aftermarket mag components on these seems like it could easily create a narrow window of proper operation. Like too much mag spring causing increased drag on the feed lips, leading to sluggish chambering and potentially a failure to feed. Or not enough tension and nosedives.

I had some failures to feed that seemed ammo-related, and IIRC I'm about 70% sure it was mostly when using the slide release. I'm thinking it was Hornady TAP since I seem to remember it being a JHP with more of a conical ogive. I normally stick to GD or HST and Lawman for the range, and never had an issue with any of those.

[M2CattleCo]

I have one with about 500 rounds through it. American Eagle and Fiocci ball.

It’s finicky about grip. I don’t think I think I would really carry it yet, but I’m still shaking it out.

[zaitcev]

A friend opted for a Glock 42 as a retirement weapon. While there is an eighty-three page discussion on the Glock 42, it ended in 2015. Any current opinions or experience on the reliability and, to a lesser extent, accuracy of these pistols?

I have two G42s, ABCZxxx and ACYYxxx. They are not as reliable as Mark 23, unfortunately. They pass the Grant Cunningham's criteria for CCW with a 500 round string, but they typically will have a malfunction in a 1000-round string. Usually a round digs into something and does not go all the way in.

One other thing: I noticed that they both have a minimum bullet weight, below which they become less reliable. That 500+ to 1000 strings I mentioned above can only be attained with bullets of 90 grains or heavier. As long as the bullet is heavy enough, it does not matter what shape it is: they feed any kind of hollow points or ball, including blunt-nosed WWB.

[zaitcev]

About the "M4 cuts" in the feedramp, I tried to public-source serial numbers on GlockTalk. The picture is rather murky, the barrels with the cut and without the cut seem to be mixed in middle of the range. I have both and never noticed any difference in reliablliity, although of course it depends on the tolerance stacking. I feel like it might have been an experiment to fix some issue, which might have been abandoned.

Remember how Glock struggled with the premature slide lock-back on G42. At first they thought it was just QC. They swapped parts by warranty and hoped it would go away. Then, they decided that it must be the slide stop lever and revised it. That did exactly nothing. Only then they gave up and re-designed the magazines with the ridge that pushes bullets to the right (the "03" magazine). So in the end, the original slide stops were fine and they could return to the original spec if they wanted. Perhaps with barrels they did return, if old barrels were cheaper to make.

[Totem Polar]

The first 42s were bullshit (I had one of the first-run, MLK day ship guns), but the last one I had ran like a champ.