View Full Version : Glock 42
A friend bought one, and after not getting it to function without having stove pipe type stoppages, he asked me to see if I could "fix" his Glock.
None of my attempts worked. The ammo choice was not a factor. Obvious from the start was that the recoil spring weight was too high. Cases that did eject fell at my feet. When I called Glock, described the problem, and provided serial number, the csr offered to send a prepaid shipping label. Now Glock has it. Serial prefix is AASU. Glock shipped this pistol to a distributor in March, 2014. I was asked about bullet grain weight. I had used S&B which has a 92 gr bullet.
danieljmaunder
01-16-15, 21:39
Sounds like an early production batch. Some of the earlier ones that came out before July had some issues. Not the first I've heard of this
There's a huge 200+ page thread on the big Glock forum about people's past and current experiences on the G42. Most of the talked about issues from actual owners have been feeding relating and are still plaguing current test fired guns. There is not a serial number prefix or test fire date that is safe or problem free. It's really hit or miss at this point.
I lucked out and got one that did not have feeding or extraction/ejection issues. I have 456 rounds in mine and the only thing I encountered early on ( < 100 rounds) was a premature slide lock on a loaded mag. Could have been anything..
99% of most G42 issues are shooter induced malfunctions. Any input on the slide will cause a feed issue, slide stop lever issue etc.. It's a small gun, more sensitive to grip issues. Same thing with the G36. Actual issues with either of those models are FAR from hit or miss.
99% of most G42 issues are shooter induced malfunctions. Any input on the slide will cause a feed issue, slide stop lever issue etc.. It's a small gun, more sensitive to grip issues. Same thing with the G36. Actual issues with either of those models are FAR from hit or miss.
Not to be taken the wrong way but do you own a G42? A majority of the feeding issues on the G42 are nowhere near shooter induced. Glock has been trying to fix the issue. Feed ramps have been altered as well and some people are reporting bulged casings. I know forum owners are a small sample but they are surely sending their G42 back and forth to Glock. I'm pretty positive they let others shoot their gun with the same results.
There have been 2 frame revisions and one slide stop revision to date. Also there are 3 mag versions out there. Shooter induced, I think not.
http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1516100
That link is the large one that is on going. There are good reports and bad reports and updates on G42 repairs. It's LONG but worth it if you're on the fence about owning one.
Not to be taken the wrong way but do you own a G42? A majority of the feeding issues on the G42 are nowhere near shooter induced. Glock has been trying to fix the issue. Feed ramps have been altered as well and some people are reporting bulged casings. I know forum owners are a small sample but they are surely sending their G42 back and forth to Glock. I'm pretty positive they let others shoot their gun with the same results.
There have been 2 frame revisions and one slide stop revision to date. Also there are 3 mag versions out there. Shooter induced, I think not.
Well yes I have a G42. Do you know that there are parts revisions by every manufacturer for most every gun made? Look on any S&W revolver frame. Glock still produces revisions for G17's and every other model. Most guns don't need them, but they never stop updating processes and parts. The Glock 9mm magazine follower is now on #6. The .40 mag followers are #9. I've shot more than my share of G42's and they run. I have one of the first G42's shipped with the original magazines that runs with no issues. Does it like some ammo over other. Yep, but that can be said with most guns out there. Also, with most any small gun you pretty much have to alter how you shoot them. Watch Jerry Miculek's video.
Oh yeah, Using GLock Talk as a reference is hardly what I would consider reliable information. One should take those threads with a serious grain of salt. Just sayin'
brushy bill
01-18-15, 22:21
Oh yeah, Using GLock Talk as a reference is hardly what I would consider reliable information. One should take those threads with a serious grain of salt. Just sayin'
Agreed, but the typical criticism of enthusiast forums is they ignore/down play problems, not claim problems that don't exist. Just sayin'.
Crow Hunter
01-19-15, 08:31
Agreed, but the typical criticism of enthusiast forums is they ignore/down play problems, not claim problems that don't exist. Just sayin'.
Some bubblegum forums have probably 30% or greater portions of their membership that either aren't old enough to own a gun or have never even touched a gun in their lives and their entire experience is reading gun forums and playing COD. Another 20%+ are just liars who don't actually own the guns they are talking about and have a vendetta against certain manufacturers and will echo chamber any known fault of that manufacturer. Another 10%+ of them own the guns but never actually shoot them because they don't want to waste money on ammunition that could be used to buy another gun to put in the safe and admire.
There is another small portion of the population that actually has 2 different accounts and will literally argue with themselves about things.:fie:
I am not even going to go into the aftermarket astro-turfing accounts.
There are probably less than 10% of the people of certain forums that should be taken as even remotely reliable and if you are a shooter, you will be able to figure out who they are.
This forum has a higher number of reliable members but even then, there are a not insignificant percentage who live in our Mom's basement and read gun magazines/forums and know everything about guns without ever actually owning or shooting them at all.
I don't own a Glock 42, but I had a chance to shoot one. I installed sights on a Glock 42 for a friend who purchased his last fall. After I got the sights zeroed I fired some rounds from contact distance to 25 meters. It functioned flawlessly and was surprisingly accurate for a small pistol. It's accuracy rivaled that of my Walther PPK at 25 meters.
The owner of the Glock 42 I worked on is a cheap skate (PG version) and he will pinch a penny until Abraham Lincoln screams uncle. He shoots the cheapest ammunition he can find. To date, he has shot over 500 rounds without any issues.
I gather from post #2 that changes were made in July 2014. Does anyone know what changes were made?
Once the OP gets the G42 back from Glock, I would be interested to know what parts were replaced.
I'm the op. When shooting this model 42, I experimented in this manner to avoid any hint of limp wristing: using a two hand death grip hold, I pulled my elbows into my abdomen with great force. Still, I had stove pipe stoppages; however, the number was fewer. One variation I did not try was removing the slide stop. But I did substitute my left hand for my right and saw no difference.
Since some shooters report that 42's slide stop has caused problems, and I readily see how it might, I think that I will remove this part if I buy a Glock 42.
brushy bill
01-19-15, 22:03
Some bubblegum forums have probably 30% or greater portions of their membership that either aren't old enough to own a gun or have never even touched a gun in their lives and their entire experience is reading gun forums and playing COD. Another 20%+ are just liars who don't actually own the guns they are talking about and have a vendetta against certain manufacturers and will echo chamber any known fault of that manufacturer. Another 10%+ of them own the guns but never actually shoot them because they don't want to waste money on ammunition that could be used to buy another gun to put in the safe and admire.
There is another small portion of the population that actually has 2 different accounts and will literally argue with themselves about things.:fie:
I am not even going to go into the aftermarket astro-turfing accounts.
There are probably less than 10% of the people of certain forums that should be taken as even remotely reliable and if you are a shooter, you will be able to figure out who they are.
This forum has a higher number of reliable members but even then, there are a not insignificant percentage who live in our Mom's basement and read gun magazines/forums and know everything about guns without ever actually owning or shooting them at all.
Maybe you're right, but don't know how you compiled your stats. Don't know / want to know what COD, astro-turfing, etc mean. My post was merely to indicate that folks usually fault Glock Talk, Sig fourm, FN forum, etc for defending the product they are fans of...typically they aren't faulted for saying there is a problem when there isn't. I don't own a G42 or sleep in a Holiday Inn/parents' basement.
Crow Hunter
01-20-15, 07:49
Maybe you're right, but don't know how you compiled your stats. Don't know / want to know what COD, astro-turfing, etc mean. My post was merely to indicate that folks usually fault Glock Talk, Sig fourm, FN forum, etc for defending the product they are fans of...typically they aren't faulted for saying there is a problem when there isn't. I don't own a G42 or sleep in a Holiday Inn/parents' basement.
I just made them up. :)
Unfortunately that is what happens on the internet.
COD = Call of Duty (video game)
Astroturfing = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing
I have seen enough crap on Glock Talk that I don't use it for anything other than entertainment. This happened right after I saw a 3 or 4 page argument on which direction you should move the rear sight to adjust for POA/POI. Over half of the posters were completely wrong and over half of those that were correct obviously had no idea what they were talking about. (Moving the sights changed how the bullet came out:suicide:)
Considering that is a basic BB gun understanding of firearms, I don't take anything seriously on Glocktalk and haven't since Tamara left.
Most people, and I am guilty of it too, think that everyone else posting on internet forums are the same as them. They aren't.
They might be sitting in their footed pajamas in their Mom's house waiting for her to make cereal or they might be standing in front of a Inventor Pro work station posting online instead of working on the project he is supposed to be working on.;)
For the record, my wife owns a G42 (~400 rds) and she loves it. No failures whatsoever and in her hands is phenomenally accurate. To quote her "I LOVE this gun". This was after her 2nd magazine with all holes touching at ~10 yards.
COD = Call of Duty (video game)
Astroturfing = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing
I learned something new today. I guess you can teach an old dog new tricks.
I have been shooting a 42 for a few weeks now - only about 300 rounds so far due to limited ammo supply and have not yet set up to reload 380 (soon!)
I have had one malfunction- lock back with one round in mag on a lead round nose reload.
All jacketed ammo flawless. Sub two inch 15 yard groups ( haven't had the time to go to 25 or beyond)
They will be sensitive to grip as I watch my placement not to interfere with the slide stop.
Once I had 100 rounds through it with no malfunction I tried to get it to jam shooting it one handed with an intentionally unlocked wrist and elbow and a two finger grip and it still ran.
brushy bill
01-20-15, 13:29
I learned something new today. I guess you can teach an old dog new tricks.
Me too. Thanks for the chuckle Crow Hunter.
I've got a new one and while I haven't shot much out of it (less then fifty rounds of FMJ) I've only had one fug up with the second mag through it-the shell fired but didn't eject,however since this is with some old .380 that I've had for gawd knows how long I'm racking that up to ammo and not me or the gun.
It did pass one test I always do with a new pistol:load a mag and holding it in one hand I do a mag dump as fast as I can,no aiming just dump the mag into the backstop FAST,the little bugger did it with authority.
My range is my front yard so range is approx but I'd say not more then eight yards and accuracy was fine,it shot a tad left however I'll claim that as it's been awhile since I've shot a striker pistol.
Gonna shoot it more this afternoon.
I love Glocks.
That said, no way on earth would I own a 42.
I own 2 Glock 19's and have NEVER had a single FTE/FTF after shooting thousands and thousands of rounds through them. When WWbox was $4.63 a box of 50, I would buy them by the case from Walmart and shoot a minimum of 300 rounds per shooting session.
Monday, I'll be shooting my favorite 19, the other is a grip reduced for my wife to shoot. My other Glock 19 whose grip wasn't to my liking (too narrow) until I installed a Hogue Handall and now it's grip is perfect.
GLOCK 42 BACK. I received the 42 from Glock this week. They replaced the following parts: magazines, firing pin assembly, slide cover plate, extractor plunger assembly, locking block. Without firing the pistol, I returned it to my friend who will test it, and I will report his findings. I had expected that they would have replaced the super strong recoil spring, but they did not. Oddly, my friend fired 200 rds through it before malfunctions occurred. On the original mags at the top front edge I observed a sharp lip protruding backwards. The new mags had an upper edge with a 45 degree slope forward. I could see that the mags were new and not repaired. One can only guess at Gaston's reasoning, and my guess is that with this serial number range the strategy is to replace "everything".
One can only guess at Gaston's reasoning, and my guess is that with this serial number range the strategy is to replace "everything".
Armorer's discretion.
I just bought a Glock 42 after renting one at my local gun store / shooting range. I was advised that the newer revisions are marked with a # 2 on the magazine and another #2 stamped into the frame by the trigger bar. I was unable to locate that specific marking but the mags had the #2 . Anyway I shot 50 rounds of Agulia because that was all they had. I did not have any issues with the range gun or the one I bought but again, I only shot 50 rounds through each one and used both mags that came with the new one I bought. I will have to say that I didn't want to like this little pocket gun, but as I shot it, it grew on me. I am a L.E.O. and I carry a Glock 21 for work and am a 1911 guy and carry one off duty. The 42 is a back up gun and will be carried in a cargo pants pocket of my uniform. This pistol was accurate out to 15 yds and I did not encounter any FTF's FTE's or stovepipes / double feeds. I just ordered the 2 round extension and a Ghost 3.5 Edge upgrade as my 21 has a 3.5 trigger upgrade as well.
Current magazines are marked 02. Even newer 42's are shipping with mags identified with caliber (.380). They are exactly the same as the 02 mags and carry that mark as well.
The number inside the frame has NOTHING to do with updates. It's quite simply the number of the mold that was used to make the frame. That's it.
What is the current guide rod assembly on these. The one I have is 0 1.
C4
plouffedaddy
02-25-15, 10:40
What is the current guide rod assembly on these. The one I have is 0 1.
C4
I believe it's "1 0" (7:02 mark below)
Mine's pretty recent FWIW
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vj8aPVe-DTQ
I have had great luck with two different ones.
I had one of the first production G42's out, about 1k rounds through it all kinds of ammo and no problems.
My second also works flawlessly. It lives in my pocket. I work in construction, so it gets full of sand, crud, and sweat.
Just for kicks I don't clean it before I shoot it, and it runs like a Swiss watch. Even with the early mags.
Current magazines are marked 02. Even newer 42's are shipping with mags identified with caliber (.380). They are exactly the same as the 02 mags and carry that mark as well.
The number inside the frame has NOTHING to do with updates. It's quite simply the number of the mold that was used to make the frame. That's it.
Thank you for clarifying that, I obviously was given inaccurate information and I don't like to spread or use inaccurate info besides looking like a tool or troll. Mrgunsngear, thank you for the review, and post to the link on the Glock forum.
What is the current guide rod assembly on these. The one I have is 0 1.
C4
That's correct.
A local gun shop has an indoor range and they have a Glock 42 as a loaner. The magazine is marked with a 2, but I can't confirm how internal parts are marked. People shoot the daylights out of it and I haven't heard any negative feedback about the pistol.
The only negative thing I am hearing is the difference in price between .380 and 9mm ammunition. .380 ammunition is considerably more expensive in my area.
plouffedaddy
03-02-15, 19:24
Thank you for clarifying that, I obviously was given inaccurate information and I don't like to spread or use inaccurate info besides looking like a tool or troll. Mrgunsngear, thank you for the review, and post to the link on the Glock forum.
Glad you found it helpful.
http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1516100
That link is the large one that is on going. There are good reports and bad reports and updates on G42 repairs. It's LONG but worth it if you're on the fence about owning one.
Probably the best reply from that thread:
One of many reasons, the G42will be exported to South America where the .380 will be used by the huge civilian market,and Glock will own that marketshare.
The proven endurancs,reliability,acceptance of the design worldwide including police and military,and the same feel,trigger,etc. means success for the new G42.
Is the G42 just a lemon with design and engineering flaws?
I now have a Ghost Edge connector, 2 shot mag. extension and Crimson Trace laser guard. I now have 100 rounds through mine without a hiccup. I'm not crazy about the cost of the .380 ammo but this a fun little gun to shoot and works well as a good back-up.
There are two G42's out there. The 1st production ones had a lot of very well known issues. The newer ones with the different # on the internals has had pretty positive. I'm looking at buying one of these as a ankle carry and will be making sure I have a later production 42
There are two G42's out there. The 1st production ones had a lot of very well known issues. The newer ones with the different # on the internals has had pretty positive. I'm looking at buying one of these as a ankle carry and will be making sure I have a later production 42
There are revisions to the Gen3 frames, but there's no functional differences. Same with the G42 frames. I have one of the first G42's with no current revisions and it runs anything I've put through it. Point being, revisions and improvements are a constant but there are thousands out in service without the changes that function just fine. People get all wrapped around the axle because of a lot of misinformation and speculation on the interwebs.
BTW as mentioned before. The # on the frame has nothing to do with changes. More than one machine makes parts. Those are mold or machine numbers, nothing more.
I was instructed by the wife to buy her a Glock 42, which I bought April 30th. I took it out May 1st to fire the first shots through it.
I did not clean or lube it, I just took it out of the box and fired 60 rounds through it. I did this intentionally to induce a malfunction. The G42 fired 30 rounds of Brown Bear FMJ and 30 rounds of CCI Lawman HP without a malfunction. When I have more time, I will really drop the hammer on the new pistol to see what it can take.
So far, accuracy is good and recoil is very light. When I ring up a higher round count and can get it to malfunction, I will post again.
The attached photo is of a target that has 30 rounds of Brown Bear and 30 rounds of CCI on it with a total of 8 head shots. The G42 is definitely more accurate than the Walther PPK I sold.
Any way to determine based on the serial number?
99% of most G42 issues are shooter induced malfunctions. Any input on the slide will cause a feed issue, slide stop lever issue etc.. It's a small gun, more sensitive to grip issues. Same thing with the G36. Actual issues with either of those models are FAR from hit or miss.
I think that that is unlikely, like most supposed "shooter induced" function errors. If a personal defense or combat firearm is that sensitive to the way that it is gripped, then it is a defective design and should be recalled.
Update: Round count on the wife's Glock 42 is now 200. The only malfunctions to date were the slide not locking back after the last shot in the magazine. The malfunctions were shooter induced when I rested my thumb on the slide stop lever. I hate to say it, but I am warming to this .380.
Doc Safari
08-12-15, 11:55
So it's now August 2015. Can we safely assume that if one were to walk into a gun store today and buy a G42 that all the issues have been worked out and the pistol will be GTG as far as design flaws?
Flankenstein
08-12-15, 12:24
So it's now August 2015. Can we safely assume that if one were to walk into a gun store today and buy a G42 that all the issues have been worked out and the pistol will be GTG as far as design flaws?
No. My new FDE 42 (06/15) had premature slide lock every mag with underwood's 90g extreme penetrator rounds (60 rounds fired) and not every mag but often enough with freedom munitions 90g reman (150 round).
Ordered different ammo to test out this weekend but the gun is still picky about ammo at best and a POS at worst.
I'll be shooting mine next weekend...I'll report back.
calviroman
08-13-15, 21:01
No. My new FDE 42 (06/15) had premature slide lock every mag with underwood's 90g extreme penetrator rounds (60 rounds fired) and not every mag but often enough with freedom munitions 90g reman (150 round).
Ordered different ammo to test out this weekend but the gun is still picky about ammo at best and a POS at worst.
I second the no...mine is back at Glock right now for the same reason (premature lockback). This is my second G42, and the first one went back as well but still never ran right (premature lockback as well). I want to like the model, but Glock engineering needs to up their game on this model.
Had the issue on both guns with multiple shooters and multiple brands of 380 brass cased factory ball. About a 2-5% stoppage rate which is absolutely horrible and 100% unsat
Dstrbdmedic167
08-13-15, 21:29
I had a 42 for a while.. Mine was a release day model(early production). I had countless issues regardless of ammo/mags used... Sent to Glock twice and while it got better each time I still had issues. Traded it on the 43 and knock on wood I havent had any issues thus far...
I had a 42 for a while.. Mine was a release day model(early production). I had countless issues regardless of ammo/mags used... Sent to Glock twice and while it got better each time I still had issues. Traded it on the 43 and knock on wood I havent had any issues thus far...
Same here. Had an early model that I sent back twice. Got a little better the first time, but still had a few lockbacks and even some FTFs with JHPs. Failure rate was about 1/15. I just sent it back the second time and they called last week to tell me they're sending a whole new gun (we're able to duplicate all my gripes).
Let's hope a new gun solves the problems, because the form factor is great and I want to love it. This is my 3rd Glock, and only one with issues.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Dstrbdmedic167
08-13-15, 22:02
Same here. Had an early model that I sent back twice. Got a little better the first time, but still had a few lockbacks and even some FTFs with JHPs. Failure rate was about 1/15. I just sent it back the second time and they called last week to tell me they're sending a whole new gun (we're able to duplicate all my gripes).
Let's hope a new gun solves the problems, because the form factor is great and I want to love it. This is my 3rd Glock, and only one with issues.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Glad to hear(using the term loosely) that I was not the only one. I've had several and that was the only one as well. I wanted the 43 when I got the 42 so release day I had one and traded quick, fast and in a hurry. I really liked the 42 though it was a good balance IMO.
Flankenstein
08-13-15, 23:07
I had a 42 for a while.. Mine was a release day model(early production). I had countless issues regardless of ammo/mags used... Sent to Glock twice and while it got better each time I still had issues. Traded it on the 43 and knock on wood I havent had any issues thus far...
My 43 has been 100% reliable as well. Every Glock I've ever owned sans the 42 has been.
I had lunch on Tuesday with an old friend from college and Marine Corp days. Afterwards we sat in his really nice Toyota pickup truck in the parking lot and talked for another hour about different things. When the conversation turned to guns he pulled his Glock 42 out of his pocket Sticky Holster and showed it to me. I asked if he had ever had trouble and he laughed. Said when he first bought it new it was basically useless as it would correctly feed and fire maybe one round in each magazine on a good day. Ammo choice didn't matter, it just wouldn't work with anything.
He sent it back to Glock and it was gone for six weeks. When they returned it he couldn't tell that anything had changed but obviously they had done something since it has been 100% reliable ever since.
One of the problems with getting useful information about Glocks on the various shooting boards is the great division of opinion. On one hand there are the rabid fanboys who have enshrined Glock on a golden pedestal. If there is any problem it is simply YOUR fault as a shooter. You're limp wristing it, gripping it wrong or some other lame brained excuse. On the other hand are the Glock haters who find fault with everything about the gun and the company. I have learned to try and discern if a forum poster falls within either group and then just ignore their posts as biased and unreliable.
I ran into this when I had two Gen 4 Model 19s with severe brass-to-face issues, like 3-4 hot empties ejected into my face every magazine full. When I went looking for advice and a cure I posted my problem and immediately the fanboys came out with every ridiculous reason that it was my fault. I finally found the cure by installing the Apex extractor kit and almost 2,000 combined rounds through the two guns later I haven't been hit a single time in the face.
I'm sure some of the nasty posts about the G42 were from the Glock haters group, likely people who didn't even own one. But, without doubt there were a bunch of problems with that model Glock when it first came out. Hopefully Glock has resolved the each individual owner's guns as well as they did my friend's Model 42.
I just got home from the range. I saw an instructor on the range next to me with a new student shooting a new Glock 42. I watched them for a while and spoke with the instructor while they were policing up brass. The instructor showed me Blazer .380 FMJ and CCI hollow point ammunition that was fired without any issues. A SWAG is the student fired roughly 250 rounds.
Perhaps Glock has the G42 sorted out.
Flankenstein
08-14-15, 18:07
Perhaps Glock has the G42 sorted out.
Negative.
Some get lucky some don't. My buddy picked up one 3 months ago and had a few malfunctions when brand new. I know he hasn't had to contact Glock at all.
Slvr Surfr
08-14-15, 20:56
Ive had my G42 since February, 2015. My first range outing included 100 rounds of FMJ and 50 of Federal Hydroshock HP ammo. I had two premature lock backs when firing the FMJ ammo. I concluded that it was due to my grip and adjusted accordingly. I had zero issues the rest of the range session.
I use the G42 for back-up purposes only, but I really like the gun. I think it's definitely the most comfortable .380 to shoot on the market.
Flankenstein
08-14-15, 21:49
Some get lucky some don't. My buddy picked up one 3 months ago and had a few malfunctions when brand new. I know he hasn't had to contact Glock at all.
Lol. "Lucky" does not equal GTG.
Flankenstein
08-15-15, 17:29
Happy to report that I fired 210 rounds to day with no issue. I shot the following:
100 95g Fiocchi FMJ
60 90g Underwood XTP
25 Hornady Custom XTP
25 90g Hornady z-max
I did call Kevin Underwood and he was unaware of the xtreme penetrator rounds having issues in Gock 42s. He did mention that they are redesigning the bullet and if it was the bullet shape/dimensions causing the issue the new design should alleviate the issue.
Well yes I have a G42. Do you know that there are parts revisions by every manufacturer for most every gun made? Look on any S&W revolver frame. Glock still produces revisions for G17's and every other model. Most guns don't need them, but they never stop updating processes and parts. The Glock 9mm magazine follower is now on #6. The .40 mag followers are #9. I've shot more than my share of G42's and they run. I have one of the first G42's shipped with the original magazines that runs with no issues. Does it like some ammo over other. Yep, but that can be said with most guns out there. Also, with most any small gun you pretty much have to alter how you shoot them. Watch Jerry Miculek's video.
Oh yeah, Using GLock Talk as a reference is hardly what I would consider reliable information. One should take those threads with a serious grain of salt. Just sayin'
02411 is right. There was an earlier unreported issue on the G42, that Glock will not acknowledge. It has since been fixed.
I fired the Glock 42 twice in the past week and hit the 400 round mark. So far, so good. I fired Brown Bear HP and FMJ, Winchester white box FMJ and CCI Lawman 90g HP with zero malfunctions. I also fired the Glock 43 on both outings for comparison.
I compared first shot from concealment, split times, rapid fire hits on target at 50 feet and slow fire accuracy at 25 yards with my Glock 43. The Glock 42 seems to be better in all these categories than the Glock 43 and it's easier to conceal. The Glock 43 is my EDC pistol and the available 9mm defensive cartridges have more beans than the .380 auto, but I am strongly considering carrying a Glock 42 when I don't carry a 1911.
Happy to report that I fired 210 rounds to day with no issue. I shot the following:
100 95g Fiocchi FMJ
60 90g Underwood XTP
25 Hornady Custom XTP
25 90g Hornady z-max
I did call Kevin Underwood and he was unaware of the xtreme penetrator rounds having issues in Gock 42s. He did mention that they are redesigning the bullet and if it was the bullet shape/dimensions causing the issue the new design should alleviate the issue.
Fast forwarding to today, have you had anymore issues with your G42?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.