Glock 42 : Is it "Glock" reliable ?

I am curious about this too

I'd say, no. Going smaller, decreasing tolerances increases the likelihood of things going wrong. I was looking at one a few months back, still lots of anecdotal accounts of teething issues.

I would also say it's a bit...Kool-aidy... to say you'd trust any "brand" out of the box without testing!

Any gun could have an issue, any mechanical thing could fail. Don't be brand blinded. Test any gun you rely on for defense thoroughly and with the ammunition you intend to use for social purposes.

I thought the 42 might have been my first actual Glock purchase- then I shot one. Had several FTE and wasn't impressed with the accuracy. Plus, it just felt.......cheap and flimsey.
I ended up buying a Beretta Pico instead and haven't regretted it at all.

Im a Glock guy,and have not shot the 42. I do however love my Sig 230 for 380.

I had a couple of 42's when they first came out, and didnt have a problem with either. What was supposed to be wrong with them?

defjon said:

I'd say, no. Going smaller, decreasing tolerances increases the likelihood of things going wrong. I was looking at one a few months back, still lots of anecdotal accounts of teething issues.

I would also say it's a bit...Kool-aidy... to say you'd trust any "brand" out of the box without testing!

Any gun could have an issue, any mechanical thing could fail. Don't be brand blinded. Test any gun you rely on for defense thoroughly and with the ammunition you intend to use for social purposes.

Click to expand...

I agree with vetting anything you get, and I do. Everything, new or used, gets shot to make sure its OK.

That said, I agree with tercel89 on trusting the Glocks to work right out of the box. I have a bunch of them, and every one of them has fit that bill, and the 42's were no exception. The only other brands I have had that same experience with, are SIG and HK.

I have had a G42 since shortly after they cam out, and have never had a problem with mine. Shoots all ammo, no jams, and is as reliable as any other Glock I have.

I am not a Glock guy (do won a few) but why not read up on the gazillion online reviews, ??

Glock seems t make very good reliable guns. A few yehs or nays here is not gonna determine it for you.
Heck most will say a 380 is not good enough either,

I got the 42's before the 43's came out. I got one of those too when they did. I no longer have any of them. Nothing wrong with them, but I like the 26 better, as it gives more options, and I carry it where I would be carrying the others, so I saw no point in keeping them.

You hedge your chances going with sigs, glocks, smith's etc as far as issues right out of the box for sure. I still think any gun that isn't just for the range it's prudent to have vetted with at least a few hundred rounds.

It would personally make me uneasy to buy a new glock or literally any gun, load it up, and keep it handy in the nightstand etc without shooting it.

Everyone makes the occasional lemon.

Some of this question is based on reputation; some guns have a reputation for being finicky. Walther PPKs in .380 were never initially designed for hollow points, and the earlier ones are picky eaters.
That said, Glocks have never, generally, had that sort of reputation.
The 42 had some early troubles; they had 9lb triggers, and slide stops that were prone to engage while there were rounds in the gun. There was a huge flap about it on Glock Talk, and presently Glock got it sorted.
My own, more recent, examples have been stone reliable with anything fed them. Have recommended them to rookie shooters. They simply run, and you can hit things.
I have literally taken new ones from the gun shop, straight to our snubby league, and run them without problems.
For the OP, if you want a 42, just do it. Get current production, and you'll be fine.
The only problem; a P365 is just a little bigger.
Moon

The 42 is one of the few that I do not have. They have quite a few fans on GT, reported to be soft, reliable shooters. EDC G43x MOS personally.

Owned one about 3 years ago. It was reliable in my hands. My daughter could not get thru a magazine without stovepipe. So if someone has less than average size hands and/or not the greatest grip strength, it may be sketchy. However she has no issues with a SIG P238, the grip is better suited for her.

I eventually parted with it because for me, it wasn't as suited for pocket carry as other choices I had.

Can only speak from personal experience - a sample size of one.

Despite its diminutive size, it has no issues being an "all afternoon" range pistol. It's kind of like the Glock 30 (.45 ACP!) - tiny, but unusually soft shooting (not so much the 42, but definitely so for the 30).

I used to burn 200 rounds of Tulammo a session, back in the day when things were affordable.

And yes, I would preload all twenty of my magazines before heading out to the range - that was the main limiting factor.

Mark 40 said:

... My daughter could not get thru a magazine without stovepipe. So if someone has less than average size hands and/or not the greatest grip strength, it may be sketchy. However she has no issues with a SIG P238, the grip is better suited for her...

Click to expand...

Saw one of our handgun students tie up mine...she held it halfway down the grip.
But, with any sort of reasonable grip, mine have always run. I've tried one handed, and one handed, left handed.
Mark, please, due respect to your daughter; some things just don't work for everyone.
Moon

Over the years, I have heard/read that Glocks can be overly sensitive in terms of reliability if the shooter is prone to "limp-wristing". I have no experience with their pistols but, if true, it might explain the gun stove-piping while being used in the hand of Mark 40's daughter.

Limp wristing has nothing to do with the wrist or the shooters grip. Its allowing your arm to move rearward with recoil, which takes the momentum away from the recoil cycle.

A while back, there were a couple of videos floating around saying the Glocks were prone to failures if you didnt grip them just right. I took one of my 17's and tried to replicate the problems they were showing in the videos. Even with absolutely no grip on the gun, with it literally just resting on the web of my hand, and my trigger finger being the only thing keeping the gun from flying off when it fired, as long as there was mass behind the gun, it cycled fine. And it did that for four full magazines, 68 rounds.

The only way it stuttered, was when I held it like the boy in the video did, sideways, with my thumb under the grip and squeezing my thumb and trigger finger together, to fire the gun. Even then, it still fired and cycled more than it didnt.

As long as there is mass behind the gun, and you dont allow your arm to move rearward with recoil, the gun will cycle.

defjon said:

.Kool-aidy... to say you'd trust any "brand" out of the box without testing!

Click to expand...

Ya think?? Malfunctions do not care who's name is on the slide. Testing your individual gun is paramount.

While a glock owner they were way late to the party. (as usual)

halfmoonclip said:

Mark, please, due respect to your daughter; some things just don't work for everyone.
Moon

Click to expand...

Agreed, which is why its great she has something that works for her. Plus, in general, with so many choices, most folks will be able to find the right match for them.

IMHO, Glock wouldn't be selling a bunch of malfunctioning pistols. They've spent decades cultivating their "brand". They want you to feel like you're buying a GLOCK, not just any old pistol.

I'm not a huge fan, but my Glocks work fine.

I like my G42. I’ve been a .380 nerd for a long time (first carry gun was a 1908 Colt). I have a few different .380s right now and will say the G42 is the best of them all. Most accurate, reliable and softest shooting. I’ve only run handloads through mine however, and carry it with ball ammo.

The only mods I’ve done are Hackathorn Tritium sights (front tritium vial only) and a HYVE +1 grip extension. It does just fine for what it is.

I've got an early one, not the very first batch that hit the market but within 2 months of them being released. Mine has never done anything but work as its supposed to. I think the issue was magazine related, mine are like this :

The corner looks like it was chewed by a beaver, that's how they came. Seems to have been a fine solution and I'd imagine later magazines were made with that corner missing, I don't know I haven't bought any extra magazines or looked at newer ones. Great little gun, I carry it all the time.

Are we talking about factory guns having issues, or those "improved" by the owners?

Just about any time I hear there was a problem with a Glock, it turns out it was because of the aftermarket parts added by the owner causing issues, and not a stock gun.

Not saying Glock doesn't have its share of "now and then" either, I even had one those with a first Gen 17 back in the late 80's, but in the almost 40 years now Ive been using them, and the 35+ Glocks Ive owned since that first 17, Ive had zero problems with any of them that were in their factory configuration. My only beef with them is, other than the old RTF2, the texture on the grips not being aggressive enough, which is easily addressed.

Recently purchased one for the wife. Little gun is a ball to shoot. Found it to be very reliable with federal and Norma ammo.

I reload .38- for my Glock 42, the only problem I've ever had was with light reloads.