Glock 42—Not So Much

Let’s start this off with a disclaimer: All of us at CSTP are Glock users, and have been for some time. In fact, Admin bought his first Glock right after its appearance in the US—about the time I was dismissing a polymer pistol as a “never will fly” idea.

But our recognition of the Glock’s positive qualities does not mean we drank the Glock Koolaide. They are not perfect and not everything related to the company always inspires confidence or respect.

Another thing is Glock can make mistakes (Gasp!)—the .45 GAP and earlier Glock 22s that flexed a little too much when wearing a weapon light, becoming an occasional jam-a-matic come to mind. The new “let’s all talk about it because it’s a Glock” 42 would probably be one of those mistakes if not for the diehard Glock fans who will buy it just because.

Sized almost like a G26 but thinner, only the 42’s trimness appears to be of interest. Yes, for the recoil sensitive a non-pocket pistol-size .380 may make sense, but Kahr has that covered with their P380 and lots of folks have the pocket .380 pistol market covered. Chambered for 9 mm Luger the 42 would be a nice, if only slight, improvement, but it isn’t.

I don’t see it as an improvement worth the hoopla, but I have been wrong before. I just don’t think so this time.

On the other hand, the new Remington 51 could be everything the 42 isn’t, including chambered in 9 mm Luger. Here’s a link to the Tactical Wire’s Rich Grassi’s take on the 51 from his time with it at Gunsite. And here is a link to a video about the 51’s cycle of operation posted by Richard Mann.


I know which one I’m looking forward to getting my hands on! Come on Pridgen, do your thing.

This entry was posted in Announcement, Back Up Guns, Editorial, Firearms, Handguns, Videos and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Glock 42—Not So Much

  1. Pingback: Glock 42—Not So Much | The Gun Feed

Comments are closed.