642 as ONLY deep concealment carry option?

[wrx04]

My main carry gun is a gen 3 G19, but i carry a Kahr PM9 or SW 642 when deep concealment is needed. Recently, ive been contemplating selling a few guns and consolidate to the glock 9mm platform. I definitely would like to pick up a LAV G19 when they become available (i like the RTF) but was debating if i should get a 43. The PM9 has been very reliable, but had a couple high angle FTF's that just never sat well with me.

My question is, should i get a 43 for the times the 19 is too big, or can i just roll with a 642? I love the reliability of the small revolver, but its tough to shoot, slow to reload, and a bitch to get a ton of rounds through. It is a great "close range one bad guy" type situation, but a 43 is a little more shootable with quicker reloads.

[T2C]

I owned a Glock 43 for a while and I felt it was not as easy to hide as a J Frame or Glock 42. I would find a Glock 43 I could rent at a range and fire it before spending the money on one.

I just picked up another Glock 42 to use as a church gun. It is lightweight and easy to conceal. The round is somewhat anemic compared to a 9mm, but stacking a half dozen shots on a 7 yard target in less than 2 seconds is a lot easier with a Glock 42 than with a Glock 43. It requires a great deal more work with the Glock 43.

A J Frame is a great weapon and is easily concealable. A major downside is reloading quickly.

[wrx04]

I owned a Glock 43 for a while and I felt it was not as easy to hide as a J Frame or Glock 42. I would find a Glock 43 I could rent at a range and fire it before spending the money on one.

I just picked up another Glock 42 to use as a church gun. It is lightweight and easy to conceal. The round is somewhat anemic compared to a 9mm, but stacking a half dozen shots on a 7 yard target in less than 2 seconds is a lot easier with a Glock 42 than with a Glock 43. It requires a great deal more work with the Glock 43.

A J Frame is a great weapon and is easily concealable. A major downside is reloading quickly.

Thats a good point. I held one in the shop and it felt good, but i didnt shoot one. My PM9 is definitely smaller (more like a 42), but the 43 felt good. That said, i shot a 26 and HATED it. Hump hits my hand in a bad spot.

I can shoot the 642 well, but it takes practice and isnt much fun. I can dump five rounds in the "A" zone as fast as i can pull the trigger at 7 yards, but it doesnt invoke confidence for some reason.

[The Dumb Gun Collector]

I am a BIG fan of the J-frame. I basically carry all day (with a few courts that are funny as an exception) and I have found no more practical gun than the J-frame. Totally reliable, VERY safe to carry, and it had an organic shape that is easy to conceal. Slap some laser grips (which add zero bulk) and you have a low-light advantage that most folks can't match. Love em!

[L-2]

I've various handguns all of which I seem to find a use and occasion for them.
I've not owned a Kahr, but the PM9's specs seem to be similar to the G43, which I do own. If you want to replace or augment the PM9 with a Glock 43, I'd do it. Four thousand rounds and my G43 works fine. Just be sure the top round in the mag is all the way to the rear when chambering the first round or it fails to feed.

My G19gen3 works fine as does my G19gen4. I've not seen a Vickers G19 in person, or any other RTF2 Glock, but I understand the texture is similar to a Gen4's texture.

I recently replaced my S&W 642 with the G43 for my work backup gun, but will still carry the 642 off-duty. It fits & draws a bit easier than the G43 from a pocket and carries well on the ankle, as an alternative.

What all this means is get the G43 and another G19 (whatever variation). If you've lost confidence in the PM9, trade it, sell it, or give it away. The only person who you'll be justifying your decisions to is yourself.

[T2C]

If I were contemplating buying another weapon or carrying the S&W 642, I would be tempted to spend the money on .38 Special ammunition and practicing with the 642.

[Ron3]

Go handle a Ruger LCR.

IMO it does everything a S&W J-frame does only it has a drastically better trigger and considerably less recoil due the frame design and Hogue Tamer grip. (Comes with most models) Front sight is easy to change, if you wish.

The LCR .38 special is 13.5 oz unloaded, the LCR .357 mag is 17.2 oz unloaded. My wife is no fan of recoil but she can put 50 rounds of 125 gr +p through her LCR 357 in 20 minutes with no pain. Try that with an alluminum J-frame...wear a glove.

The Glock 42 .380 is on the large side for a pocket gun, as are the snub revolvers. But the Glock 43 is even bigger. Too big for me to pocket comfortable with good concealment anyway.

If you really want a pistol smaller and lighter than your J-frame consider a true pocket pistol. .25, .32, .380. Thats what I carry when I don't want to carry the LCR as a 2nd gun.

[Firefly]

I toted a Baby Browning here and there. Total last ditch. I also used an old Model 36. Absolute last ditch guns.


642 is geat especially if you had to drive a barrel into someone who got on top of you.

A 642 fits real nice into a vest holster. As does a 36.

[Co-gnARR]

Go handle a Ruger LCR.

IMO it does everything a S&W J-frame does only it has a drastically better trigger and considerably less recoil due the frame design and Hogue Tamer grip. (Comes with most models) Front sight is easy to change, if you wish.

The LCR .38 special is 13.5 oz unloaded, the LCR .357 mag is 17.2 oz unloaded. My wife is no fan of recoil but she can put 50 rounds of 125 gr +p through her LCR 357 in 20 minutes with no pain. Try that with an alluminum J-frame...wear a glove.

The Glock 42 .380 is on the large side for a pocket gun, as are the snub revolvers. But the Glock 43 is even bigger. Too big for me to pocket comfortable with good concealment anyway.

If you really want a pistol smaller and lighter than your J-frame consider a true pocket pistol. .25, .32, .380. Thats what I carry when I don't want to carry the LCR as a 2nd gun.

The thing about the LCR is the rattle it makes. I think it's the ejector being a two piece assembly vs the single piece on S&W. It might not be an issue when carried but any gun that makes noise when shaken lightly seems to defeat the purpose od CCW IMHO.

[wildcard600]

The thing about the LCR is the rattle it makes. I think it's the ejector being a two piece assembly vs the single piece on S&W. It might not be an issue when carried but any gun that makes noise when shaken lightly seems to defeat the purpose od CCW IMHO.

True, but I've got enough stuff in my pockets that rattles already (keys, change, phone) that the LCR noise is a non-issue, for me anyway.