Page 32 of 83 FirstFirst ... 2230313233344282 ... LastLast
Results 311 to 320 of 829

Thread: A Glock 42?

  1. #311
    Member jon volk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    West Haven, CT
    Well by that poll, they did technically build a single stack 9mm. Just the wrong 9mm.

  2. #312
    Very Pro Dentist Chuck Haggard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Down the road from Quantrill's big raid.
    The fact that Glock has been selling 60K+ guns per month for a few years now may have something to do with this, and Gaston being hard headed.


    Stupidly enough I am actually thinking about buying one of these. If it's a no BS hard use shootable and reliable 13oz .380 then I might have a use for this gun as a BUG. I am dealing with some pretty messed up arthritis and tendonitis issues, and have been for years. I am on the verge of dumping any shooting of +P ammo from my 642s, which I am carrying due to the G26 being too much weight on my ankle anymore.

    I had been looking for a couple of S&W .22mags, but the guns and the ammo are unobtanium over the past two years. I might actually be able to get one of these somewhere.


    And yes, I am also looking at the Shield.

  3. #313
    Member jkurtz7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    How about two more poll results from the same site.

    "What is most important to you in a concealed carry pistol."

    Weight: 13%

    Magazine Capacity: 12%

    Size: 50%

    Caliber (Stopping Power): 26%


    "Do you think Glock should make a carbine? If so what caliber."

    Yes, .223: 41%

    Yes: A modular system: 25%

    Yes: .308: 12%

    No: Stick to pistols: 22%


    One should note that in the concealed carry poll, size won. So why is Glock making a .380 that isn't as small as the #1 sellling CCW pistol, the Ruger LCP?

    The carbine thing, well, I don't see that happening while Gaston is still living. People have been asking for one for the better part of a decade though.

    There are a couple more interesting polls on there, so Glock is asking questions, but whether they actually listen or not is something else entirely.
    Last edited by jkurtz7; 01-04-2014 at 06:46 PM.

  4. #314
    Quote Originally Posted by jkurtz7 View Post
    One should note that in the concealed carry poll, size won. So why is Glock making a .380 that isn't as small as the #1 sellling CCW pistol, the Ruger LCP?
    That is an interesting question. Some possible answers are:

    1) Glock is completely out of touch, and made something in .380 in a complete vacuum without considering competing products.

    2) The size of the Glock 42 is the smallest package Glock could make such a pistol that would function reliably for thousands of rounds of use, and be comfortable to shoot.

    3) They plan on bringing out a 9mm in more or less the same size, and are trying to save development costs.
    Likes pretty much everything in every caliber.

  5. #315
    Member jkurtz7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by GJM View Post
    That is an interesting question. Some possible answers are:

    1) Glock is completely out of touch, and made something in .380 in a complete vacuum without considering competing products.

    2) The size of the Glock 42 is the smallest package Glock could make such a pistol that would function reliably for thousands of rounds of use, and be comfortable to shoot.

    3) They plan on bringing out a 9mm in more or less the same size, and are trying to save development costs.
    Just my thoughts on your answers.

    1) Gaston is an ego maniac, his products are perfection, to him anyway, so it's possible.

    2) That's possible, but see #1.

    3) Why in God's good name would you develop a 9mm from a .380? It would be more logical to go .40, to 9mm, then maybe .380.

  6. #316
    Site Supporter Totem Polar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    PacNW
    Quote Originally Posted by GJM View Post
    That is an interesting question. Some possible answers are:

    1) Glock is completely out of touch, and made something in .380 in a complete vacuum without considering competing products.

    2) The size of the Glock 42 is the smallest package Glock could make such a pistol that would function reliably for thousands of rounds of use, and be comfortable to shoot.

    3) They plan on bringing out a 9mm in more or less the same size, and are trying to save development costs.
    The most charitable outlook would be both 2 and 3; assuming that G's only misstep was in not reversing the release order of the 9mm and .380 on the same frame. Second would be 2 and 1 together; sort of my vote, based on just being alive and watching both Glock, and micro .380s in classes, over the years. But who knows. I guess time will tell. My opinion is no more accurate than most.

    Oh, and, that poll is laugh out loud. Different colors and a folding knife as major products? WTKK?

    And, I hear Mr. Haggard. I could see the 42 as my old man gun. I'm sure they will still be in production when the time comes.

  7. #317
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    West TN
    Quote Originally Posted by GJM View Post
    That is an interesting question. Some possible answers are:

    1) Glock is completely out of touch, and made something in .380 in a complete vacuum without considering competing products.

    2) The size of the Glock 42 is the smallest package Glock could make such a pistol that would function reliably for thousands of rounds of use, and be comfortable to shoot.

    3) They plan on bringing out a 9mm in more or less the same size, and are trying to save development costs.
    I think:

    1. Product development takes time. Two to 3 years to do it right and that is for my industry, not in firearms. It might take even longer in that industry. More than likely at the time the product development started, the craze WAS .380.

    2. Very likely.

    3. Even more likely. They probably looked at it the same way they did for 9mm, .40, .357 Sig and the 10mm/.45. Single design, as many shared components as possible. So they while designing the .380 rather than an "optimized" .380 they did a "pretty good" .380 that would still be big enough to reasonably shoot the forthcoming 9mm/40/.357 Sig. I am getting ready to start on a project very similar. We aren't going to be offering a certain option when this product launches but part of our design scope is to accomodate this as a future option so we have to keep that in mind while we are designing it.

    Development of new products takes time. Testing and evaluation and then redesigning takes even more time. Setting up a factory in the country that you want to make the product in so you can bypass assinine sporting use import "points" restrictions, even more time. The bigger the company and the more products it sells, the slower this happens.

    I honestly think that now that Glock has manufacturing capability in the US, we will start seeing quite a bit more innovation as well as changes to existing designs that a lot of people have been asking for now that import points aren't a requirement. (Serrated triggers, that silly shelf on the grips, maybe even the finger grooves)

    For myself, if it fits the niche size wise between my Glock 19 and my NAA Guardian .32, I will look very hard at getting one.

  8. #318
    Member jon volk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    West Haven, CT

    A Glock 42?

    Quote Originally Posted by jkurtz7 View Post
    3) Why in God's good name would you develop a 9mm from a .380? It would be more logical to go .40, to 9mm, then maybe .380.
    I think .380 to 9mm is a better progression than 9 to .40. Look what happened the last time Glock did that. The interweb was blessed with blown up glock stories. The 9mm is essentially just a longer .380. I quickly searched, and guys have used their LC9 mags in their LC380s. I think hi point actually uses the same mag for both .380 and 9mm. I'd be extremely curious if 9mm Luger will easily fit I to the g42 mags.

    Edit: misread your intention. .40 DOWN to 9mm.

  9. #319
    here are my thoughts:

    1) I would never bet against Glock, given their financial and market success of the last 25+ years.

    2) At this stage in his life, I am sure Mr. Glock could care less what his customers think. He has more money than he can spend, and he is approaching the age when folks are reluctant to even buy green bananas.

    3) Glock came about at the right time with the right product (the Glock 17), and at some level his follow on products have never surpassed the original.

    As a PS, I read a post by Mike Benedict, the Talon holster guy. He has a pocket holster for the 42, says it fits easily in his pocket, and the 42 is a joy to shoot.
    Likes pretty much everything in every caliber.

  10. #320
    Member jkurtz7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    I was just on FB a bit ago, and Military Arms Channel posted about the G42. The comments are full of G42 hate, and disappointment.

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
  •