TexasCHLforum.com

txblackout wrote:for pocket carry I prefer the kahr cm9. I had a glock 42, switched to the cm9 and now have a glock 43.

The kahr was awesome, I just wanted the same maintenance etc. for my carry and other pistols.

Me too… so, you're pocket carrying the G43 now?

When TAM pointed out that 2nd magazine, I am now leaning to the 43 vs. 42. Yes, it's a little more bulky, but it's still seems like it would be do-able for pocket carry, and for the trade off in 9mm ammo vs. 380, that bulk may be worth it.

Eric Lamberson wrote:My wife is a fan of the 42 and carries one. Trigger is noticeably stiffer than the typical Glock which may pose a challenge for people who wish to shoot the sides of barns.

I have yet to have a barn threaten me, so I'm ok with that.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Scott in Houston wrote:I looked at the G43 today. I had my jeans on so I could check it inside the pockets of smaller, tighter pockets than all my other clothes. It wasn't too bad.
My main concern was, in the jeans, getting caught up on the pinky extension as I took it out.
But in other pants, it would be fine.

I think I'll end up with a G43 now.

You can pocket carry it with the second magazine in place, and keep the pinky-extended mag in reserve.

Oh… I didn't notice. Is the 2nd magazine smaller (sans the pinky extender)?

That would make a huge difference!

I looked at the G43 today. I had my jeans on so I could check it inside the pockets of smaller, tighter pockets than all my other clothes. It wasn't too bad.
My main concern was, in the jeans, getting caught up on the pinky extension as I took it out.
But in other pants, it would be fine.

I think I'll end up with a G43 now.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

rentz wrote:

Scott in Houston wrote:

rentz wrote:I guess I will be the voice of dissent here, I didn't like it.
It was plenty small and light enough for pocket carry (smaller than my pm9)
But I could not hit the broadside of a barn with it for some reason and it seemed finicky on ammo. I found the trigger while shorter then most glocks was much heavier which I wasn't w fan of

But as far as size for pocket carry, that part was perfect

I've never heard of a Glock that wouldn't eat pretty much all ammo. Interesting.

Yeah I thought it was just me but did some digging and several reported the same thing....but then a lot of people say zero issues
Might have been the early runs who knows

It is my observation that .380 pistols are more prone to being finicky that way than 9mm and up. I'm not saying that they are all unreliable, but I do think you have to spend more effort on finding the load that will work well in any given .380. I've owned two different .380s to date - a Colt Government, and a Kel-Tec P3AT, and both worked better with some loads than others......whereas all of my 9mm and .45ACP pistols will eat whatever you feed them with complete composure. Also, my experience has been that .380 pistols are more susceptible to malfunctions caused by limp-wristing.

This is just my experience, but those factors along with not having as much faith in the caliber itself are why I don't carry one anymore. As always, YMMV.

TAM, I believe a lot of the reason those guns you listed are so finicky, is that in order to make them so small, they have very tight tolerances much like a nice 1911 but without the quality of a very nice 1911. As a result, they fail more often. With the G42 being a bit larger than the typical little .380, and having the typical "Glock Perfection" I was surprised to read this about the G42.

In doing some research, it appears the early 42's had an issue that Glock has since corrected. I've read about magazine and slide stop changes. Hopefully it now performs as a Glock should.


All that being said, I'm now trying to see if I can make the G43 play this role of pocket and BUG. Cheaper, more powerful ammo is the main reason. I have a ton of 9mm ammo and no 380... Not looking forward to stocking up on more expensive 380 ammo!

rentz wrote:I guess I will be the voice of dissent here, I didn't like it.
It was plenty small and light enough for pocket carry (smaller than my pm9)
But I could not hit the broadside of a barn with it for some reason and it seemed finicky on ammo. I found the trigger while shorter then most glocks was much heavier which I wasn't w fan of

But as far as size for pocket carry, that part was perfect

I've never heard of a Glock that wouldn't eat pretty much all ammo. Interesting.

Napier wrote:Get a two round mag extender from Strike Industries and a two mag IWB holder from Crossbreed and this is a fab summer carry bad boy! The break point between permanent deafness and tolerable lifelong ringing (whatja say, hun?) is at 380 vs 9mm. Trust me, I know.

Ha. I'm hoping I never have to hear it without ear protection.

Thanks for the responses!

Yes, the platform is the main reason I'm considering it over an LCP or P238. I like both of those guns… the P238 is probably the best shooting gun and the LCP is the best bang for the buck, but the G42 is the same platform as my daily carries (G19 or G26). It's almost as good a shooter as the P238 and probably better than the LCP… so priced right.

I am heavily considering one for pocket carry and/or backup gun.

A couple of years ago, I had a Taurus TCP, but sold it because I didn't find it very reliable even after sending to Taurus for servicing 2x.

I haven't pocket carried since, but I've had a few occasions recently that would have been ideal for pocket carry.

I also like the pocket carry because it's very unassuming to have your hand on your gun in parking lots or gas stations when I think I may need quick access, but it doesn't look like i'm readying myself like it would if I had a gun on my hip.

The Glock 43 is just a tad too large, so I'm considering the 42.
I'd like to hear the thoughts of those who may own one.

PS. I'm not really interested in an alternate. I've considered the P238, LCP, and other competitors, but I'm used to Glock. I want the same functionality and don't want an external safety, etc.