Oh, horrors - the G43

G

Glenn E. Meyer

New member
First rumbles of a 6 shot 9mm single stack Glock. Supposedly the boxes have been seen. Size of a Shield?

Wait and see! It would have to be easily pocket sized for me to be interested. I already have a slew of 380 and pocket revolvers. On the other hand - always room for one more.
 
I've been hearing this rumor too, substantiated enough that it seems real.

I just got a PPS. I'll probably keep the PPS since I know I love it. But I'll be looking to try the G43 as well.
 
The rumors of the G43 are what is making me delay purchasing a Shield. Of course, even if the Austrians send it, there will be a clamor and they will no doubt be hard to come by for a bit.
 
Maybe there's something I'm missing, but with a 6+1 capacity, how would a Glock 43 be necessarily more desirable than Shield if they're the same size? To me, I'd want it to be much closer to the size of the 42 to give it the edge.
 
Hmmm. If true...why not release it at SHOT show last month? Not even hinted at during the biggest firearms trade show of the year?? Now 4 weeks later boxes are being seen?

Sounds like wishful thinking combined with internet rumor.

That said, id like to see it happen.
 
I'd much rather see it the size of the Glock 19, only single stack. Like the Glock version of the Kahr CT9 or CW9, with 7-8 rounds.
 
I'm pretty sure it is true. I've heard it from multiple sources. This is going to sound so silly now, but I've actually met someone who says that they've seen one. [gasp!]

I know this though, Glock will make a lot of money on a single-stack 9mm if they made one. If I didn't already have a good carry 9, I'd probably buy one.
 
I was told by a Glock rep it was in the works... last year.... and a lot of times gun companies release guns not during shot show. Ruger does it quite often.
 
how would a Glock 43 be necessarily more desirable than Shield if they're the same size?
Click to expand...
Because it's a GLOCK. Writing the name in all-caps is no affront to netiquette: that's how the company (and its fanboys) spells it. The G42 wasn't really any great shakes either, but the brand carries weight.

That said, we didn't see it at SHOT. That could mean it's not really in development (which is possible), or it could mean that they don't want to kill the market for the G42 just yet.
 
Oh, horrors - the G43
First rumbles of a 6 shot 9mm single stack Glock. Supposedly the boxes have been seen. Size of a Shield?
Click to expand...

A six shot? Probably too small/short of a grip.

(7 shot PF9 sitting nicely in my pocket right now. Size with finger extension baseplate, "just right". IMHO.)
 
They are going to have to pull off some magic to get it down to the 42's size, which really isnt all that much smaller than the 26 as it is.

I still dont really see the point. I have 42's, but as much as I like them, they have not replaced my 26's. If I were to carry the 42, it would be carried in the same places as my 26's, either ankle or Smart Carry.

Big question to me is, why would you give up the 10+ rounds of 9mm, and the capability of using your 17 and 19 mags in it? Same goes for a 9mm version. Seems youre giving up more than you gain.
 
Hey there...

Who's this "Glenn E. Meyer" guy and why do the moderators let him get away with this rumour and innuendo?

I'd be interested and so would a lot of other "fan boys".

Geeze it's not like I didn't own 7 blue steel 1911s!
 
They are going to have to pull off some magic to get it down to the 42's size, which really isnt all that much smaller than the 26 as it is.

I still dont really see the point. I have 42's, but as much as I like them, they have not replaced my 26's. If I were to carry the 42, it would be carried in the same places as my 26's, either ankle or Smart Carry.

Big question to me is, why would you give up the 10+ rounds of 9mm, and the capability of using your 17 and 19 mags in it? Same goes for a 9mm version. Seems youre giving up more than you gain.
Click to expand...

While I agree with you on those aspects, I find myself leaning very heavily towards buying a Glock 42. I never loved .380, and I never loved Glocks, (I have a 19 now.) but my issue is in the summer I can't be bothered to carry the Glock 19, and even now in the winter, I am a lot of times I am in dress clothes for work which is generally a pair of slacks, tucked in dress shirt, and often times lately since its -5 right now, a sweater or sweater vest. Granted the sweater and vests make things easier, I couldnt hide a gun on my ankle, and I am leaning towards a Glock 42 for a pocket gun.

I have owned a Kahr PM-9, and a XDS-45, didn't care for eithers recoil in there respected sizes. I have owned a Ruger LCP I got for FREE from Ruger, and I hated its lack of grip and lack of sights. A Glock 42, or possibly a 43, sounds like it might be JUST right.

Often times in the colder months, if I am able to dress around it, I carry a Glock 19 or a 1911, the G42 might come in handy when I am dressed up / summer.
 
While I would probably not be interested, I have no doubt the corporate suits know what they are doing. I never thought I would want a G42, but I eventually purchased one as my pocket pistol. The G42 is the smallest pistol that my paws can comfortably and accurately handle, but can still fit in my pocket. If I am going to carry a pistol that requires me to use a waist holster, then I will stick with my G19. However, I could certainly see a single stack 9mm crushing the offerings from Ruger, Taurus, and Kel-Tec. Glock could get a good share of the CCW market without even having to directly challenge S&W or XD.
 
There are other sources of knowledge to wielders of flame of Glockarnor.

I've heard this one before but it is seems to be coming to reality now.

I would disagree that the 26 and 42 are close - having both.

I'm old fashioned and like a J frame as a pocket gun for a BUG or dress mandates it.

The 26 is a fine OWB gun. If I OWB a gun, I don't need a reduced capacity 9. In fact, I can usually carry a G19 on my belt.
 
Ive carried both my 42 and 26 in an ankle holster and a Smart Carry, and see no perceptible difference in carrying them, and I still carry my 26 because of it, and for the reasons stated above. I just dont see the need to give up what the 26 offers.

While the 42 is slightly thinner, I dont find its really enough to make that much of a difference. The overall size other wise, is very similar to the 26.

I dont pocket carry simply because my pockets are already usually full of other junk, and the types of pants I normally wear (usually Carhartt/Dickies carpenter jeans), just arent suited for it. The front pockets are too tight, and the rear pockets arent big enough. The couple of pairs of dress pants I have, just dont handle the weight very well either, even with something like my Seecamps or LCP. Even with a holster, it looks like theres a big lump in my pocket. I just find the Smart Carry to be a much better choice all around, and I can carry more of a gun to boot.

I rarely carry anything OWB, and easily carry a 17 IWB on a daily basis, with the 26 as a back up. The 19 and 26 carry just as easily IWB, although the 26 is a little harder to get a hold of quickly when carried in that manner. The 42 is the same in that respect. You reach a point of diminishing returns as you go down in size. Constant practice is necessary for any of them, but the little guns need a little extra effort, and even more so, if carried somewhere other than the waistband.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top