Glock Model 42 — A New Single-Stack .380 ACP Carry Pistol
Glock will sell a small, single-stack .380 ACP pistol in 2014. The new carry gun, designated the Glock 42, was supposed to be a deep, dark secret until SHOT Show 2014, but news leaked out throughout the blogosphere, and Glock has confirmed that this is the real deal. Here’s the good news: the pistol is light (13.4 oz. empty) and slim (0.94 inches wide). Under 6″ in length, it should carry discretely in a variety of holsters. Made in the USA, the Glock 42 has a 6-round mag, and a 5.5-lb trigger pull weight.
First “Un-Boxing” of Glock 42 Carry Pistol in .380 ACP:
Here’s the bad news: It seems Glock fans were hoping for a slim, single stock 9mm, as the .380 ACP cartridge is considered under-powered by many self-defense “gurus”. Some would-be buyers were also hoping that Glock would finally jettison the distinctive bulged-bottom backstrap that many shooters consider uncomfortable at best, and just plain wrong at worst. For many people, that fat bulge in the lower half of the grip causes the gun to point wrong. For many of us, the “hump” on the back of the grip forces an unnatural wrist angle when firing. If you don’t understand, shoot a Glock and a classic Sig back to back and you may experience ergonomic enlightenment.
Does the Glock 42
Really Represent Progress?
We find it interesting that, in the 105 years since Colt released its m1908 “Pocket Hammerless”, handgun design hasn’t necessarily advanced that far. Let us explain…
Compared to the Glock 42, the slim, .380 ACP Colt m1908 (derived from Colt’s .32 ACP m1903) has a smoother trigger, and boasts a 7-shot magazine (vs. a 6-shot mag for the Glock 42). The Colt also has a better-shaped grip, plus a smoother exterior (with fewer bumps, ridges, and snag-points). Remarkably, the 105-year-old Colt is actually thinner — it is 3/4″ wide compared to just under 1″ for the Glock 42.
On the other hand, at 13.4 ounces, the Glock is much lighter in weight than the 24 ounce Colt, and, yes, the Glock 42 is shorter than the m1908. For some, the Glock’s lighter weight is all-important. Others may prefer the Colt given its all-metal construction, lovely blued finish, and classic styling. Many gun aficionados feel that the m1903/m1908 pistols were the prettiest of John Moses Browning’s self-loading designs. What do you think? Is the Glock 42 really a better .380 ACP pistol than the classic Colt m1908?
Similar Posts:
- Carry Pistol Comparison: SIG P365, S&W Shield, Glock 43
- 9mm Carry Pistol Comparison: Glock, Sig Sauer, Smith & Wesson
- Colt Defense LLC and New Colt Holding Corp. Merge
- Snake Reborn — Colt Offers New Python Revolvers for 2020
- New Glock 43 — Single-Stack 9x19mm Carry Gun
Share the post "Glock Model 42 — A New Single-Stack .380 ACP Carry Pistol"
Tags: .380 ACP, Carry, Glock, Glock 42, Pocket Pistol
For the last 15 plus years, many of us have asked Glock for a slim frame, eight shot, 4.25″ barrel 45ACP, and they give us this?
Perhaps with his product numbering system, Mr. Glock will give us a Glock 43 (9mm version) and Glock 44 (40S&W version) of this pistol before he introduces the long requested Glock 45 in 45acp?
This article sounds very negative for something the writer has never touched, seen, or fired. Additionally, to claim that this is just an old recycled idea, remember that the famed Colt required more maintenance, care, and attention than the new Glock will. We can’t really say one is “better” being it isn’t in consumer hands yet.
While I’m not a big fan of the .380, it has its place. I know lots of guys keep screaming “.45!”, but the round isn’t more lethal, is harder to build a concealable handgun, and recoils more meaning slower follow-up shots. It takes an average of 1.5 rounds with a handgun to incapacitate somebody with any cartridge .380 to .44 Magnum. So why would you choose the lower capacity, slower-shooting round?
Additionally, I’ve seen lots of students complain about the Glock angle. If you tell them to be an Alpha type, ignore it and practice, its easily overcome and provides great recoil control and fast follow-ups. Only cry babies complain about how the gun “feels”.
“Additionally, I’ve seen lots of students complain about the Glock angle. If you tell them to be an Alpha type, ignore it and practice, its easily overcome and provides great recoil control and fast follow-ups. Only cry babies complain about how the gun “feels”.”
Ergonomics ARE important. Why put up with something that is poorly designed? I have owned four Glocks over the years, m17, m19, m23, m34. I practiced with them — a lot. I shot the model 34 in IDPA, shooting hundreds of rounds a week, with many hours of dry-fire practice to get used to the trigger, and the gun’s odd pointing. Shot the 34 in dozens of matches. With the bad ergonomics, after using the Glock for a year, I actually developed severe tendonitis and inflammation in my right elbow, to the point that my orthopedist recommended surgery. Rather than go under the knife, I simply put the Glock 34 in the safe and switched to a Sig p226. I continued to shoot hundreds of rounds a week, with lots of dry-fire practice. NO MORE PAIN — the tendonitis disappeared. Also I started winning my IDPA matches (even with the heavier DA first shot, when cocking the hammer was not allowed). Trust me, I put in the investment in money and time trying to do the Glock thing. The ANGLE of the grip is not the issue. It is the rearward-facing bulge at the bottom of the grip that causes most of the problems. You won’t see that on anything other than a Glock. Reason — it is really, really bad from an ergonomic standpoint. Why put up with a very bad grip if there are other handguns with equal accuracy, reliability, and potentially better resale value? I have coached a couple dozen new pistol shooters. Every first time shooter struggled with the Glock in the beginning. They simply shot straighter (put more rounds in center of target) with a Sig, HK, or S&W. If the Glock design really did represent “perfection”, S&W and Springfield and Ruger wouldn’t be grabbing market share from the Austrian Company. There are simply other, better polymer guns now, which offer the reliability of the Glock, without the shortcomings.
At least you can see the sights on the Glock! Shot a Glock 22 a lot but my carry gun is a 1911 … period. I like the 1908 but to make it useful it needs a set of Novaks installed and just who could bring themselves to mill one of these???
I have a G17 Gen 1 that I’ve owned since the mid 80’s and a G23 Gen 3 and like both immensely! They can’t be beat for reliability and the shooting angle from the grip doesn’t bother me in the least. I would love to see a slim single stack 9mm version of the the Glock for concealed carry as well, I would definitely buy one!
Yeah, since anyone can simply walk into any dealer and buy a Colt 1908. A lot of people including me like the .380 and will go for this new Glock. If you don’t like the caliber then don’t buy it, and if you can’t shoot a Glock then go with something else. I’ll admit that Sigs are great guns, but I can shoot my G19 just as well as a P250. Some people just need something to whine about.
Not joining the pi$$ing match above, but for compact 380’s, there are only two choices in my book. The Sig P238 and the Colt Mustang. Both are fantastic shooters for their size, and are the only “small” 380s that have decent triggers, ergonomics, accuracy, and etc. The Colt and the Sig are basically the same, just pick the brand you prefer. With that said, I’d be willing to give the new Glock a go… I can’t knock it until I try it!
I’ve been very pleased with my Glock mdl.19, and after 54 years of shooting the 1911 in competition,all of them having the rounded mainspring housing, the “hump” does not bother me a bit.
I would not be comfortable carrying the Colt 380 hammerless with a live round in the chamber, ( as I also would not with my 1911’s), but it’s not an issue with the Glock or the PPK/S with the hammer block safety.
A concealed carry (legal, of course) pistol is a very personal choice so it’s the buyers/owners decision what they want, know & carry.
I think Glock is making a mistake by jumping into the pocket 380 game. It’s far too late for the 42 to be profitable in the US market. Kahr, Ruger, S&W, and Sig already made their mark, and with pocket 9mm’s becoming the new trend, I really don’t see a place for the G42. I’m sure a few will sell at launch, but when the novelty wears off, so will interest in this pistol. They’d be better off building the 28 in the US, instead of making an entirely new gun.
I personally think the ad is photo shopped nonsense. Glock just responded to peoples complaints last year when they released the 30s. So they obviously have started listening. I know a lot of people who want a single stack 9 along the lines of the S&W shield ( but without the useless and hazardous safety) I have never heard anyone request a single stack 380 that is overbuilt for what it is. It costs a lot of money to introduce a new model. I doubt Glock would waste the money on engineering and advertising for a pistol in a caliber that has been out of fashion for 6 years. All in all the Ad just looks fake to me. I believe its the work of a troll going off of peoples fears and comments that Glock will release a 380. Lets pray to God I’m right because if I’m not than Glock just introduced an under powered under capacity and overbuilt Block. They’ll have my money if its a shield sized 9. they’ll lose my respect if its a 380.
I wish someone would make/remake the 1908 Colt again.
I would buy more than a few.
A glock 380 has been in existence for quite awhile already. Mexico has been selling it for a while already. Good practical gun.
I have a Pocket Hammerless in .32 ACP that in spite of a few extra ounces would be easy to carry – if I didn’t feel like Humphrey Bogart in Casablanca (http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Casablanca). It fits my hand better than any dbl-stack and I can shoot it almost as well as my single-stack S&W 4014 that I carry.
You must be a freak of nature, editor. Hundred of thousands shoot lots of rounds through Glock without crippling themselves. Glocks are the most reliable, durable, safe, cost-effective duty pistol on the market. Period.
Editor: My Sig P226 has been more reliable than any of my Glocks, with round counts in the thousands for each. Yes the Glock is reliable, but the Sig has been even more reliable — insanely reliable. Cost-Effective? Buy a Glock and it will go down in value. I can sell my German-made P226 today for $200.00 more than I paid for it. Safe? Watch the videos of cops shooting themselves with their Glocks. There are plenty. I really don’t understand why you would even claim the Glock is a particularly “safe” pistol, say, compared to a P7m8 or a gun with an effective grip safety.
If it was so bad, why didn’t you just have the hump cut down or get a backstrap that fills the gap?
Editor: In the matches I shot, in the class in which I competed, the pistol had to be stock, unmodified (other than replacement of normal sights with night sights). Also, had I chopped/hacked the backstrap it would have dramatically reduced the value of the pistol. Understand that the bulge in the back of the Glock grip not only makes the gun point badly for many folks, but it unnecessarily increases the overall circumferance of the grip in an utterly useless way — there is nothing but air under that fat bulge. You have to ask yourself why no other handgun grip looks like a Glock grip — no previous model and no subsequent design. In an industry where gun makers are constantly copying each other, why has no other mfg. gone with a Glock bulge on the grip. The reason? It is just a bad design which becomes obvious the instant you try any number of other designs.
Why are people taking market share? Anytime more guns are entering the market, unless they sell zero guns, they are taking some share. The reality is Glock is selling them as fast as they can make them. Their sales have not slowed at all thanks to the awful Ruger, Springfield, and M&P offerings.
Editor: Have you actually shot the latest Rugers and M&Ps? Have you noted how they have performed in IDPA matches.
“Their sales have not slowed at all thanks to the awful Ruger, Springfield, and M&P offerings.”
I don’t see how you can legitimately place Springfield in the same category of as the Ruger’s and the S&W’s. With the exception of the new XDS sub-compacts, Springfield has been on-point with their pistols.
You all need to use a little decaf.
“My Sig P226 has been more reliable than any of my Glocks, with round counts in the thousands for each.”
I have a hard time believing that. Did you have a problematic Glock? Meanwhile, Sig Sauer pistols have been known to be problematic the last several years since the move to Exter.
“Buy a Glock and it will go down in value.”
This isn’t true. New Glocks are $500. Used Glocks are $475. That isn’t drastic.
“I can sell my German-made P226 today for $200.00 more than I paid for it.”
I have a hard time believing that unless you got a particularly good deal. I have several Sigs and I see used ones selling for much less than “$200 more than I paid for it”. As a matter of fact, they are usually significantly less. Even with collectable value inherent in the W. German P226s, I frequently find them in the $350-400 range. Looking right now on Gunbroker, I see used Sig Mark 25 pistols for about $100 less than the cost at the local store. Looks like they aren’t appreciating either.
“Watch the videos of cops shooting themselves with their Glocks. There are plenty. I really don’t understand why you would even claim the Glock is a particularly “safe” pistol, say, compared to a P7m8 or a gun with an effective grip safety.”
The videos of cops shooting themselves, which I haven’t really seen a large number of, are due to them breaking the rules of firearms safety. They are putting their finger on the trigger and pointing the gun at themselves. I don’t know about you, but I don’t know any gun that keeps the person from squeezing the trigger with the pistol pointing at something the user doesn’t intend to shoot. A Glock won’t fire unless the trigger is pulled. PERIOD. This isn’t necessarily true with other handguns, especially those with grip safeties…which are a proven and unnecessary point of additional mechanical failure. Why do you think they had to come up with Series 80 Colts to allow them to be carried for duty? HINT: They aren’t drop-safe, even with the grip safety.
“Also, had I chopped/hacked the backstrap it would have dramatically reduced the value of the pistol”
Why worry about the value of the pistol? So what if it is reduced down to say $425? Big deal. You could get it professionally done and may increase the value, after all, you’re “fixing” the problem that makes it such a bad pistol, at least in your eyes. Additionally, there are inserts for the frame which takes care of the issue for those that don’t like it, such as the GFA. The new generation pistols come with a modular back-strap to configure it like you like.
“Have you actually shot the latest Rugers and M&Ps? Have you noted how they have performed in IDPA matches.”
How does this address my point? How much have these pistols DECREASED demand for Glocks? I certainly have fired new designs and the Rugers have proven to be unreliable to the point where I can’t depend on it to save my life. With the M&P line, mechanical safeties are dangerous for the end-user. Not only is it a potential mechanical failure, but it is an issue the must be addressed in training. I don’t care for the M&P, but I don’t go around bashing them as a retarded design. But I suppose the M&P is to the Glock what the new Glock .380 is to the old Colt. M&P is a recycled idea, I suppose. With a Glock, or a DA/SA like a P226, you can draw and fire without worrying about disengaging a mechanical safety during a high-stress situation. I don’t care about IDPA “games”. They teach bad habits that will get you killed should you need to use your sidearm to save your life. Performance in such matches is not indicative of the quality of the firearm, but rather the level of skill of the person shooting participating.
If you hate Glock so much, what was the point of this article? Just another avenue for spreading hatred of Glock? Don’t be so upset when others don’t share your hate.
Also, thousands of rounds of Glock shooting a year (and Sig and 1911s), I have yet to injure myself. I guess I’m an exception to your rule because the grip “bump” doesn’t bother me or make me hurt at night”.
———
Editor: Enjoy your Glocks. If they work for you great. I owned four. After many thousands of rounds I sold them all. They are not missed. The short trigger reset was good for quick follow-up, but otherwise the trigger pull was “sproingy”, stagey, and too heavy without “fluff and buff”. The Glocks were reliable. But so was my Sig p226 which has had only one FTF and zero FTE in over 6000 rounds. The Sig was more accurate both for me and for newbies. When I took new people to the range I let them shoot the P226, and the Glock 34 or 17. No novice I shot with ever shot better with the Glocks. Nearly all novices tended to “pull” their shots to one side with the Glocks at first — not so with the Sig, as it points more naturally and the SA pull (after 1st shot) is lighter and smoother than the Glock. Shooting the Glocks (for 1000s of rounds) led to painful arm nerve/muscle problems for me. Yes, of course, maybe my wrist/arm/elbow are aligned differently than yours. But it was really amazing that a serious problem simply went away when I switched guns.
My thoughts on single stack 380 ACP: I have a Glock 27 with two nice holsters that will also fit my Glock 23. I find that although I love to carry either Glock I find myself grabbing one of my 380s on the fly. I have an IWB that I can clip on in seconds without the undoing my belt and pants to position the holster. also my 380 is an alloy yet light weight enough to hardly notice.
The 380 Doesn’t have the firepower like the .40 but at least I have it. maybe someday I’ll wish I had the .40 but where I live the chances of meeting up with a need for any gun is pretty slim but it can happen anywhere anytime. I’m 53 years old and so far haven’t needed a gun but I do carry often.
I really like the way Glocks shoot and I can hit with them better than I can with my Micro eagle. I’ve never really felt that a 9mm was for me because they aren’t much smaller than the .40 but the difference between the 380 and the 9mm seems to be enough to give up a little firepower for comfort I just like some of the form factors of 380s.
The Glock 42 will be my next gun for two reasons.
1) The ability group tighter groups than my micro eagle.
2) I assume that a single clip IWB will be fast and easy to gear up and go with more comfort that the fatter .40 Glocks.
I love all handguns that I can shoot well. There are a few Guns that I don’t like but Glock is by far not one of them.
I also don’t like iphones and Love my Windows phone even over android if someone needs data to psychoanalyze me.
Not sure about the grip angle, I really like my glock 19 but I’ve only put about 100 rounds down range so far. Intrigued about this new .380 I carry a Kahr P380…..very poor purchase choice, and have had my eye on a replacement for some time now.
Very interesting comments on all guns. We all have our preferences based on feel, performance, and appearance. I have shot thousands of rounds as many of you have and the handgun I absolutley love is the Walther P99. Smooth, accurate, and never jams. I’d put my life on the line with this gun (and have) and will always have it with me. I think you all have great reasons for choosing your weapon and I have mine. Rock on!!