Glock G42 vs. Kahr CW380

[MarkB1]

Just received my G&A (Feb. 2014) and there is a review of the Glock G42 (Pg. 44).

Length: G42 = 5.94", CW380 = 4.96"

Height: G42 = 4.13", CW380 = 3.9"

Width: G42 = .84" (slide), CW380 = 0.75" (slide)

Weight: G42 = 13.4 oz. (empty), CW380 = 10.2 oz (empty)

Mag: G42 = 6+1, CW380 = 6+1

Caliber: G42 = .380 ACP, CW380 = .380 ACP

Barrel: G42 = 3.1", CW380 = 2.58"

MSRP: G42 = $474.00, CW380 = $419.00


For your info.

[hardluk1]

It will fill a need for the glock guys that want a pocket pistol or secondary pistol. To many other very good 380's out there all ready.

[cloud]

the rumor also has S&W releasing a new 380.I guess basically a bodyguard without the laser.

[Bill K]

Aren't those G42 stats closer to that of a PM/CM9? I like .380s and I like Glocks but the G42 appears to be more pocket 9 than pocket .380 size. Might as well carry a 9.

[addictedhealer]

Aren't those G42 stats closer to that of a PM/CM9? I like .380s and I like Glocks but the G42 appears to be more pocket 9 than pocket .380 size. Might as well carry a 9.


I agree. I would be interested in checking out a pm/cm sized Glock.

380 sized guns gotta be tinny like the p/cw380 before I buy.

[berettabone]

yawn.............................................. ........

[dsk]

Given the tempermental nature of most of the micro-.380s on the market I'd say a slightly larger gun that actually works might not be a bad thing. However I don't like the idea of a short, light Glock trigger on a gun that might be carried in the pocket without a holster. I'd rather have the CW380 just by the fact that I'd be less likely to shoot off something I might need later.

[RRP]

However I don't like the idea of a short, light Glock trigger on a gun that might be carried in the pocket without a holster.

In my opinion, it is a bad idea to pocket-carry any gun without a holster. YMMV.

[Firewire]

It's not striker fired, but the upcoming/delayed Beretta Pico looks to be the only close specs to the CW380 IMHO.

As has been posted and said before, Glock is late on this offering, but maybe they are appealing to recoil sensitive folks who would otherwise buy a small 9 due to size, or like you said brand loyalists as initial market???

[dsk]

In my opinion, it is a bad idea to pocket-carry any gun without a holster. YMMV.

Same here, but unfortunately not everybody has the same level of common sense as you and I do.

[booger switch]

Aren't those G42 stats closer to that of a PM/CM9? I like .380s and I like Glocks but the G42 appears to be more pocket 9 than pocket .380 size. Might as well carry a 9.

My thoughts exactly.

[medezyner]

Aren't those G42 stats closer to that of a PM/CM9? I like .380s and I like Glocks but the G42 appears to be more pocket 9 than pocket .380 size. Might as well carry a 9.



Ya, +1 on that.
I will say that for recoil sensitive shooters (wife) that the 42 may be just the ticket. My Keltec P3AT is too small/light for her to shoot comfortably, so I was thinking of a Bersa Thunder .380 purchase. I'm going to hold off and consider this Glock for sure. Doesn't float my boat, but the wife will dig it.

[Blairsville-Dave]

Medzner - you beat me to it on the Bersa. Price and quality would be fine for me if I wanted a .380. I think my CW9 will cover any concealed carry needs I have.