I have shot both. I carry a G-43, my wife carries a G-42. While I personally don’t consider my G-43 unpleasant to shoot, it’s sure enough snappier than my wife’s G-42. But do you want to talk about snappy? I sold a G-27 because I'd developed a terrible flinch while trying to learn to shoot it. And it wasn't because I'm new to hard kicking handguns - I love my .41 and .44 Magnums. But the snappy recoil from that tiny .40 S&W is different, and I became afraid of it.
To answer your other questions though, my G-43 and my wife’s G-42 are equally accurate. That is, I’m not a marksman, but offhand with either pistol, I can usually keep every shot in a six inch circle at 20 yards. My wife can do better, but that’s another subject (she’s better with handguns than I am). Both pistols are equally reliable, and both are equally concealable as far as I'm concerned.
Anyways, I carry a G-43 because I want to carry the most powerful handgun I personally can control in a small, easily concealable package. My wife carries a G-42 only because she’s afraid the snappier recoil of a G-43 would cause the arthritis in her wrist to flare up during practice sessions. Nevertheless, as I’ve said in other posts in this forum, if I was an attacker and got into a gunfight with my wife, if I came out alive it wouldn't be just because on paper my 9mm is more powerful than her .380.
Disclaimer - I'm not saying "dead is dead" no matter how powerful the handgun you choose for self-defense. I'm well aware of the fact that the main idea in a self-defense situation is to stop the aggressor quickly. And a more powerful handgun might stop an aggressor quicker than a less powerful handgun. But if a person is flinching as bad as I was with that G-27, they better hope any would be aggressor scares easily and runs away at the sound of a gunshot.
Therefore, my best advise to you, grayling22, is to beg, borrow or rent a G-43. I rented one at an indoor gun range before I bought mine - something I didn't do before I bought the G-27. That was a mistake!