Glock 42 Review

8-Jan-14 – 08:55 by ToddG

by NGCSUGrad09

Glock 42 Initial Review

I’ve been fortunate enough to handle and shoot the new Glock 42. I will say that I’m not a fan of what some people refer to as “pocket”, BUG or micro semi-autos. I’ve had most of the popular ones, and had enough experience with the others to know I don’t want them. Why do you ask? The simple answer is reliability and “shootability”. I would define shootability as the sum of the recoil, trigger operation and weight, control operation and to some extent accuracy. I like to practice with what I carry, especially something that’s ALWAYS with me. For me, to get what I consider to be acceptable reliability and shootability, my go-to little gun is a Smith & Wesson J-Frame (sans lock). With that, here are my thoughts broken up to an examination of the pistol and then shooting it.

The Pistol Examined:
For those that didn’t know, Glock has made a .380 for quite some time (Glock 25 & 28); just not anything available for the US commercial market due to import regulations. These two are identical in size to the Glock 19 (G25) and 26 (G28), and primarily for countries where civilians cannot have military calibers. Because these are a blowback vs locking design, the recoil is essentially the same as a 9mm. So if it has the size, weight and recoil of a 9mm, but inferior to a 9mm; why would you want one anyways? That said, there are a handful in civilian hands that came in for police departments and then sold off at auction or surplus. These few can command quite a premium on the open market. With the little history of the Glock .380s aside, while Glock owns the service pistol market, they have been noticeable absent in the small semi-auto arena.

Upon first seeing the pistol, you might think “Oh that’s cute”. By itself, the G42 is a small gun. I’ve always found the previously smallest Glock, the G26 to be a bit top heavy and thick. This pistol is neither. Simply put, it is a miniaturized Glock.

The grip isn’t so short and thin that it’s hard to hold on to or get a good grip, but is actually quite nice for someone with average sized hands. Others present all commented that it felt good in the hand. The frame is thin without being too thin. In the hand, the pistol balances very nicely. The slide/bore axis is still low in the hand like other Glocks. While manipulating the slide and controls, the pistol feels solid. The sample I was able to play with was brand new, but it seemed to feel more “solid” than even a 9mm Glock out of the box. Slide/barrel lockup was tight, I somewhat suspect due to the dual recoil spring assembly.

Being that it is a miniaturized Glock, anyone who owns a larger brother to the G42 would be able to recognize the controls, operation and construction. The materials and finish are like any other Glock. The slide lock, magazine release, trigger and takedown controls are all approximately the same size as a normal pistol; not half sized controls that you can barely operate (I’ll have to wait until I can get some more time with one to compare the true size of the controls.) I’ve been a fan of the Gen4 magazine release since release, and this one is no different. It’s easy to use and fast, but doesn’t drop the magazine unless you want it to. The trigger itself is a smooth faced trigger like a Glock 17/22 vs the serrated trigger of a Glock 19/23 and 26/27. Overall, there are only a handful of parts with commonality between the larger siblings…primarily springs.

The grip texture is patterned after the other Gen4 guns, but the texture doesn’t feel as aggressive as a Gen4 gun when gripped tightly. For comparison, I don’t think the Gen 4s are very aggressive in the hand like the RTF2 or 20 LPI checkering on a 1911… but they offer a nice compromise of texture to keep the pistol firmly in the hand without snagging clothing. Whether by design or accident, the Glock 42 has a very nicely checkered grip that keeps the pistol steady but doesn’t snag in the pocket or on a shirt.

Sights were of the usual Glock “sight channel fillers” design. It appeared that the front sight could be swapped with a normal Glock sight, and that the rear dovetail width was the same as a regular Glock. The slide is thinner, so I think this is going to have to be experimented with as the guns become available. I’m definitely going to try to see what I can do with some Warren Tactical Sights. The stock “sights” were shorter in height than normal stock sights on say a 9mm or .40 model.

I mentioned the G25/28 couldn’t be imported earlier. The 42 doesn’t have that problem as they have a small, state of Georgia proof mark on the barrel, slide and frame indicating these are manufactured in the good ole’ USA. The Glock facility in Smyrna, GA has grown exponentially in the last couple of years, and there are already certain other models that can be found as made in the USA in addition to Austria.

The magazine of the pistol is a single stack, 6rd magazine. The witness holes seem to indicate some stagger to the cartridges, but I didn’t look too closely at a loaded magazine to tell. The magazine loads very easily, and is sized for .380 only.

Shooting the Glock 42:
As the pistol I shot was a sales sample for a Glock employee, I got to hear a little of the philosophy behind the gun. Instead of just another .380 that was hard to shoot, had a bad trigger and had questionable reliability, Glock designed this to be a “shooters” .380. And boy did it shoot.

While the pistol is on the larger end of the .380 pocket pistol market, the ease of operation, low recoil, better trigger and accuracy make that little bit of increased size worth it. Aside from the much larger and heavier Beretta 84, I don’t believe there’s a nicer shooting .380 on the market.

After some reflection, the best comparison for recoil impulse would be to compare to a mild, 147gr match load out of a Glock 19. This is in quite the contrast to the LCP or even a J-frame with medium loads. The pistol is so smooth and pleasant, I would have no problems burning 500rds or more in a single day.

The pistol was flawless with Federal and Fiocchi ball ammo that was on-hand. Time will be the tell-all for this one as this is the single most important quality that should be considered for a defensive pistol. Unlike handling some other pistols that might make you think twice about trying to get several hundred rounds or more without issue, this one just operates like it would shoot anywhere, anytime in any condition… kinda like my faithful Glock 9mms. Whenever I can snag one, I plan to shoot the crap out of it and will report back.

The trigger pull and reset are identical to the Glock trigger people have come to know and love (or hate for some of you). Having a clean break in the 5-6lb range, with a very tactile and positive reset allows a shooter to run one of these fast and accurate with ease.

As for accuracy, I was able to clean the range plate rack without makeup shots many times over between 15-18 yards. With stock sights the pistol shoots a little high at about 20-25 yards, but with practice and some sight regulation this gun can easily pull off repeatable headshots at 20-25 yards if the shooter can do their part. In fact, most of the time everyone in attendance shot at 15-20 yards on 2/3 body plates and couldn’t seem to miss.

On shooting the pistol, it was a fun pistol to shoot. I often found myself wishing for some much larger magazines as it felt you just started having fun at 6 rounds. We had a diverse group of shooters try the pistol out, and everyone really enjoyed how the G42 shot. This is a pistol that you’d actually want to take to the range and have some fun with.

To sum things up, the ultimate question is if I had to spend my cash on it would I buy it. My answer is yes. I am an admitted Glock 9mm proselytizer and I was a little disappointed that this was not a 9mm. However, after actually seeing and more importantly shooting the 42, this is the one pistol that makes me consider a .380 for a back up pistol. The accuracy and operation of the pistol will make you think this pistol is much bigger than it actually is. Word on the street is these should go for around $399 on the civilian market and better for the blue label program. Make no mistake, this is a .380 that you can shoot and enjoy. I’d say Glock hit their objective of making a “shooter’s .380”. Instead of why should you buy it, I’d ask how couldn’t you?

In a pros vs cons approach to the J-frame:
Higher capacity (6+1 vs 5)
Much better trigger (even over an Apex kit in the 337)
Low recoil
Standardizing operation and training with full size brethren pistols
Better accuracy
Faster reloads

.38 special +P ballistics are better

Unproven reliability (until guns get rounds through them) – Most important question of all
Approximately the same size as the J-frame in a pocket
LaserGrip availability
Aftermarket sight availability

Bonus Material: Picture Size Comparison to S&W J-frame
As I mentioned above, the S&W J-frame is my gold standard for a smaller pistol. I do buy my clothes around being able to at least pocket carry a J-frame. Time and rounds downrange through my own pistol will be the only way I’ll say that I’d replace my J-frame… but if I can’t fit it into a pocket, it defeats the purpose. Here are a few shots compared to the trusty J-frame. It did fit decently into the work type pants I had on, but it isn’t the pistol for someone who likes to wear tight jeans. Then again, most pistols aren’t.

Without a fixture, it was hard to capture a comparison with an iPhone, so I’ve got pictures of the G42 on top and the J-frame on top.

  1. 51 Responses to “Glock 42 Review”

  2. Thanks for the intelligent write up. Glock is going to sell a ton of those. Personally, I like safeties on small automatic pocket pistols, but since the vast majority of shooters don’t it is going to be a big seller.

    By SteveJ on Jan 8, 2014

  3. Well done. Thanks for taking the time to post this.

    By Chuck Haggard on Jan 8, 2014

  4. That is a well-done review, but you didn’t tell us how to take it apart and put it back together, like all professional gun writers do.

    By Tony B on Jan 8, 2014

  5. Be interesting to see how production models shake outin the real world. It took Glock long enough to produce something like this, to the disappointment of those who wanted to see a 9mm instead. It will appeal to the die-hard .380 affectionados, pocket gun fans, and people who maintain that a five shot Smith & Wesson is just too inaccurate and hard to shoot. From the description in the article, it sounds like it will be one of the more shootable .380s on the market.

    By RC on Jan 8, 2014

  6. We need another .380 like we need a flu pandemic. Why oh why didn’t they do this as a 9mm????

    By Wayne Dobbs on Jan 8, 2014

  7. I already have mass quantities of .38 / .357 stashed away. If I got a .380 I’d have to start down a new, dark, lonely path from which few return. Not to mention the S&W and/or Ruger looks better, that trumps everything else and justifies my neglect of all your facts.

    By David on Jan 8, 2014

  8. I went from “I don’t see the point of this pistol.” To “I can see some people that are recoil sensitive enjoying it but it’s not for me.”

    At the end of the day I already have a gun that is similar in size and it shoots 9mm so I can’t see myself buying this one. If they release in 9mm down the road though I will buy that in a heartbeat.

    By Jesse M on Jan 8, 2014

  9. “Not to mention the S&W and/or Ruger looks better, that trumps everything else and justifies my neglect of all your facts.”

    Belly. Laugh! Touche good sir!

    NGCSUGrad09, nice alternative to the, but I wanted a 9mm articles. Well thought out and presented.

    I want it in 9mm too, though!

    By Jason L Allen on Jan 8, 2014

  10. When will they make an even smaller one in .32ACP?
    (Only half kidding, I’d buy one, but I suspect I’m in a very small minority).

    By Redchrome on Jan 8, 2014

  11. I have an open mind about it. Will reserve judgement until I see one BUT and a huge but…. My Sigs in 9mm and 380 are much smaller and shoot like a dream. Especially in wife’s small hands but my Springfield XDS 9mm and 45acp both appear to be the same size or possibly even slightly more compact than the new Glock 380. And let me tell you these XDS guns of mine are stone cold little combat machines. I compete aggressively and top ranks with indoor IDPA with these little carry rigs. Would I spend my money on this new Glock, probably not based on what I believe are much better solutions already in my safe, and inside my waistband now. I do think this was an excellent article and good to hear the trigger is decent. My opinion is not making this in a very small 9mm was a blunder. Time will tell. The initial surge means nothing.

    By GeorgiaShooter. on Jan 8, 2014

  12. Neat!

    Think the Raven Concealment Vanguard would work on this, or is the trigger frame too slim to fit?

    By Dunc on Jan 8, 2014

  13. ooh! ooh! a .32acp! i’d buy that in a new yawk second!

    By Critter on Jan 8, 2014

  14. I’m sorry, maybe I’m missing something, but you said the Glock 26/27/33 is too thick but you’re a fan of the j-frame? Come again? I still believe this pistol is an answer looking for a question. There are VERY reliable and shootable micro-380s out there (e.g. Sig P238), if you have small pockets.

    By Andrew on Jan 8, 2014

  15. Sounds like an excellent choice for the first time shooter or the recoil sensitive. Glock will probably sell a ton of these and after driving everyone into a frenzy, wait until sales taper THEN bring the 9mm version to the market.

    By mongooseman on Jan 8, 2014

  16. Yawn…sure glock will sell a lot of them, but if I’m looking for a concealable gun, the glock 26 is still the go to. I think that besides pocket carry (which I fervently detest) there is no place you could hide this pistol that you couldn’t also hide a 26. That said, I don’t own one, so who knows?
    But I still hate the .380

    By John on Jan 8, 2014

  17. Being a lock breach I wonder how hot you can load the .380s and it not have problems.

    By Paul on Jan 8, 2014

  18. Someone out there reloads 380? See that’s why they should just start at 9mm period. Mongooseman probably nailed it though.

    By GeorgiaShooter. on Jan 9, 2014

  19. I know of no .380 loads that consistently meet the FBI protocol test standards; until one is validated as meeting that threshold, I’ll continue to recommend other calibers for most uses…

    By DocGKR on Jan 9, 2014

  20. Thanks for the review Todd. One thing I want to know, and I haven’t found the answer, is if the mag release is reversible like a true gen4. The lack of reversible mag release kept me from getting a Shield.

    By Luke H. on Jan 9, 2014

  21. This. But in 9mm. Like everyone has been asking for for years. Not 380. But if this gives them some experience in tooling up small single stacks in the USA. Fine. I can wait.

    By Dandapani on Jan 9, 2014

  22. Hey, it’s a reliable glock, even at 380. I’m ready, and am looking forward to the 9mm version.

    By Sam on Jan 9, 2014

  23. DocGKR’s comment about the current inadaquacy of existing .380 cartridge terminal performance is critical, if not crucial.

    The implied challenge is now for quality ammunition companies to apply their chemical, engineering, materials and manufacturing expertise into developing a truly viable .380 cartridge/bullet combination.

    I suspect that given the improvements to the 9mm cartridge in the past 5 years, applying such to .380 development is not an insurmountable obsticle.

    Best, Jon

    By Jon Stein on Jan 10, 2014

  24. other users of this gun have stated that there are some issues with failure to feeds, amongst others, this sounds like a dog and pony show here. why were the bugs in this model not covered in the story?

    By alan on Jan 10, 2014

  25. Because the author was reporting his actual experience rather than what anonymous “others” have said.

    By ToddG on Jan 10, 2014

  26. DocGKR: Winchester’s FMJ load for the .380 has a decent truncated cone design. While it won’t expand, it should get adequate penetration, I’d think, and the bullet should be more effective than the normal rounded tip FMJ’s. Far from ideal, of course, and I don’t think it is possible to turn the .380 into anything but what it is–a very marginal caliber at best–but the Winchester FMJ might represent one of the better options.

    By SteveJ on Jan 11, 2014

  27. I have ordered two 42s. One for me and one for my wife. Will be great for a all day shooter in .380.

    By Carl Adkins on Jan 11, 2014

  28. 50,000 round torture rest?

    By Wood on Jan 11, 2014

  29. I could say many things.But 9mm . Thats all.

    By Baka tah Damaja on Jan 12, 2014

  30. I think this pistol will potentially be a flop long term if they put the price point at $500.00+. There are too many very good manufacturers producing quality .380’s at a much more reasonable price that are very reliable. I’m sure there are many Glock enthusiasts who will disagree but to place the price so high will push away many consumers especially when there are viable substitutes. In the beginning it will seem like a hit but long term I believe most consumers will not pay $500.00+ for a .380. The other challenge will be to compete against other pistols just as small with a frame less than 1” thick, barrel 3.125”, capacity 7+1 rounds (6 with flush magazine), height 4.6”, caliber 9mm, etc. Yes, I’m talking about the M&P Shield in 9mm with a current store price of $400 – $440. When you compare that to the Glock 42 which is about the same specs one would have to ask the question why someone would pay almost $100 more (when you add in transfer fees + tax) for a .380 pistol with the same or less capacity than the M&P Shield or other subcompact 9mm that are close to the same size as the Glock 42. I think Glock has really missed the mark with this new pistol when so many of their loyal customers have been asking for a single stack subcompact 9mm for years.

    By VMT on Jan 12, 2014

  31. Thanks for the write up. I haven’t gotten to shoot one yet but am looking forward to it.

    I won’t disagree that it will out-shoot the pocket .380s (like the SW Bodyguard or Ruger LCP)… but the 42 is significantly larger than those guns. If I want a gun that is a better shooter than an LCP/Bodyguard and can deal with the extra size, then why wouldn’t I just carry a MP Shield or something in 9mm?

    At least on paper, the 42 seems under-powered for it’s size, or over-sized for it’s power. I think we all would have liked to see this gun chambered in 9mm.

    By Rob on Jan 13, 2014

  32. I subscribe to the idea a gun you can shoot well and carry easily is the one you will most likely fight with not the larger gun you only carry in winter while wearing a jacket etc. this gun does full a niche ( occupied by others as well) for an very shoot able 380. Regardless of caliber shot placement is what counts more than anything. Would 9mm be better? Sure as far as reloading 380’s I do along with 32’s and 25’s !

    By Dan on Jan 14, 2014

  33. I feel fairly confident with my little S+W 38 J frame if a quick draw is required. Let’s face it, one must react faster than the bad guy.
    With the little Glock 42 I’m afraid under duress I’ll shoot myself in the leg.

    By Yellowbelly on Jan 15, 2014

  34. Todd, thanks for the review. I appreciate your objectivity and the legitimate comparisons. I have tried numerous .380’s for a back-up role and have never been satisfied. They have either been too light and small or too large and heavy. It sounds like Glock has found the sweet spot at least for me. I am sure there were a lot of naysayers and haters when when the G-17 was first introduced. I wouldn’t be suprised if this offering is a big success.

    By Dennis on Jan 16, 2014

  35. That J-frame is the exact model I carry. It took me a while to find one. I sent it off to Karl Sokol for an action job and std XS sight and my example is a smooth shooter. I can’t imagine this little .380 replacing my J-frame. 1. The J-frame is just flat reliable. 2. The J-frame is extremely safe for pocket carry, with or without a holster. 3. There is no way the CT grips are going to be anywhere near as well-executed on the Glock.

    By The Judge on Jan 18, 2014

  36. This was an excellent article and I took advantage of the “Blue Line” benefit and have ordered one. The .380 is lethal and that’s truly the reason we carry firearms which is as a last resort, to use deadly force to save ourselves from being killed. Glock has always been the choice of Law Enforcement due to its reliability and excellent construction. As a retired police officer and SWAT Team member, a firearm with a “safety” is useless! Glock has a common sense “safety” which is on the trigger. Through 28 years, we were always trained that your finger NEVER goes inside the trigger guard until it’s time to use the weapon, period, paragraph, the end.

    By Ron on Jan 18, 2014

  37. I really have to shake my head at the armchair quarterbacks that have missed the point of this gun – it’s not for you men, it’s for women! As a woman who owns two Glocks (Gen4 26 and a Gen3 19c) I would still like a smaller Glock to carry in my purse. Yes it would be nice if the 42 was a 9mm so I can share ammo, but guess what? A .380 is going to protect me just as a 9mm will if I have to use it for self defense.
    When you take your girlfriend or wives to the gun shop and she wants a small gun don’t even try to tell me that you would not prefer to buy her a Glock that is known for its quality and accuracy. Needless to say I am looking forward to seeing/holding this gun, and adding to my Glock collection.

    By GlockGirl on Jan 18, 2014

  38. I must of missed the advertisement that the 42 is for women only. I hope that was a “tongue and cheek” statement. Otherwise, you would sound foolish and clueless.

    By Ron on Jan 18, 2014

  39. Nope not in the least bit clueless. I am well aware that the fastest growing demographic obtaining HCP’s and buying handguns is women. The size this demographic is drawn to is a small handgun that is easily carried in a purse or concealed on you without having to wear a overly baggy shirt or coat. This size handgun was the only size that Glock did not have and now the 42 fills that void. Glock would be clueless to not advertise this gun towards that demographic. And as far as I am concerned their is no such thing as a “man only” or “woman only” gun regardless of what color it’s painted.

    By GlockGirl on Jan 19, 2014

  40. GlockGirl – To call everyone or many of us “armchair” quarterbacks is funny since you have no idea who we are or how much experience we have in the firearm industry. Glock is a great pistol but there are other combat pistols that are just as reliable. Glock has lost a lot of the law enforcement market to these other manufacturers due to other companies putting out high quality pistols like Glock. This pistol was not made just for women nor has the company made any such statement. This pistol is made for both “men” and “women” for various reasons. I have taken a number of female shooters out to the range and a subcompact .380 is not always easier to shoot for them. I have also experienced .380’s that are snapper than a subcompact 9mm due to the types of materials used and the design of the pistol. I will also repeat what I said above about the price point, “…to place the price so high will push away many consumers especially when there are viable substitutes”.

    By VMT on Jan 19, 2014

  41. The AmmoQuest series on YouTube had a number of .380 loads that performed respectably in the FBI test standards. I should note that the author of the video series did not test against the barrier penetration standards, since these are less important for self defense rounds. But he did test in both bare gelatin and calibrated ordinance gelatin covered in 4 layers of heavy denim, and a couple loads performed well.

    By mruseless on Jan 19, 2014

  42. To “GLOCKGIRL” : You stated ” it’s (42) not for you men, it’s for women!”. Then you say “their (there) is no such thing as a “man only” or “woman only” gun”. It’s amazing that you may have a CCP!

    By Ron on Jan 20, 2014

  43. I just bought one yesterday. Was not going to, but sales clerk handed me one and said, “check this out” as I waited in the long line for other items. Turns out the long line was EVERYONE picking up their pre-ordered G42.
    I, myself, am not a.big 380 fan. but with 25 years LEO experience, I’ve come to the conclusion that any caliber gun you have ON you is better than a cell phone or a set of car keys for stopping a man intent on doing you harm.
    My wife, who has a Sig P238 and a G23, took one look at this gun and promptly proclaimed the G42 now belongs to her. Some of you may not know, but one thing females and small-stature folks have a problem with on most of the new 380 “pocket wonders” is being able to manipulate the slide with enough strength to chamber a round or clear a malfunction. My wife is no exception, but she had no trouble with this one, however. She will be shooting it this weekend. I will shoot it today and comment later.
    I will be shooting this one today, (with my wife’s permission) and I’ll report back.

    By Shark on Jan 21, 2014

  44. Shot the 42 today. I have to say that it is the most pleasant 380 I’ve shot. I’ve shot numerous brands and configurations from Walther PPK/S to Sig p238, Taurus models like the PT58, Baretta, Browning, etc. It is easy to manipulate and fired comfortably. Almost no whip like the Ruger and really has a good trigger. I may be biased in that though, because I’ve been shooting Glocks with the same type of trigger for nearly 15 years. (my first duty sidearms were revolvers). Anyway, if you can take advantage of the Blueline pricing, it is a steal. The only thing I have as a negative would be the slide release. It needs the extended type…. definitely stiff. I shot around 150 rounds of old, dirty, assorted full metal jacket and 3 mags worth of HPs. No malfunctions of any type noted. Shot steel rack plates and static plates with no difficulty. I have ordered 2 more. It is well worth the money, caliber biases aside. I allowed several fellow “staff” shoot it as well and they were on the phone as soon as they handed it back to me.
    It was THAT fun to shoot. Hope this helps the original poster. He was spot on.

    By Shark on Jan 21, 2014

  45. Thanks for the review Shark!

    As for the slide lock, I’m accustomed to grabbing the slide to release it (same action for checking the chamber, clearing a jam, or closing the slide), so I never touch the slide lock except to lock the slide back. I’ve ground the one on my Glock smaller so I’m less likely to accidentally bump it (a big problem for me before). YMMV.

    How do you like the grip on the 42 without the finger grooves compared to Gen 3 & Gen 4 Glock grips with finger grooves?

    By Redchrome on Jan 21, 2014

  46. The grip was surprisingly nice. Has the Gen 4 “stippling” but not as aggressive. This is good because the standard Gen 4 pattern is so aggressive that it tears or shreds clothing where it rubs, i.e. Socks on a ankle rig or inside of pants. I know this from experience as my BU is a Gen 4 27, and my duty weapon is a Gen 4 22. My uniforms and socks have abraded areas where they rub against the grip! I’ve also rubbed a hole in my center console of my unit.
    As far as the finger grips or lack thereof, I’ve never really noticed any benefit or detriment on any of them, Gen 1 through 4…… Once you practice or train with it you get used to it and never even think about it.
    As for the slide stop lever, your technique works, but has two major concerns we train to avoid. One, it takes a fraction longer to do rather than sweeping the release. Also potentially causes one to lose the two handed stance along with sight picture acquisition. And two, the most problematic, it’s human nature to want to “assist” the slide moving forward, therefore slowing the inertia down…this sometimes causes a malfunction by not allowing the slide to fully chamber the round. This is compounded with dirty weapon (already fired some rounds) or imperfect cartridge cases. Thanks for your input and hopefully I was able to articulate what I meant….my country boy English can be challenging, at times.

    By Shark on Jan 22, 2014

  47. Rubbing a hole in the center of your unit… ouch

    By mrUseless on Jan 23, 2014

  48. LOL. Even a 380 could be a concern for that!!!
    Badge humor can be edgy.

    By Shark on Jan 23, 2014

  49. Great review Todd, hands down I’ll take a Glock any day for reliability and dependability. Yes some guns might be prettier but looks is not for me. I’ll definitely have a G42 soon. 20 years ago I was not a fan of a .380 but today I own 5 carried by myself as backup and by my wife and daughter. Just 2 weeks ago I ran about 50 rounds of .380 self defense rounds through a chrono- Speer gold dot, federal hydro shok, Hornady critical defense ands couple other brands. All were 850 to 950 fps. Is a .380 my first choice when “stopping a deadly threat” no but neither is a 9mm or 40 cal or 45. (12ga. w/ buckshot is definetely a “stopper”). A .380 with good quality self defense ammo will stop the threat in most self defense encounters with good shot placement. If you like the Glock 42 buy one and practice with it to be competent and safe- if you don’t buy your choice but practice with it and be safe!

    By Greg C on Jan 25, 2014

  50. Just bought a Glock 42. Absolutely love it!! Previously carried a bodyguard 380. Was not a big fan of the trigger and recoil but loved the size. This is slightly heavier and bigger but am thrilled with the recoil management. With the bodyguard the 1st shot was always off a bit. With this every shot is on the money thanks to the smooth trigger pull. You can easily rapid fire with accuracy. Paid $440 which is probably a little high but I have no regrets.

    Would love to see an extended magazine (10-15 round) available in the future, similar to the g26 & g27). Being a single stack, not expecting a 33 rounder.

    By Chris S on Jan 26, 2014

  51. I’m a pocket pistol freak…Kahr 380, PM9, Seecamp 32, Beretta 22 short Minx, Noth American Arms 380 (ouch!)Just got the new 42. It’s a nice feeling pistol that’s not to heavy. With the right size pocket, quick deployment…no problem. Would probably carry a single stack nine if it’s the same weight, give or take. I often carry a 26 in my pocket when I walk 5 or ten miles and I forget it’s there. Most of the time a carry a 19 in the waistband. A 19 in the waist and a 42 in the pocket…If one is fortunate to have both, it’s not a bad combo. I dropped Glock a line and told ’em what I wanted and they delivered. Thanks O.K., the freak wants a 7+1 32. Yea, right

    By texas freeranger on Feb 2, 2014

  52. Before actually handling the new Glock 42 I had similar reservations others have had. For example, since the G42 appeared slightly larger than most pocket .380s, why wouldn’t I just get a shield or something that shoots nicely in 9mm? But then I was able to get my hands on the G42. It’s considerably smaller than the Shield and there’s a much bigger difference in size compared to the 26/27 than pics give it credit for. The 42 is much more concealable. It’s a true baby Glock. Where I wouldn’t get my wife a 26 for CC, I’ll definitely get her a 42. There’s a huge difference in “carryability”. Even though she likes to shoot my g27 a few rounds at a time, she can’t carry it (or a 26) comfortably and is not confident enough with the recoil to train effectively with one. This is a much less intimidating gun for her and I don’t have to worry about it’s reliability or it having a safety or other extraneous crap that comes on most pocket pistols (which shoot like crap as well). I’m excited about the G42 because now she can have a viable carry option that’s as trustworthy as mine. And I’ll have fun shooting it too.

    By Ben on Feb 5, 2014

Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.