What's up with the Glock 42 380 being so popular?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I thought the same thing when the 42 first came out, but then a friend bought one and I had opportunity to compare it side by side with my 26, and like Glenn M said there is a big difference between the two when it comes to pocket carry.
 
Yes even though numbers might not seem that significant on paper, they can mean all the difference when you're trying to pocket carry. I have held the 42 and I'm a Glock fan for sure, and it's definitely smaller than the 26/27/33. But they are also a good bit bigger than the LCP or CW380 which is something to consider if you desire the best in pocket carry. To me the 42 is pocketable, but just barely and would still be best served as a tiny IWB/OWB.
 
the thinner grip of the G42 without having to go to diminutive, harsher recoiling guns like the LCP is preferred by a lot of folks. the recoil of the .380 in the G42 is preferred by many over the G26 or PM9. the simplicity of the G42 and easier trigger is preferred by many folks over the sig238 and the like. the weight of the G42 is preferred by many over the weight of the G26.

simple fact is many folks prefer the G42 over other guns for a variety of reasons....
 
No matter how hard I try, I just can't be myself interested in the G42 to buy one. Plenty of availability, and some pretty good prices, but still, no
Why would want a 380 that's bigger than my KAHR CM9. Why would I want a gun as big as many 9MM pistols chambered in a round I already have in the much smaller, carry any time, anywhere, while wearing any type of clothing LCP?
 
Same size as my Rugr LC9s. LC9s has much better trigger. Much more punch in 9mm. And they are about the same size. Unless their is a grip strength issue I see no reason to get a .380 the size of a 9mm.
 
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.
Click to expand...
the thinner grip of the G42 without having to go to diminutive, harsher recoiling guns like the LCP is preferred by a lot of folks. the recoil of the .380 in the G42 is preferred by many over the G26 or PM9. the simplicity of the G42 and easier trigger is preferred by many folks over the sig238 and the like. the weight of the G42 is preferred by many over the weight of the G26.

simple fact is many folks prefer the G42 over other guns for a variety of reasons....
Click to expand...

Yes, of course these are the things the G42 does well. The gun is obviously a good option for extremely recoil-averse shooters.

But I still suspect that it's the built-in automatic loyalty of Glock fans that explains a good deal of why the gun is doing so well -- and more so than any previously unmet need it's satisfying.
 
But I still suspect that it's the built-in automatic loyalty of Glock fans that explains a good deal of why the gun is doing so well -- and more so than any previously unmet need it's satisfying.
Click to expand...

actually, I got mine only after S&W dragged their feet on a NTS shield.
 
What's up with the Glock 42 380 being so popular?
Click to expand...

I don't see this to be a particularly puzzling question, myself.

In my last Glock armorer recert earlier this year, when the new G41 & G42 were being displayed and discussed, we were told that when Glock had been carefully reviewing the commercial sales market, the fastest growing caliber in the last couple of years was the .380 ACP. Glock decided they wanted to tap into that fast growing market and designed the G42.

It was also mentioned that since female buyers made up the fastest growing segment of the commercial .380 market, they wanted to design a .380 that would offer new buyers a more pleasant shooting experience than some of the really diminutive .380's on the market.

Watching a lot of the Glock armorers crowding around the table, looking at the G41 & G42 on display, it certainly seemed that a goodly number of the room who could be considered to be "Glock enthusiasts" were interested in anything new being offered. ;)

Sales reported by the local Glock LE distributor and area rep have remained strong.

It's unsurprising that a new model might experience some teething pains once it gets out in the hands of regular users, using whatever ammo they may be able to find, but it appears the company has worked to address any issues for this new G42 model. Demand and sales continue to remain strong.

I decided against adding my name to the waiting list for a G42 based simply upon my needs and its overall size.

The only reason I bought a .380 in 2012 in the first place, after not having owned one for more than 25 years, was because I was looking for something that would fit in some tighter jeans pockets that couldn't conceal my J-frames. After watching some results of the littlest .380's coming through our qual ranges, and listening to the experiences of other cops who had been shooting the newest .380's, I decided on a LCP.

The LCP meets my particular needs only because of its smaller size. The G42 doesn't. If I want something larger than my LCP, but smaller than my subcompact 9's, .40's & .45's ... I reach for one of my J-frames.

I think Glock has a winner on their hands with the G42, within the market demographics they've targeted.

I also think that when they release a single stack 9mm subcompact ... which is another market segment that continues to attract eager buyers, despite detractors ;) ... they'll probably find a ready customer base who would buy a new Glock simply because it's a Glock.

I rather suspect that the same LE market segment who have been eagerly buying S&W & Ruger single stack 9's will readily accept a Glock offering, too. (Maybe Walther will up their effort in attracting more buyers, too, among the private owner and LE buyers.)

Now, if only the major American ammo makers will start doing more production runs for .380 ACP ... ;)
 
But I still suspect that it's the built-in automatic loyalty of Glock fans that explains a good deal of why the gun is doing so well -- and more so than any previously unmet need it's satisfying.
Click to expand...

I agree. Glock could sell vacuum wrapped feces and the Glockophiles would buy it. They are good guns, but not to my liking.
Click to expand...

Are the people buying the Glock 42 the same people who already own larger-caliber Glocks?

My (wholly unscientific and unsubstantiated) impression is that the G42 was never meant for the people who post on firearms forums - it's for recoil-sensitive shooters who go to the range maybe a couple times a year, but still want something concealable.
 
Code: 
The G42 recoils significantly less than the equivalent-sized pocket nines or the smaller .380s,

Big Whoop! If you can't practice, and get used to the minimal recoil of a small 9MM, or one of the 380 mouse gun, carry pepper spray!:eek:
 
I held one at the lgs. Felt damn good. If I had a 380 already I might buy one but I told myself I wasn't going to start another caliber. Of Glock makes a single stack 9mm, I'm all over it.
 
Funny how there are those of the mindset that since they have no use for something, nobody does.
Click to expand...

Unless your comment is aimed at the only poster who questioned the point of the gun's very existence, but without responding to him directly, I'd suggest reading what people have written more carefully. Just about everyone acknowledges that the gun satisfies an unmet need. Those posters have simply questioned the idea that this unmet need can by itself explain the bulk of the gun's popularity in the aggregate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top