Confirmed: Glock 42 is a .380.

I wanted a 9, but I will still probably buy one of these if it is pocketable.

Videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EVj5NOywSY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8C5Y4r5FDk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEl-2RmeZhM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oo-zBdJRluI

6+1 .380

UNLOADED:
390 g / 13.76 oz.

LOADED:
407 g / 14.36 oz.

TRIGGER PULL:
~25 N / ~5.5 lbs.

TRIGGER TRAVEL:
~12.5 mm / ~0.49 in.

BARREL RIFLING:
right hand, hexagonal

LENGTH OF TWIST:
250 mm / 9.84 in.

LENGTH:
151 mm / 5.94 in.

WIDTH:
24 mm / 0.94 in.

LENGTH BETWEEN SIGHTS:
125 mm / 4.92 in.

HEIGHT:
105 mm / 4.13 in.

SLIDE WIDTH:
21 mm / 0.83 in.

BARREL LENGTH:
82.5 mm / 3.25 in.

I'm a Glock fan, but disappointed it's a .380. I will probably wait until they finally decide to make a 9mm before seriously considering one.

Looks like ill be picking up an R51 instead...and I EDC a G19.

I understand .380 Glocks will do well in countries that don't allow civilians to own "military calibers", but I'm thoroughly unimpressed with Glocks refusal to make a single stack 9mm or a carbine.

I will probably buy one to replace my Ruger LCP. I also want a 9 but I understand their rationale here IF this is pocketable. They save a lot of weight by not having to have as thick a barrel (or slide) for the .380.

I was really just wanting a single stack G26, but they came out with a smaller overall form factor.

They dropped the ball on this so bad, it's not even funny. The design is the same as the rest of their pistols (i.e. it's not a blowback like most .380's), so there is literally no excuse for not making it in 9mm.

People have been screaming for a single stack 9mm from Glock for years, and instead they give us the G36 and the G42.

Nice yoga pants though.

[This message has been edited by Log (edited 1/3/2014 9:37p).]

Do want!

Here's the specs on the Kahr P380:
P380

KP3833 (2.53" Barrel)
Black polymer frame, matte stainless slide
MSRP: $649.00
Register as an authorized dealer.


Caliber: .380 ACP
Capacity: 6+1
Operation: Trigger cocking DAO; lock breech; "Browning - type" recoil lug; passive striker block; no magazine disconnect
Barrel: 2.53", Premium Lothar Walther Match Grade Barrel
Length O/A: 4.9"
Height: 3.9"
Slide Width: .75"
Weight: Pistol 9.97 ounces (w/o magazine)
Grips: Textured polymer
Sights: Drift adjustable, white bar-dot combat sights
Finish: Black polymer frame, matte stainless steel slide
Magazines: 2 - 6 rd, Stainless

Guide to Kahr Magazines

Be good to carry while I run.

I'm more interested in what the G40 and G41 will be. I'm hoping for a long slide 10MM.

This is a game ender. I predict Glocks demise by the end of 2014.

Ok really, what were they thinking. When did they do their research? Why would they not make this in 9mm? Why in the name of all that's holy would they try to make what is essentially a heavier, bigger in all dimensions but with same capacity and lesser quality trigger version of a Kahr?

Absolute failure by Glock on this.

[This message has been edited by phideaux_2003 (edited 1/3/2014 11:21p).]

From what I have read (too lazy to google) there were some sales outlet places listing the 41 as a long slide/comp 45 ACP.

There will be no G40.

I loathe the Kahr trigger, fwiw.

I see what Glock is doing here: making the smallest, lightest gun they can make and have it still be a Glock. And I am pretty sure I will buy one.

But I will say it again... I want a single stack version of the 26 in 9 mm.

I don't think they could make the G42 in 9mm and have it be nearly as light. So the 42 is to be the teensy Glock. But I still want a 9.

quote:

---

There will be no G40.

---

any source for this or are you just going on your intuition?

quote:

---

I loathe the Kahr trigger, fwiw.

I see what Glock is doing here: making the smallest, lightest gun they can make and have it still be a Glock. And I am pretty sure I will buy one.

But I will say it again... I want a single stack version of the 26 in 9 mm.

I don't think they could make the G42 in 9mm and have it be nearly as light. So the 42 is to be the teensy Glock. But I still want a 9.

---

But you're a kool-aid drinkin' Glockster!

:-)

I own a 17, 19, 22 and 26, and want a 20 and a 21. What can I say? I am a fanboy.

R-51, XDS, Shield, Nano, and Kahr all have this beat.

This is like Sig doing a P290 in 380. Totally pointless and terrible market research.

quote:

---

R-51, XDS, Shield, Nano, and Kahr all have this beat.

---

I'll go ahead and play Glock apologist just for the sake of discussion.

None of the guns you list above (assuming the Kahr you're talking about is the CM9/PM9) are in the same class/category as the Glock 42. You are comparing the 42 to the guns you want the 42 to be, but not 42 as it is.

The 42 is going to compete against the Ruger LCP, the S&W Bodyguard, the Keltec P380, Sig P238 and other small 380s. The only 9mm that might be in this class based on size and weight is the Ruger LC9 (at least that's the only one that comes to my mind). All of the guns you mentioned are single-stack 9mms, yes, but all of them are significantly larger and/or heavier than the G42.

I am an acknowledged Glock fan. What I really want Glock to release is a single-stack version of the G26. This gun is not that - it is much smaller. I wanted a gun to replace - at least partially - my G26.

Instead, Glock is releasing a gun that will probably replace my Ruger LCP. It is a viable choice to do so, and has many things about it that I think I will like in that role.

So look at it from Glock's marketing perspective: they still have the standard-bearer in sub-compact 9mm pistols in the G26, and that hasn't changed.

What they have done is entered a segment that they previously were vacant in: the micro .380 pocket rocket segment. Glock does not have a play here until now, and it is a significant market.

My guess is that until Glock starts feeling a pinch from the Shield and the XD-9 into their market for the 26 that they aren't going to want to cannibalize their own sales.

What's that you say? The XD-9 and Shield are already encroaching into the G26 space? Maybe. Both have had quality-related recalls. I personally can't stand the way the XD feels or points, and it's huge for what it is (in 9mm anyway). The Shield is more interesting to me and to my tastes has a better trigger than the XD, but neither feels as good to me as my G26.

I have been shopping for a single-stack 9mm for more than a year and haven't found one that I like or trust enough to carry every day. The G26 is superior to every one I've looked at except that it's about a quarter of an inch thicker. So I deal with thicker in exchange for carrying what to me is a more reliable, better shooting, more comfortable carry gun.

Again I am playing apologist here... but I think it is a good argument.

I wanted Glock to give me a gun that I would use to replace another Glock. Instead Glock is giving me a gun that I will probably use to replace a Ruger. Or a Smith and Wesson. Or a Keltec, Or a Kahr. Or a Sig.

Smart marketing. Frustrating for loyal customers, yes, but it's a good move.

Now I just hope they'll fill in the line with a 9mm version, and SOON. DAMMIT!

The R51 is interesting to me but it is also a great example of a gun that is in a confused market segment.

Let's compare it to the G26, size-wise and you'll see what I mean.

My G26 has a Crimson Trace laser on it. Including the laser and a 10 round magazine, my Glock weighs 20.25 ounces. The R51 without a laser and an 8 round magazine weights 20 ounces. The Glock weighs a quarter of an ounce more WITH a laser and gives me 3 extra rounds capacity.

The G26 is less than a quarter of an inch wider than the R51 (1.16" vs. .96"). The G26 is 1/4 inch longer than the R51 and 1/2 inch shorter (unless like me you have a +2 magazine extension that makes the G26 the same height but now with 5 rounds more than the R51).

And there are accessories out the butt for the G26. And is has an unsurpassed track record. Remington's? Not so much.

Same argument can be made against the XD9 and the Shield. It just depends on how important that quarter of an inch or so in width matters to you. And I carry every single day, so I know it matters a lot.

But my point in making this comparison is that it is going to be tempting to compare the G42 to the R51, etc. But they are not in the same class. The R51 competes with the G26. The G42 is smaller and lighter in every dimension, and in a significant way. For instance, the G42 is over 6 ounces lighter than the R51. That's a LOT.

The reason I don't own a Glock is not a sound one, but it's my own...every knucklehead who buys a pistol gets "them a Glock". It's "that gun". I don't know how many Tap-Out/Affliction Used Car Salesman D-Bags brag about owning a "Glock 9". It's the official pistol of the $50k Millionaire, because it's a cheap pistol with a good name.

Don't get me wrong, I understand the unwavering reliability, world wide use and game changing technology, but unfortunately for me the clientele who only want it because of it's name ruin it for me. It sucks being a gun snob, but that's who I am.

Oh and Skubalon, see my earlier post on the Kahr p380. It Is as an apples to apples comparison of the G42 and beats it in every category (except d-bag ownership rates). Plus it doesn't have that goofy mini-me trigger thing like the Glock has.

This gun will be a huge success and bring untold millions to Glock.

Kahr PM9 and 380 are easily in the same catagory as the new Glock.

Glock really shot themselves in the foot this time.

Pocket .380's have fallen from grace as puny, with poor sites, poor accuracy and poor power factor. That's why the niche of the XDS and the Shield have come about. That's why Kahrs are so popular. Small gun, but with real sights and enough power. Glock did their market research for this in 2008 it seems. They're way behind the curve.

Skube - not near the handgun expert u are on the glocks. Don't own one, never shot one, have nothing against them though. I own a couple XD amd an XDS, understand what u mean about feel and such. If you're looking for a single stack 9 check out the Sig P938. I've had one a year or so and absolutely love it. It does have an external hammer and 1911 style thumb safety, but it is small, compact, very reliable. I'm a traditional 1911 guy, so the similarities to 1911 platform may bias me, but worth a look. You probably already have though. The 938 is a work of art, very underrated. Works great for me, everyday carry in summer months IWB. Colder weather I go with the 1911.

The big picture is that .380's are on the decline- 380 was always a marginal caliber for self defense, but since the guns were pocketable, they sold well.

Now that many companies offer guns in 9mm/40S&W/45ACP in guns only slightly larger, with a variety of safety systems, those pocket 380's have faded.

I don't see them fading as far as sales go, I sell just as many 380's as any other caliber... women mostly.

I'm sure you do, but defense philosphy has left .380's in the dust.

Sales will catch up.

http://www.thebangswitch.com/glock-leaps-into-the-early-2000s/

quote:

---

The new Glock 42 isn’t just a little bigger than the older Kahr, it’s quite a bit bigger. As a matter of fact the G42 is bigger than the Kahr CM9, which is a 9mm!

---

That pretty much sums it up.

Too bad it's a .380... I was very excited about a 9 and would likely have purchased one.

Not a $50 millionare, but I am a big fan og Glock for many reasons. The main being every time you pull the trigger it goes boom!!
I have a Colt Mustang (the old one, not the new one) that will earn a place in the safe as it is replaced wit the Glock 42.
I have read all the threads and even phi's latin thing, but I still believe the best weapon is the one you have wit you. A small pocket pistol fits so many places where regular CC does not.
I think this is going to be a nice weapon and can not wait to get my hands on one!!
Just me, but those are my thoughts!!

Will buy, have to pocket carry a lot and anything is better then my lcp.