I agree, and would also take a Beretta 84 over a Glock 42 any day. Matter of fact Beretta has just started selling them again in the US. I want to get one!
What's up with the Glock 42 380 being so popular?
- Thread starter freenokia
- Start date
- Status
carguychris
New member
The G42 is FAR thinner and has fewer protrusions than a Beretta 84. Not really comparable for CCW IMHO, and this is coming from a die-hard 84 owner and fan. 
One of the best features I think the 42 offers is that it is the only .380 that feels and handles like all the full/mid size Glocks. I like the Ruger LCP for compactness, but it and most .380s handle completely different than a full or mid size pistol.
Although I have several Glocks and carry the 22 and 27 for a living, certain circumstances make the little 42 more convenient to carry in casual clothing, especially in a pocket. I have complete confidence I can put the .380 round any place I can with a full size and have the same effect. I have always said that the best gun to have for self defense is the one you have with you when needed. The overwhelming gun carriers have never been nor will be in a gun fight. Although if I was intentionally going into harms way I would bring a caliber that starts with a "4". However any size gun will deter and stop most any bad situation....usually without a shot. You really do not need to canon around for sake of "just in case". I have never seen anyone volunteer to take a hit from a .22 or say "its only a .22 go ahead and shoot me".
Although I have several Glocks and carry the 22 and 27 for a living, certain circumstances make the little 42 more convenient to carry in casual clothing, especially in a pocket. I have complete confidence I can put the .380 round any place I can with a full size and have the same effect. I have always said that the best gun to have for self defense is the one you have with you when needed. The overwhelming gun carriers have never been nor will be in a gun fight. Although if I was intentionally going into harms way I would bring a caliber that starts with a "4". However any size gun will deter and stop most any bad situation....usually without a shot. You really do not need to canon around for sake of "just in case". I have never seen anyone volunteer to take a hit from a .22 or say "its only a .22 go ahead and shoot me".
WildBill45
New member
Test proves the 380 can out perform the 9mm and 38 in some cases
According to recent tests, the 380 loads using the XTP rounds pass the gelatin test with flying colors, and some 9mm rounds do not! The Fiocchi, Hornady Custom, HPR, and Precision One. They work better than most .38 loads not using the XTP, and since the 42 is easy to carry and shoots like a big gun, you will have it if needed on days the heavy EDC gun is home watching the tele!
Here is the test:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNtPHYwcDts#t=15
According to recent tests, the 380 loads using the XTP rounds pass the gelatin test with flying colors, and some 9mm rounds do not! The Fiocchi, Hornady Custom, HPR, and Precision One. They work better than most .38 loads not using the XTP, and since the 42 is easy to carry and shoots like a big gun, you will have it if needed on days the heavy EDC gun is home watching the tele!
Here is the test:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNtPHYwcDts#t=15
The Glock 26 is 26% thicker, 8% longer, 1% taller and 58% heavier than the G42.
If that amounts to the "same basic size" then the Glock 17 is the same basic size as the Glock 19.
The Glock 17 is the same thickness as the Glock 19 (0% thicker), is 9% longer, 9% taller and 6% heavier.
That size/weight difference is enough that you don't see many folks wondering about why the Glock 17 exists when the Glock 19 is so close in size, or vise versa.
No offense, but I think you have a pretty radically different conception from most people of what constitutes a "tad."
The same goes for saying that there's not much difference between an LCP and a G42. If you're going to carry either one IWB, I guess that's arguable, but if you're looking for a .380 BUG to stick in your blue-jeans pocket, there's no comparison. The two guns are in entirely different classes.
If my Kahr P380 weren't such an unreliable piece of junk, there would be times when it would be the only gun I would be carrying, due to attire restrictions. But I'm not going to argue that the best .380 is not very clearly inferior to the best 9mm rounds.
Which brings me to the next point.
This is an unpersuasive argument for the G42 given that there are guns that are every bit as easy to carry and that shoot a much more effective SD caliber.
I know people like to throw numbers around, but they really dont mean much, when you dont have them in your hands to compare.
I have all the models you mention, and have carried all of them, so I have a real good idea as to whats what. I also still feel the differences between the 17 and 19, arent enough to warrant giving up what the 17 offers over the 19. The 26 has the advantage of going where both the others cant, and yet, can actually come very close to "being" both the others, with a simple mag change. The 42 is just the 42.
Perhaps because Ive carried full size handguns most of my life, and second, and even third back up guns that many today, seem to consider full size, I have a different outlook on things and Im less sensitive to the differences in size, especially when you factor in what your giving up or gaining. I dont know how many times on this board and others, Ive been told its "impossible" to carry anything bigger than one of the sub, sub compacts, and that what I consider a "slight" difference, is in fact major. Hey, Im not a big person, and Ive carried it off daily now, for decades. Again, I seem to have a different perspective.
These days, I normally carry a 26 in a Smart Carry, or an ankle holster. Ive also carried the 42 in the same Smart carry. I saw no difference what so ever in doing so. That "slight" bit of extra thickness on the 26 is in no way a detriment, and the missing thickness on the 42, didnt stand out in any way. I suppose if Id carried the 42 first, I might have noticed the weight, but I really kind of doubt it would have mattered much after wearing it for a short while. Both are very comfortable in that holster. The 26 isnt uncomfortable in an ankle holster either, for that matter.
Heres a couple of pics of the two. I tried my best to show the difference in length with the 42 on top of the 26, but no matter how I tried to take the pic, it really doesnt show up. But yes, it is a little shorter, but as you can see, its not enough to really show up in the pic even.....
Trying to get a good representative pic of the thickness was a little harder. No matter how you do it, it seems one or the other gets distorted. This was the best I could do. Still, if you think thats "a big difference", you must be relaed to that girl with the pea under her mattress...
I dont carry any of my "little" guns, IWB, or in a pants pocket. No point IWB, and to much junk in my pockets. I do occasionally throw one in a coat pocket in colder weather. I actually find trying to hide a small gun in my pants pocket, harder, than I do my 17 IWB. Those Smart Carrys, do a much better job for the little guns, and actually work quite well, with guns many consider to be full size.
As far as the "different class" thing, the difference between my Seecamps and my LCP are more of a difference, than my LCP and the 42. The Seecamps are truly a "small" gun. I dont find the LCP to be all that small. When you actually consider shooting them, the LCP falls away quickly.
As I said before, Id be very surprised if we ever see one. The 26 basically has that covered.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
A thin 9 is supposedly in the works (yeah, I know but I supposedly know folks who have seen them).
I have a 26 and 42. Sitting around the house with a 26 in my pocket is a world of difference from a 42. I disagree about them being similar in pocket carry.
I have a 26 and 42. Sitting around the house with a 26 in my pocket is a world of difference from a 42. I disagree about them being similar in pocket carry.
WildBill45
New member
This is not an argument, as I could care what others think about it, just my observation, freedom of speech if you will, my opine, this is America???
Different opinions are what make things interesting.
However, the popularity of the Glock 19 should let you know that your opinion isn't a common one and should also help you understand that what you may think "doesn't mean much" is the crux of a buying decision for many who carry.
Again, you should have some idea of how unusual carrying three guns at once makes you and your ideas about what does and doesn't make a difference when carrying.
Not that there's anything wrong with your ideas/opinions in this regard. They're just very, very unusual.
Nakanokalronin
New member
First reason is because it's a Glock that's smaller than the G26. Brand loyalty goes a long way when it comes to Glock fans and those that bought the G42 will buy the single stack 9 Glock no matter what it's capacity is or how much bigger it will be than the competition. Anyone that thinks the Glock 9mm single stack will have similar dimensions as the current crop of small 9s out there and hold the same amount of rounds can PM me with how much they want to bet.
Second reason is it has less recoil than most true pocket .380s that hold the same amount of rounds. For those that are recoil sensitive or can't/won't train to shoot a small gun well, then the G42 fits the bill. BTW so it's clear, I rented a G42 at my local range so I have experience with it. It basically felt like what I would expect shooting .22lr out of a Shield or XDS would be.
That's pretty much it. If you can shoot other pocket .380s out there well, then there is no advantage to buying the G42. The other popular .380s will be smaller for pocket carry and if you're going to carry it IWB, there are 9mm carry guns with similar dimensions.
I just bought a Sig P938 SAS that's smaller than the G42 and it holds six rounds...of 9mm. Plenty of other 9mm and .380 model comparison pictures on Google. Just type "G42 vs. ---" and put the gun model of your choice in the "---" area.
Now for those that own one for a legitimate reason like shootability, arthritis or other medical condition, recoil sensitivity, not much arm/hand strength and any or all of the above then the G42 is for you. I've seen enough Glock fanatics that have admitted to buying one just because it's a Glock and will do so again when the slim 9 comes out, not because it fit them better than their current slim .380 or 9 they already owned.
I'm sure some won't like my post and give it a
, 
or 
face.
Second reason is it has less recoil than most true pocket .380s that hold the same amount of rounds. For those that are recoil sensitive or can't/won't train to shoot a small gun well, then the G42 fits the bill. BTW so it's clear, I rented a G42 at my local range so I have experience with it. It basically felt like what I would expect shooting .22lr out of a Shield or XDS would be.
That's pretty much it. If you can shoot other pocket .380s out there well, then there is no advantage to buying the G42. The other popular .380s will be smaller for pocket carry and if you're going to carry it IWB, there are 9mm carry guns with similar dimensions.
I just bought a Sig P938 SAS that's smaller than the G42 and it holds six rounds...of 9mm. Plenty of other 9mm and .380 model comparison pictures on Google. Just type "G42 vs. ---" and put the gun model of your choice in the "---" area.
Now for those that own one for a legitimate reason like shootability, arthritis or other medical condition, recoil sensitivity, not much arm/hand strength and any or all of the above then the G42 is for you. I've seen enough Glock fanatics that have admitted to buying one just because it's a Glock and will do so again when the slim 9 comes out, not because it fit them better than their current slim .380 or 9 they already owned.
I'm sure some won't like my post and give it a
, or face.
Last edited:
Hey, no doubt.
I also understand the 19 is very popular. I have a couple myself. I have to ask how many who chose the 19, actually spent some time with, shot and carried a 17, to know the difference. Thats where I draw my experience from, not a choice made at a gun counter, based on a couple of minutes of "look and feel", or all the people on the internet, who only have the 19, and of course, push it heavily.
Carrying a couple of guns hasnt been all that unusual, at least in the circles Ive always run in. Three guns isnt the norm, for me either, but two is more common than I think many realize.
My whole point there with the size thing (or number thing for that matter) is, this is more about "want", than it is "cant". That doesnt meant you have to do anything that you dont want to, just that it is more often than not, easily done, if you choose to. Sometimes you do have to try it to believe it though.
Plugged Nickle
Inactive
I have a Glock 42 because I like it. I like it because I like it. And when Rock Island Armory releases their 1911A-380, I'm going to get one of those, too. Because I like it. And I like it because I like it.
Independent George
New member
Every gun has a niche.
The G42 recoils significantly less than the equivalent-sized pocket nines or the smaller .380s, and is significantly smaller than the double-stack subcompacts. It's not the smallest, but it's small enough for easy concealment without losing recoil management.
Not everybody is going to make the same tradeoffs, but it is clearly filling a previously-unfulfilled market niche. The Bersa Thunder CC also fits that role well, but most people seem to prefer strikers.
The G42 recoils significantly less than the equivalent-sized pocket nines or the smaller .380s, and is significantly smaller than the double-stack subcompacts. It's not the smallest, but it's small enough for easy concealment without losing recoil management.
Not everybody is going to make the same tradeoffs, but it is clearly filling a previously-unfulfilled market niche. The Bersa Thunder CC also fits that role well, but most people seem to prefer strikers.
- Status