New Glock Model 42 Misses Perfection by 2mm

Glock 42Haters, Haters, Come Out to Play!  Glock has drawn much ire from firearms fans, pundits, and trolls over the company’s decision to manufacture a single stack .380 ACP pistol (9 x 17mm), instead of one chambered for the more powerful 9 x 19mm Parabellum.  That lousy little 2mm of case length, it seems, has raised a hue and cry.

The Glock pistol platform is accepted by many as a reliable and durable firearm.  Simple in its lack of external controls, it has developed strong followings in the civilian, Military, and law enforcement markets.  Ah, but the Teutonic stubborness of this Austrian company.

For many years, Glockophiles have clamored for everything from a single stack sub-compact pistol (exclude the chunky G36 here), to a submachine gun built on their Safe Action system, to, yeah, even a revolver.  Nein, the polymer design stayed within its original confines.

The Glock 25 and smaller G28, both in .380, are only available in the U.S.A. to law enforcement buyers, but exactly who would they be?  The compact G25 was introduced in 1995 for South American and European customers who could not carry “military” caliber handguns; niches far from us.  I cannot imagine any U.S. peace officer would want either of these weapons, then or now.

Consider that the .380 Glocks came along after the tragic 1986 FBI Miami shootout, when American law enforcement began moving up in caliber from their .38 S&W Specials to heavier hitters like the 9 X 19mm, 10mm Auto, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP.

Internet forums’ outrage has poured forth that the new Glock 42 is the party guest no one remembers inviting.  “Where, oh, where, is the Nine?!” has been shouted skyward by gun writers.  Glock’s corporate sanity has been put into question by consumers.  Many synapses have fired over the subject.

Now for the cool down.  Pinch yourself.  It is happening.  Glock will sell Glock 42’s.  Lots of ‘em.  The Glock 42 is a different animal than the G28.  Okay, so they didn’t come out with the 9mm first, then introduce a .380 in the same frame with the rationale that it was for recoil sensitive shooters…hello, Ruger.

I am personally not angsting about Glock’s direction.  They have shown that they will do things the way they want, when they want.  If a 9mm single stack sub-compact is in the pipeline, then we will just have to wait to see if it shoots the curl.  Gaston Glock made a few billion dollars doing things his way.  Don’t expect that to change.

Click here to see video of us shooting the New Glock 42 at Media Day at the Range 2014!

Randall

 

This entry was posted in Concealed Carry, Firearms, Off Duty and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to New Glock Model 42 Misses Perfection by 2mm

  1. M@ says:

    They’ll sell a boat load, Gaston will come out with more hunting crap no one cares about, and then in about 5 years, Glock will release the G47, a Tactical Practical 5″ model chambered in .32ACP…

    I still think Glock releasing the G40 in .22LR, would be some epic trolling.

  2. Aaron E says:

    I have been deriding Glock for their “misguided” choice of the new slim-line compact pistol. SOOOOO many have asked for the 9mm that it seems in-your-face to not start there.

    However, I have done some studying and found out that Ruger has sold over 1,200,000 LCP pistols!

    This from the Ruger Pistol Forums site:
    “Today I talked to a Ruger technician about rust on my LCP hammer spring seat pin and during the conversation I asked him how many LCP’s has Ruger sold and his answer was over 1,200,000 and climbing. ” That’s in about 4 years.

    With those kind of numbers I can quickly see the profitability that Glock is trying to capture. Even if they did 50% of those kind of sales Glock would be looking at 150,000-200,000 guns per year – for one model! That’s a whole lot of jack, Jack!

Leave a Reply

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

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>