Now that the dust has settled, can we all agree that Glock got it right the first time around and the 43 is just a shittier version of the 42?
>9mm kurz (manlet)
Your buyers remorse is showing.
>>27795327
>muh stoppin' powah
Honest question from someone who rather likes Glocks: how is it that Glock managed to make some of the most size-efficient per round full-sized handguns, yet when it came time to make a single stack its guns are comparatively huge?
I mean the 42 is too big for front pocket carry--so I don't know why you'd buy it, that's the whole point of having a .380.
The 43 goes a step further down this path and is the same size as its competitors but holds a full round less than they do. A Shield or XDs gives you +17% capacity for the same size gun!
What gives?
>>27795500
The 42 is the only soft shooting .380, that's the point. My wife's hands are tiny, so a double stack Glock is too big for her. By contrast, pocket .380s are too small and have too much snap. The 42 hits that niche perfectly.
>>27795500
>I mean the 42 is too big for front pocket carry
No it isn't, its smaller than a J frame.
>The 43 goes a step further down this path and is the same size as its competitors but holds a full round less than they do.
It is pretty much the same as the PM9 which people pocket carry all of the time.
>>27795500
never notice a problem with carrying my 42 in the front pockets of my jeans.
I am 2 meters tall so I guess it might be a issue for people that are shorter
>>27795553
Are we talking cargo pockets? I'm 6'1" and wear relaxed fit jeans but the only guns I can really realistically carry in a front pocket without it being entirely obvious that there's a gun there are the LCP, P3AT, Bodyguard or CW380. I have an XDs but there's no way I'd ever be able to carry it in a pocket (I've tried). How do people actually fit 9mms in their pockets without half the barrel sticking out?
>>27795308
>lel-kek pf9 holds 7+1 out of the box
>p11 holds 11 while maintaining same-ish profile
I think they missed the mark completely with both the 42 and 43, but people will buy it because "muh perfection".
Carry full size, live full size, love full size.
>>27795619
Neither are as soft shooting as the 42. When people say they missed the mark with it, I think people kinda don't understand what the mark was in the first place.
Glock is a smart business company. The only reason they made the .380 first was because they new it wouldn't sell as well if at all when the 9mm came out. So they got everybody hyped up with the ultra small new glock, glockfags get all excited thinking this was their pocket 9mm finally, they get a .380 instead and have to back pedal saying .380 isn't actually all that bad and when the 9mm came out they just bought that instead
If there is one thing glock did right with this it was the old caliber hype ruse
>>27795308
We wouldn't need to wait for the dust to settle if they didn't explode
>>27795675
I actually know quite a few people that were satisfied with the 42 and never got a 43. Myself included.
>>27795648
>soft shooting as the 42
Is that really the benchmark you're going with? I'm only asking because that is the only thing you keep saying.
Fuck, you're stupid.
>>27795796
>>27795755
huh, so im not the only one? After I got a shield and didn't really see the point. Its one of my favorite glocks actually
>>27795678
Fucking lol
>>27795903
I first got the 42 and I love it. When the 43 came out I bought one, but I ended up giving it to a friend. I think I just use to the 42 so much the 43 felt just wrong in my small hands
Is there really that much of a difference between 9mm and .380? I mean .380 is what, 2mm shorters? I can't imagine that makes a big enough difference with modern loads to be a deal breaker.
>>27795903
Yeah, I love my 42, but if I'm in the market for a single stack 9, I'll go with the Shield instead of the 43. I sometimes shoot my friends' Shield and it's pretty nice piece of machinery.
>>27796002
9mm tends to have more advanced bullet technology. There are a few good brands of .380 that perform quite admirably but a lot of junk as well. The 9mm cartridge has matured a lot more in its capability than basically any other pistol round out there, which makes sense since it's the most common one.
>>27796002
Not IMO. At typical self defense distances, I'm not worried about the apparent lack of power. And even then, just swap out hollow points for ball ammo and be done with it.
It's not like it's a .22 or anything.
I figured I'd pass on the 42 and 43, since I already have a 26. But, then I handled a 42 and the then soon-to-be-released 43 at the NRA show, and thought it'd be cool to get a 42 for really cheap when someone wanted a 43.
A couple months later, I got a barely used 42 with 4 mags for 260.
I like it a lot.
>>27796085
That's a hell of a deal, especially considering the 42 (at least mine did, as well as others that I've spoken to) had a rough break in period. After a couple hundred rounds it's been operating flawlessly, but right out of the box it was a little iffy.
$260 for it, 2 extra mags, and not having to deal with that is awesome.
>>27796050
I am of sincere hopings you do not do this comrade. There are good JHP rounds in .380, but most FMJ will overpenetrate.
>>27796201
Hey, you don't have to convince me, I carry hollow point in mine. I'm just pointing out that it's an option.
