Glock 42, vs Glock 43, vs Glock 26 for concealed carry this winter?

[David (OHGO)]

Which one of these handguns would you go with for concealed carry in the winter time? I like the skininess of the 43 and that I can easily get some +1 or +2 or +3 magazine extensions for it if I needed to. But the Glock 42 seems to be even a little smaller which would make for some great pocket carry. Then there is the 26 which is essentially a higher capacity Glock 43 from what I could tell, but maybe just a little thicker. I guess after typing ti out, I dont see why people would go with the 43 over the 26 and then add magazine extensions. I dunno, just looking for some input on this I suppose.

 

[RangerTim]

If you are considering pocket carry, the G42 is the way to go.  G43 will fit in a pocket, but in my opinion it is very difficult to efficiently draw from a standard pocket.  G43 is great if you want a super slim IWB carry in 9mm, however I have no issue with .380 so I use my G42 for this application more often than not. I never carry my G42 or G43 with a magazine extension, it kind of defeats the purpose of such a tiny gun.  However, my reload mags for both wear +2 extensions.  I'm not much of a G26 guy. If I can conceal a 26, I can conceal a 19.  By and large, it's the G19 85% of the time, G42 10% of the time, and G43 about 5% of the time.  While I love my Glocks, one of the best winter carry options.....a hammerless J-frame in pocket of your jacket.

 

[~ZENAS~]

For winter carry, the G26 wins hands down. With winter clothing, concealment isn't an issue at all. In fact, I usually go up to a G19/23 size for winter, then the G26 for general dress, and the G43 for deep concealment/pocket carry. I carry all 3, but find I usually just throw the G43 in my waistband most days for ease of carry. It literally disappears. 


I'm not of the same mindset as Chris regarding .380. I do not believe it is a viable self-defense round when there are other guns of like size in 9mm or larger. I will not carry a defense round that has less than 300 ft./lbs. of energy. And you will be hard pressed to find a .380 that meets that threshold for me. In fact, I don't even like 9mm generally for defense, but with modern bullets and loads they will often meet my standards, so I do carry 9mm quite a bit. I don't want to get into a caliber war, but I see no real reason to choose the G42 over the G43 when for pretty much any application, they are essentially the same size.

 

[RangerTim]

T.L. Jones , have you looked at Greg Ellifritz's study, An Alternative Look at Handgun Stopping Power?  I think he did a good job given it was all done by one man in his spare time.  Greg knows his stuff.  While it's not the definitive answer in stopping power, I would agree that it's all about placement vs. size of the bullet.  Curious of what your thoughts are on his article.

 

[~ZENAS~]

I agree that with handguns it's all about shot placement, not size of bullet. In fact, since we are talking about 9mm to .380, size of bullet isn't the issue since they have the same diameter. But as for the discussion in the article, it doesn't work that well because there are literally hundreds of variables when evaluating real life shootings that such a study can't account for. And since we are talking about deadly weapons, the fact that you can average the stats from across all these scenarios, including all the variables, and get similar results among all the calibers/rounds, is not only unsurprising, but scientifically expected. I don't think that study tells us what the author thinks it does. I don't think averaging the stats of a bunch of real world shootings to draw a conclusion helps me make a good decision. The fact that .380 performed as well or better than 9mm in the averages of these scenarios doesn't tell me what will be best for any particular set of circumstance I might face. My self defense scenario may not be "average". And to do that, I don't think you can just simply ignore the science of ballistics. So if you're comparing two rounds (9mm v 380) of essentially the same diameter/cross-section, that have a negligible difference in felt recoil (meaning shot placement isn't really a factor other than 380s tend to have shorter barrels and therefore shorter sight radius with which to place shots), then I can't understand not going with the round with higher mass, velocity, and energy transferred to target. In the studies I've read where the variables were controlled (which is the only way I will trust data, no offense to the study you linked), there is a significant difference between 250 ft/lbs of energy on human tissue analog and 300+ ft/lbs of energy. Based on all my reading, I have developed that 300 ft/lb threshold for me personally and will not choose a round with less. And since a 380 round with less offers no real advantage over a 9mm with more, it makes no sense at all for me to use the lesser round. If there was actually an advantage that the .380 has over other defensive rounds then I would have to consider it and make comparisons. But the .380 falls short in every ballistic category, and given modern pocket 9mm pistols, it doesn't get any real advantage in size/concealment that it used to.