I would like to handle one. It might suit me for a backup weapon.
Printable View
I would like to handle one. It might suit me for a backup weapon.
I was able to play with one today for the first time (not shoot it, just handle it). It is extremely close in size to a Kahr CW9 that had the grip chopped of to PM9 length. It feels good in the hand and has a typical Glock trigger.
http://www.fototime.com/F0A638C464ED4C2/large.jpg
http://www.fototime.com/C02C6B0A52ABAE5/large.jpg
http://www.fototime.com/BE32CF09FAADF94/large.jpg
http://www.fototime.com/798D76D71D578F4/large.jpg
A little early to tell, but it will..
a) sell like hotcakes, it's a Glock.
or,
b)it's too late to the party, and won't be able to overtake the Smith Shield, Springfield XDs, Kahr CM9, Ruger LC9, etc. etc.
3 yawns for me, I still dont have a Glock.
I would like to see a major maker re-invent the little Spanish STAR mini 1911 in .380. It was slim & svelt.
With modern engineering, modern metals, modern manufacturing it should accept 9mm.
This is what Remington should have done rather than the failed 51 project.
I was fairly interested. Now I'm a bit less, so. What happened was I shot a G42, and I am hooked. I shoot it better than my G26, and boy is it small. My GF has an LCP, which is nice and accurate. But the G42 is a real FAST and accurate shooter.
I just bought a Kahr CT380 but I'm still saving for a Glock 42 'cause it's just that bad. The 43 looks nice but just too small for a 9mm for me. I really love how they left off the useless finger bumps for these new guns.
another over priced ***
Old post but have to say I love my 43 as would any open minded gun owner. I think the amount of them bought says it all. cant stop the glock haters though.
I'll stick to my Kahr 40.
Not really a Glock hater, never owned one. Happy with CZ75 for past 3 years. If I came across a good deal might try their latest model. The quality of the CZ has kind of spoiled me tho.
Need to explain my OTHER vote :
Don't give a rodents derriere !
I'm presently carrying the 42 that I bought right after I replied to this thread almost 4 years ago. The 43 is nice but my 26 is about as small as I want to go in a 9mm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lloyd Smale
Glock is the Bic Lighter of handguns...
And as equally interesting, just saying:kidding:
I would like to give the new 48 a go for me that just might fill a need just saying
I'd give the Glock 43 "3 yawns." And I wouldn't compare it to the Kahr CW9, as some have, but rather to the smaller Kahr CM9.
What does the Glock 43 give me over the Kahr CM9? The answer is one extra round of capacity (7 plus 1 instead of 6 plus 1), and a whole lot of other things I don't want. It gives me a pistol more than 3/4-inch longer, and somewhat taller, thicker and heavier than the Kahr. The extra measurements really take the Glock out of the realm of easy pocket carry, unless you have pockets like old Captain Kangaroo of '50's television fame (yeah, I'm a geezer who, at the age of four, actually watched the good Captain most weekday mornings).
But, I'm thinking civilian concealed-carry here, and, to me, that means pocket carry. The Glock 43's bulkier dimensions seem to demand belt-holster carry. And, if I'm going to belt carry, I can just as easily holster and conceal a significantly bigger pistol with greater magazine capacity and maybe a larger caliber.
To me, pistols such as the Kahr CM9 and the Ruger LC9, ride easily in my front pants pocket, and I don't think the Glock would comfortably fit there.
You're certainly free to differ with that view should you wish.
Happy trails,
-- Cary Gunn --
Maybe not perfection, but put me down as darn close to it on the "other" scale. It certainly kicks the tail of any of the blowback pocket pistols of decades past.
Between shooting guns and working on guns, I'm pretty much of the opinion that if it isn't a 1911, Glock, or DA revolver, it is not worth my time.
I personally prefer a hammerless J-frame, but you can't deny that a single stack Glock 9mm is flatter and ballistically about the same thing.
I don't get worked up over capacity. For the most part, it just makes the gun fatter and more cumbersome. It takes TIME to go through all those rounds, and if you haven't solved the problem with six - at least to the point where you have time to reload - you're well on the way to being screwed anyway. Yes, the Glock 26 holds 10+1 and can take the mags out of the 17 and 19. . .but it's just as thick as a 17 or 19. If it's too chunky for a pocket holster and has to live on my belt with a shirt thrown over it anyway, and I feel I NEED that kind of round count, I'd just as soon carry a full-size fightin' gun.
For shooting and carry, I actually prefer the slightly smaller and less snappy .380 caliber Glock 42. The argument against this is that I feel the smart money has to give up hollow points in order to get reliable penetration with that round, and if your larger carry guns shoot 9mm, there's a lot to be said for keeping the ammo selection simple.
The new 43X and 48 definitely have something to offer, as they're flatter than the 26 and still give the 10-round count, but they don't replace the need for what the 42 and 43 represent - small and FLAT.
Your "give a …...care" meter didn't even flicker, eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by Love Life
I am definitely in the minority , I voted 3 yawns I don’t like striker fired pistols with only the trigger saftey in my pocket I see no difference in them than carrying a single action auto cocked with the saftey off , my pocket guns all have da triggers .
To each his own. It’s great to have a lot of choices.
In my opinion it is as handy as a pocket on a shirt. I got one of those Blackhawk TecGrip holsters, where I can carry it in my back pocket when woods walking, and I don't even notice it is there. And the 9mm 115 Sig V-crown bullet is enough to take care of what ails you.