At 14:38, the GLOCK 42’s slide locks back when shooting Buffalo Bore 90gr. hollow point bullets. So . . . don’t shoot the GLOCK 42 with Buffalo Bore 90gr. hollow point bullets. Or maybe Hickock45 got a bad mag. At 18:30 the Internet’s favorite gun guy compares the .380 GLOCK 42 to my EDC, the 9mm Kahr PM9. The GLOCK wins, in terms of thinness. Which is a bit misleading. When it comes to concealment, it’s the grip that makes all the diff. In terms of sales, GLOCK! Our sources tell us the 42 goes out the door as soon as it comes in. Pallets of the things. TTAG test to follow.

Recommended For You

72 Responses to Hickock45 on the GLOCK 42: “Beats a Hammer”

  1. LGSs here in Corpus have them going for $499 and selling as quick as they come in. Went with an M&P Shield 9mm instead on Tuesday.

  2. I’m not gonna say what everyone else says about how it should have been a 9mm, even though I agree with that. What baffles me the most is that the mag only holds 6 rounds. When you look at the mag and how the bullets are staggered, it looks like it wouldn’t have been hard to fit that 7th round in there. My LCP holds 6 rounds in a smaller mag and that is a true single stack, no staggering at all.

    I’ll keep my Shield, for now. When this is released in 9mm I’ll probably get it. Mostly cause the trigger would be more like my G19, which I like a lot more than my Shield. Nevertheless, Glock is gonna sell a s**t ton of these. My measly keyboard commando opinion doesn’t really matter in the end.

  3. Handled one of the 42s yesterday. It was a lot smaller than some reviews have suggested. Plus it actually feels good in the hand. Much better than the keltec 380. I’ve gone from being not even remotely interested to kinda wanting one. I’m wondering how it feels to shoot since it’s not blowback like a lot of 380s.

  4. I’ve had a Kahr P9 (Black finish, night sights installed) on backorder since September, when it comes in “it will fly right if the shelf” too. It is the gun Glock should’ve made here.

    • Yeah, thing is though…it’s not a GLOCK, nor is it as reliable as a GLOCK. I picked up a PM9 a couple of years ago, and while it appears to be a well made tool and shoots pretty decent, it’ll choke every now and again on hollow points. I truly believe that most Kahr pistols have inherent design flaws in their feed “system.” Both the mag and the ramp are not right. Not to mention the silly recommended method of charging the PM9. I don’t want to bash Kahr because their guns feel good in the hand, shoot straight, and are sharp looking…but they are NOT a reliable self defense tool in my eyes. I’d take a 42 over any Kahr. Just my two coppers.

      • I feel the same about my PM9. It’s a a specialty carry item for me. I just don’t trust the magazines. It’s always been the source of most Kahr ills in my ‘pinion.

  5. We face a devils bargain when it comes to getting more people to carry.The only way more then a fringe of society will carry a gun everyday is if the gun fits their lifestyle, not the other way around.

    If we say to the newcomer “to carry, you need a $600 handgun, $600 worth of practice ammo, a $125 holster, and a $60 gun belt along with a brand new wardrobe” they’ll say “forget it” and can the entire idea. That approach is why the highest number of people who daily carry in any state are less then 25% of the state population.

    That’s not gonna cut it folks.If less then half the nation’s’ voters are personally invested in right to carry, the antis will wipe us out in the elections to come.Ex, Colorado, Conneticutt, etc.What movement in human history ever attracted more people by making the costs of entry high?

    So what if five out of ten people who carry toss a G42 .380 in their bookbag or purse.That doesn’t alter how YOU choose your gun, and it means more people who will vote for the RKBA .

    • I don’t think people throwing guns into their bookbag or purse is really going to help our cause. If they’re not going to be committed enough to get a decent holster (since all you really need is a good holster for almost any kind of dress) they’re probably not going to go through the concealed carry requirements (which vary by state). A bunch of illegally carried guns won’t help us.

      Glock seems to be targeting women with the 42, which is good in expanding gun users. I agree with the sentiment but not the entire statement.

      • My out of state permit expired end of last year, finances are tight as is time. Does that mean I’ve been carrying illegally for the last month? Yes. Am I afraid? No, not really. We shouldn’t need carry permits and if I have to use my gun in a legitimate self-defense situation, I’ll worry about the repercussions after the BG is down. I have no problem with people carrying without a CHL or whatever its called where you’re at. I don’t think it weakens our position. In fact, according to Foxnews, a major newspaper plans on compiling a national list of licensed concealed carry permit holders and doing God knows what with it. Guess what, if you’re not licensed, you’re not on that list.

        • Simply put, your an idiot for carrying with an expired license. Who knows, you and the guy you possibly shoot could be roommates when your act of stupidity is over… An expired license is no license, your no different than the thugs or gang bangers who slide a pistol in their saggy jeans.

      • One: I’d rather on balance see people carry guns off body then not at all.The odds, statistically speaking, of them having to actually shoot anyone is extremely low.

        The odds of a windbag politician trying to ban concealed carry nationwide, however ,are not.The more voices which say “FOUL!” at the idea of more regulations, the better.

        Two: think about other movements’ strategies .Rest assured, what we want as politically active gun owners is to change the culture from anti gun to pro Constitution, just like the civil rights movement did.Now, how far do you think Mart Luther King JR would have gotten if he made every supporter risk jail time via open marching to “show their commitment”?

        The civil rights movement gained traction by giving Joe Everyman a stake in the outcome.In the 1960s ,it was done by getting the point across that white, yellow, brown, and black Americans were Americans first.

        Today, we face the challenge of getting Joe and Jane Everyone to care about their gun rights.We can’t do that by sending them a $1,200 startup fee. We can make the guns easier to carry and more appealing to shoot.

        And in so doing, every G42 sold becomes a reason for it’s owner to think differently next election.

        • I think there’s a huge problem with your argument.

          There are a large number of politically active gun owners and a very small number who actually vote on second amendment issues.

          And there’s a lot of gun owners who “support the second amendment, but…”

        • A good thought but support for the right to carry is generally correlated with other conservative issues. You generally do not find small government advocates arguing for gun control. For most voters support for Second Amendment rights is an other things equal sort of thing.

        • I am shocked and dismayed by the notion being bandied about in this thread that the basic human right of armed self-defense is somehow a political issue subject to votes and public opinion. It is not.

          As the Supreme Court ruled in the Heller case, the 2nd Amendment enumerates and guarantees the basic human right of armed self-defense, which right has been recognized in civilized societies for far longer than the US has been a nation — dating back to the Magna Carta in fact. As such, and as the Supreme Court ruled in McDonald, that right is guaranteed not only by the 2nd Amendment where it is enumerated, but the 14th Amendment as well.

          Simply stated, this means that the basic human right of armed self-defense is not subject to either popular vote or legislative vote. The basic human right of armed self-defense is THE LAW, to be enforced in court as necessary if and when any government official seeks to interfere with that right.

          That said, probably the greatest political risk to the basic human right of armed self-defense is that 4 of the justices on the Supreme Court, all of whom voted against the Heller and McDonald decisions in lockstep, simply DO NOT RESPECT THE LAW. They have instead made it clear that they will wipe out the basic human right of armed self-defense the first chance they get. So, rather than worrying about how the public or politicians would vote on what are inaccurately called “2nd Amendment” issues, we need to worry about electing a President who will appoint Supreme Court justices who respect the law and Senators who will refuse to affirm appointees whose records show they do not respect the law.

          It also is dismaying to see so many comments suggesting that a “license” or “permit” is somehow necessary for us to exercise the basic human right of armed self-defense in the form of concealed carry. Again, that is fundamentally wrong.

          While the Supreme Court specifically declined to address the concealed carry issue in Heller (because it was not a concealed carry case), the Court DID say that the 2nd Amendment protects any firearm in “common use.” The Court’s holding in Heller was that, because handguns are commonly used for self-defense, the 2nd Amendment specifically guarantees the right to use handguns for self-defense. Applying that same rationale to concealed carry, concealed handguns are commonly used for self-defense (to the tune of more than 10 MILLION concealed carriers in the US who have more than a BILLION peaceful armed interactions with other Americans every day), so the 2nd Amendment specifically guarantees the right to carry a concealed handgun.

          While the Court also declined to address the “license” or “permit” issue in Heller because the plaintiff waived that issue in court, there simply is no precedent in US constitutional law for the government requiring us to obtain permission to exercise a basic human right (in this case, the basic human right of armed self-defense).

          Furthermore, under the Equal Protection clause the states cannot create a mish-mash of state requirements making the federal right to armed self-defense different in various states; if any American citizen has a federal right to carry concealed without state permission (which is the law in several states), then EVERY American citizen has that same federal right. Likewise, under the Full Faith and Credit clause all other states arguably are bound by the decisions by several states the federal right of armed self-defense includes the right to carry concealed handguns without getting government “permission” to do so.

          Simply stated, this means that the states cannot require us to obtain permission to carry concealed. That said, however, I nonetheless maintain a “permit” to carry concealed. I do not do this because a “permit” is or can be required, but rather as a convenience to myself in the event a question ever arises as to whether I am a law-abiding citizen with the right to be armed. The “permit” serves as instant evidence that I am a law-abiding citizen and that I have the right to be armed.

          We can hardly complain about other people trying to take away our rights, when we ourselves are substantially forfeiting our rights by not fully understanding them and by giving ground where no ground need be given. If you’ve spent >$1,200 for your concealed carry gear and training, it ought to be worth it to spend a few hours to understand

      • Call me an iconoclast, but I completely disagree with the “you have to have a holster” thing. Wyatt Earp generally didn’t use one. He dressed like a dude, actually, and either Mexican carried or placed his revolvers in coat pockets which he had specially lined with rubber.

        You can increase your safety dramatically, compared to ‘no carry,’ by having a small pocket pistol which is unchambered and …in your pocket. Of course I know the shrieks that will go up. However, the holster-and-belt bit is very inconvenient for many people. There are best practices and then there are ‘OK practices.’ Winston Churchill often carried a small pistol in a coat pocket. There are techniques that go with pocket carry, and a very different set of protocols. Chambered pocket carry works too, so long as you think through the obvious requirements.

        • Wyatt Earp generally didn’t use one.

          Wyatt Earp was an expert gunman, and he carried a single action Colt not a striker-fired polymer pistol with a six pound pull. With no round carried under the hammer, single action firearms were and remain incredibly safe.

        • Actually, Earp was blind as a bat not a particularly good shot. Unlike a lot 19th Century lawman Earp died in early 1929 and he gave a lot interviews. His preferred method of dealing with bad actors if it came down to violence was to shoot them in the back. The OK Corral was aberration.

        • I was invoking Earp’s fame, not his moral deficiencies. He really wasn’t a nice person, but then he didn’t live in a nice (or gentle) era.

          I can only agree about Earp’s carrying a single action revolver. Holsters are good things. People who don’t use them should habitually and always carry chamber empty. They sacrifice effectiveness in certain situations, and should avoid them. Pocket holsters can be effective and safe only if the user trains their draw quite carefully. Best, of course, is two small pistols, left and right, properly shield from printing.

          Most people who carry chambered assume their strong-side arm will not be held by the idiot, or be incapacitated, just when they need to draw. No system of carry is without its blind spots, and every arrangement requires accommodations.

        • I don’t consider Earp’s methods reprehensible if the it was bad guy. My father taught me not to get into a fair fight.

    • Not to mention the cost of required concealed carry courses, administrative fees for licensing, et cetera et cetera.

      When you get right down to it, carrying legally is not an inexpensive proposition.

      • If it were a hobby, it would be a damned expensive one for most folks. Since it isn’t, it’s even more damned expensive. Can’t put a price on my family’s safety tho. I make it work.

    • I’d say forget it at those prices. Yikes. I’m at a 400 dollar handgun, 140 dollar permit, 50 dollar class, about 200 bucks in ammo so far and a 40 dollar holster…

      That hurt to type

      • That would make an interesting forum thread, your investment in concealed carry…..

        $600 handgun, $75 CPL class, $115 CPL, $100 holst, another $100 holster because I’m an idiot, $100 belt, $700 in ammo……..

        And that’s just to carry. Never mind the fact that I enjoy skeet/trap and burn through 2 cases of target loads a month for about half the year……maybe it’s time to take up needlepoint….

        • $429 Glock 19 Gen 3
          $38 Frontline IWB holster.
          $18 Columbia belt ($36, one black, one brown).
          $72 CCW (no class required).
          $150 500 9mm fmj from a guy at work switching to .40 cal.
          $24 20 rounds Federal Premium 147g JHP.
          $25 Safety class, range pass County PD outdoor range.
          $100 one year unlimited use local indoor range.
          $30/week 150 rounds TulAmmo From WalMart.
          $35 NRA membership.
          Having wifey doing the same…PRICELESS

    • Job well done sir.

      We need to get past the “people of the gun” and start getting other people invested in the rights of firearms. The more gun owners, the more daily carriers, the better. Tactics, “good ideas”, and “best” firearm practices are all secondary. As long as it’s done safely, it doesn’t matter

    • A good point. In fact, it’s how I started out with CCW (20 years ago). For me, it was pocket carrying a Colt Pony Pocketlite. I wasn’t ready to commit to what I do now. It was an evolution. Now, I do have the “real” gun for EDC along with the holster, a real gun belt, and a wardrobe that “dresses around the gun.”

      My wife has had her CCW for a few years now and has yet to carry. The G42 just might be the ticket.

  6. I’ll wait for the 9mm version. It’s not that I have any real bias against the .380. I just don’t want to stock another caliber in my inventory.

  7. In defense of the 42, he does say that is a very soft shooter. Given it’s target market that should be a critical selling point.

  8. To be honest the grip does not make all of the difference. After a certain point(which is different for everyone) a smaller grip does not make it any easier to conceal. A grip does not need to be any shorter than a glock 26, and is even easily concealable in the shield’s longer length. For my body, thickness makes a huge difference. I wear fitted and tailored clothes, and I can tell you there is a huge difference in comfort between .2 inches in thickness while carrying.

      • Yep. Height five inches or less, thickness south of 1.25 inches and length doesn’t really matter, and it’s doable for me with most any of my clothes and circumstances. Have a 442 and PM9 for tough carry circumstances.

  9. I’ll probably pick one up just to add to my Glock Brand Glock collection – but only after the hype is gone and any bugs are worked out.

    However for everyday CC, I will continue to rock my S&W 642… .38+p trumps .380 everyday in my book.

  10. I should be able to pick mine up tomorrow, $403 plus tax at a LGS that I will probably return to (first gun I’ve bought from this store, but the lack of price-gouging for the new hotness makes me like it). LEOs got their 42s first, and I briefly got to handle one yesterday before its new owner took it out the door. It’s small, slim, and a Glock. It fit well into the pockets of my trousers and jacket. Obviously I haven’t been able to shoot one yet, but by most reports they’re reliable, accurate, and soft-shooting.

    Given all of that, I think this gun fits a couple important niches in the market.
    1. For those of us who carry Glocks, it provides a pocket/backup option built on the same platform we already prefer. It’s not that I don’t like other guns (the pocket Sigs are beautiful) but I’ve been reworking my carry options to make them more consistent.
    2. For new shooters, this will provide a good first gun. The price is affordable (or will be, once the inflation from the initial demand goes away), the name is familiar, and the gun itself should be great for novice shooters. Reliable, concealable, accurate, easy to shoot, easy to take apart and clean…those characteristics might matter more to beginners than packing the most firepower per cubic inch.

    On that last point, the G42 is a clear loser compared to other options. My P-3AT will still have more punch per ounce. However, I’ve had that gun for 8 years now, and I’m happy to take some size back in order to get a gun that is superior in every other way. Of course, Kel-Tec is hardly the only competitor to the G42, and one of the other options might be able to stake a claim to be the best in category. Or maybe there aren’t any clear winners. We can argue that until the internet freezes over, but I think it’s clear that the G42 will be a good gun for many people.

    • I bought mine last Thursday. Could not pick it up until Monday, due to Glock’s release date. I love Kel-Tec, still do, but the 42 shoots 10x better! It fits ssoo much better in my fat little man mitts. Four other friends shot it! They all had almost hole-on-hole at 21′. Me, well, mine were a little scattered. I shoot a lot, but am not very good. I never carry my 19 or 26, but I will tote the 42, along with my Kel-Tecs!

  11. Shot mine today and had no issues. Surprised how well it shoots both accuracy and ease of recoil. Fits well in a PJ IWB holster made for PM9 also the Desantis Nemesis Pocket Holster from the LC9 is a perfect fit so carry options are out there. No regrets here, highly recommend.

    • Ed,

      Does your G42 have a “bent” metal base plate on the recoil spring assembly? Mine has a small area where the metal warps upwards and I don’t know if the other G42s are like that or not.

      Thanks.

  12. So it looks like all those who already own guns are picking these up for just cause while a person who is new and finally jumped the fence because of this glock can not because many of you bought it and dont really need it. Clap clap clap.

    • I think this will be a great gun for beginners, but I don’t think many of them even know it exists, let alone decided to cross the gun Rubicon because of it. Very few of them have been reading gun blogs, eagerly awaiting the new micro-Glock. They’ll decide on their own time, for their own reasons, to go buy a gun. And the G42 will now be an option for them (although perhaps a rare one at first). And many will choose it, and it will be good for them. In my observation, new shooters rely on the advice of friends, gun store clerks, and sometimes the internet, but they aren’t likely to be monitoring the firearms industry closely enough to be spurred into gun ownership by a new release.

      • I don’t think that’s true Nathanael, I don’t own a gun and have been researching and watching video reviews for over a month. I’ve grown to really love Hickok45, he seems like a laid back awesome guy to hang with. I first considered the LCP, then I considered the Sccy Cpx-2 due to price and caliber. Then I considered the Glock 26 due to size, caliber and reliability. I was keeping up with SHOT Show and saw the Glock 42 and was really intrigued but also disappointed a bit that it was in .380. BUT, after watching Hickok’s video review, it’s official, I WANT IT. Anyways, again, don’t discount first time buyers who don’t do their homework. 😉

  13. Just got to shoot it about an hour ago…def going to my carry choice….I can shoot that gun all day and it not hurt like most .380s…plus it’s light and I would carry it 24/7…I think I could even sleep with it lol

    • The only factor effected by weight in the class of guns is recoil control. If you are sweating the difference between 10 and 16 ozs there are going be other health issues that will doing you in before a mugger does.

      • Well call me crazy but I am concerned about weight on everything I carry even for my knives…I also concern myself with weight down to the gram when it comes to racing my mountain bike…so no health issues here

        • As an old backpacker I learned watch out for the oounces and the pounds will take care of themselves but then again stuff is a lot lighter today then it was 40 years ago. Unless you are gearing up for a big adventure 6 ozs is insignificant. Walking around town going about my daily business the extra weight I carry with 1911 or Hi Power doesn’t phase me in the least.

        • Wow. You got that right. My sno-peak titanium stove fits in the titanium cup with room for several packs of instant coffee and napkins to keep it from rattling. My 2 day pack today, weighs nothing compared to 40 years ago.
          I’m very comfortable hiking with a full size pistol and two spare mags.

  14. The g42 being successful all bleetings of the online gun community aside may be an indication that a great number of gun owners don’t really care to read about guns online and the online community is a bit of an echo chamber.

  15. I believe GLOCK bet on very specific markets for this firearm, and they are potentially huge markets.

    Very soft recoil for the sensitive, very thin gun for a good fit under designer clothes, thin grips for small hands….. Which large markets would benefit from those things the most? hmmmm….

  16. I wonder if Glock is going to do like Springfield did on the XDS? Comes out in a .380 and then introduce the 9mm a year later. I would think that it would be really easy to change up the .380 to 9mm. Might be one of the reasons that it is a little big for a .380, but probably a sweet size for a later 9mm? If they had introduced the 9mm first, I doubt many people would have bought a .380 later.

  17. bought the glock42 as my first hand gun and love it. i can easily drop the magazine(need to use 2 hands on other glock models) and its sights and soft recoil make me look like a decent shot! had some jamming and stovepipes initially but fixed my grip and no issues since. i love this gun…

  18. FYI there have been some early changes to the Glock 42, presumably to address ammunition feeding concerns. A few small tweaks to the frame and more notably, some changes to the magazines. You have to hold them side by side to even see the differences but they are there. I’ve got one of the newer G42 pistols, and while I haven’t run any Buffalo Bore ammo through it, my 42 has fired every other type of ammo I’ve run through it (5 different types… .380 is hard to come by around here) without a single hiccup. This includes 90gr Hornady Critical Defense, which some have reported FTF problems with early on. The only issue I have is failure to lock the slide back on last round, but I’ve positively proven this to be due to the giant ham-hocks I have for hands interfering with the slide stop lever. Glock does listen, and they do make improvements. I predict that they will soon release the much-desired single-stack 9mm. It will be slightly bigger than the 42 but still pocketable. A little bird told me so. 😉

  19. I sold my LC9 and picked up this glock 42 and I love it. I paid $340 +tax new (blue label) I have tested many different rounds through it and it shoots amazing and handles nice

  20. In terms of straight concealment, grip length may be absolutely key, but for me the thickness of the grip is a huge deciding factor in what is comfortably concealed. Although that is considering that I am wider around the hips than some, but of course your response back would be to get my lazy butt in the gym right?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *