Fondled The Glock 43 Today....I Like It

J

Joe_Pike

New member
First, let me say that I'm not a fanboy. I own a 26 and a 19 because I think Glock makes a good firearm at a reasonable price. Lately, I have been thinking about moving to a small 9mm with a couple of extra magazines instead of the trusty 642, but can't decide on what gun to settle on. I have a CM9 and even though, for some reason, I haven't been able to convince myself to start carrying it, it has so far been the winner on size.....until now.

The 43 is marginally bigger than the 42 (and the CM9), but it still fits comfortably in my pocket unlike the Shield, LC9s and XDs. It draws from the pocket nearly as well as the 642 even though it is blockier. It is about 2.5-3.0 ounces heavier than the 642 but still doesn't feel heavy and it feels pretty good in the hand. Glock includes a flush mount mag and a mag with a pinky extension.

I didn't get to shoot it, but I like what I see and will probably pick one up when they are readily available at the $450-$475 price point. And, that means I will probably sell the 26 since there will not be much of a need for it any more. I think my search is finally over.
 
it still fits comfortably in my pocket
Click to expand...

First off let me say I own two GLOCKs and carry a G26 IWB/OWB a good bit, so I am by no means afraid of GLOCKs. However, would you feel safe carrying a G43 in your pocket with one in the chamber? I assume you would use a pocket holster, but even then I guess I would be little hesitant.
 
I would not be hesitant at all to carry it my pocket in a holster with one in the chamber. The 642 is in a holster and is fully loaded all of the time, so, not much difference there that I can see.
 
The 642 is in a holster and is fully loaded all of the time, so, not much difference there that I can see.
Click to expand...

Yes, understood, if you’re comfortable with it than obviously that’s all that matters. I own a 442 and yes I carry it in a pocket holster fully loaded, so point taken. However, maybe it’s just my perception, but it seems the GLOCK trigger is easier to pull than the 442. Again, I’m not questioning your decision at all just asking the question.
 
Sounds like a fanboy to me but... stay groovy
Click to expand...

No, a fanboy carries a picture of Gaston Glock in his wallet, owns at least one Glock in every caliber (including .45 GAP), and refuses to own any antiquated handguns sush as revolvers and 1911s.

Me, I appreciate many different handguns, but love revolvers and 1911s.
 
Yes, understood, if you’re comfortable with it than obviously that’s all that matters. I own a 442 and yes I carry it in a pocket holster fully loaded, so point taken. However, maybe it’s just my perception, but it seems the GLOCK trigger is easier to pull than the 442. Again, I’m not questioning your decision at all just asking the question.
Click to expand...

You are correct about the trigger pull being lighter (by about half), but I figure if it's in a holster then I should be good.
 
The market is inundated now. People will buy it because it's a Glock and because that's what gun owners do, we buy guns. If it works for you awesome. I'm just not excited by something whose role can be filled with any number of options these days.
 
The market is inundated now. People will buy it because it's a Glock and because that's what gun owners do, we buy guns. If it works for you awesome. I'm just not excited by something whose role can be filled with any number of options these days.
Click to expand...

Being a Glock doesn't sway me one way or the other. To be honest, if the Shield (or any number of other guns) was this exact size I would already own one and own it cheaper than I will ever be able to get the Glock. The only one that comes close for me is the CM9 and I just can't get excited about it.
 
Does anyone else wish that Glock would come up with a different naming system for their firearms other than 2-digit numbers that convey no information about the gun in question?

Something like "Glock 45 Compact" or "Glock FS (for "full sized") 9mm."
 
So....it is more 42 like or 26 like? Not talking about shooting but just the overall impression.

I'm happy with my G42, but I wouldn't doubt I will probably want one after having fondled it also.
 
So....it is more 42 like or 26 like? Not talking about shooting but just the overall impression.
Click to expand...

Much closer to the 42 in my opinion. A little taller slide, a smidge taller over all and a tiny bit longer.

Seen two listed on facebook today, one at 550 and the second 750.
Click to expand...

I noticed one sold on Gunbroker for $905.:eek: For that money it better come with a 42 also. No, I'll wait until they're where they're supposed to be. I thought about ordering one through Bud's for $474, but they charge your credit card up front and have no idea when they'll be able to ship it to you. I don't care to let them use my money for free.
 
I have had absolutely no interest in a single stack 9mm (my LCR does pocket duty) since a double stack 9mm is as easy to conceal in most situations for me.... BUUUUUUT I've been carrying my LCR a bit more often now that its been warming up (athletic shorts taking the dogs out at night, etc) and I'm starting to think I'll give the 43 a look when the LGS has one.
 
Well, I am already seeing sale prices on Gunbroker coming down, so, Glock must be putting a good number of them out there. I am hoping I can pick one up in the next couple of months for $475 or less. I wonder how difficult it will be to find extra magazines.
 
The 43 is marginally bigger than the 42 (and the CM9), but it still fits comfortably in my pocket unlike the Shield, LC9s and XDs.
Click to expand...

I cant understand how the 43 will fit in your pocket but a Shield and LC9 wont. The Shield and LC9 are actually shorter in length and thinner than the 43, the only thing the Glock has going for it is its a bit shorter in height. With all that said they are all so close in size that it shouldn't be the difference of one being able to be concealed and the others not.

Nope... it would be like S&W changing their model numbers from two to four digits
Click to expand...

S&W's now discontinued gen 3 autos did have four digits.
 
Last edited:
I cant understand how the 43 will fit in your pocket but a Shield and LC9 wont. The Shield and LC9 are actually shorter in length and thinner than the 43, the only thing the Glock has going for it is its a bit shorter in height. With all that said they are all so close in size that it shouldn't be the difference of one being able to be concealed and the others not
Click to expand...

Well, the pockets don't lie. I've put them all in my pocket (not at the same time) with flush magazines and the Shield, LC9s and XDs just don't seem to work as well.
 
I spent the weekend working at a range that has a 43 as a rental. I shot it as well. It is noticeably larger than the 42 (had one of those too), and significantly larger than the LC9s. It's a close call on the Shield and XDS, it should be noted that the Glock 43 isn't a true single stack, it's a staggered "stack and a half" like the Shield.

The only way I can see it fitting a pocket better than the LC9 is if the Ruger had the pinky extension on the magazine.

I have average size hands, and the Glock 43's little mini extension on the magazine only catches half of my pinky finger, where the LC9s pinky extension catches all of it. The Glock was uncomfortable to shoot for me due to the half-catch of the pinky, I would prefer to just leave it hanging if it doesn't have full purchase.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top