What to carry: Glock 43 or S&W 642?

[Dechrissen]

Trying to decide between a Glock 43 and a Smith & Wesson Model 642 for a daily carry.

I'd appreciate some insight from you guys, maybe some anecdotal experience from those who have carried either.

Some facts:

• I haven't yet carried anything (relatively new to firearms, been shooting for ~2 years).
• I have shot the 43, and I do like it. Haven't tried the 642 yet.
• I'm trying to get into revolvers, so killing two birds with one stone (making my daily carry a revolver to get some experience with) would be nice. I ain't rich.
• I'm a pretty small-stature guy, so I think these 2 firearms make sense.
• I plan to carry appendix.

What does everyone think? I imagine the topic of capacity will come up. Personally, I don't see the low capacity of either as a downside. But I'm curious as to what everyone thinks.

 

[Itchytriggerfinger]

Shoot both. Buy and carry the one you shoot best.

Don't trust your life to anecdotal experience from people on the internet.

 

[J Galt]

It seems like a simple, innocent question, but there is not a simple answer.

Short answer: All other things being equal, carry the Glock.

• The capacity is 40% more (7 vs 5) and reloads are faster. The Shield Arms magazine gives you a 9 round magazine (80% more than the J frame). The length is similar to an OEM mag with extension.
  
  
• The 43 allows for installation of useful aftermarket sights.
  
  
• The 43 is slimmer and easier to conceal.
  
  
• The grip fits more hands better than a J frame.
  
  
• The recoil is subjectively less than the J frame.

More complicated answer: Train with both and choose the one that you shoot and manipulate better. Take one class strictly with the 43. Then take one class with strictly the J frame.

The ultimate reason to carry a gun is for self defense use (stating the obvious to give context to the next part). The gun being carried is useless if you cannot hit your target consistently.


Or you can make it a non-binary decision and carry both. #NewYorkReload #LouAwerbuck

Capacity matters, but I get you wanting to carry an easily concealable gun and no one can contradict that.

Video added to bring attention to what appears to be happening more and more.

 

[Dechrissen]

I appreciate the fact that it's not an easy answer. I won't make my decision based solely upon opinions and anecdotes of others, but I did just want some food for thought. Maybe some downsides/upsides of one or another that I hadn't thought of.

Of course I won't go with the 642 without shooting it first.

The 43 is slimmer and easier to conceal.

^ This is something that make me lean toward the Glock. Like I said, I'm pretty small, so I appreciate the slimmer frame.

 

[Usmccookie]

I would lean very heavily toward the g**** 43.
But like stated above, shoot both, then decide.

IMO the 642 is a pain to shoot. I’m by no means an amazing shot, but I am good. I struggled to hit a silhouette target at 7? Yards. (Same day I was shooting my 43x into a 3” hole at 7 yds)
My wife and her sister(newer but not new shooters) had a hard time managing the recoil impulse. Bad enough that her the sister got rid of it. Also she hit the target cable. And my wife shot the ceiling. My wife can shoot, just not the snubs.

Ymmv good luck

 

[wcd]

Trying to decide between a Glock 43 and a Smith & Wesson Model 642 for a daily carry.

I'd appreciate some insight from you guys, maybe some anecdotal experience from those who have carried either.

Some facts:

• I haven't yet carried anything (relatively new to firearms, been shooting for ~2 years).
• I have shot the 43, and I do like it. Haven't tried the 642 yet.
• I'm trying to get into revolvers, so killing two birds with one stone (making my daily carry a revolver to get some experience with) would be nice. I ain't rich.
• I'm a pretty small-stature guy, so I think these 2 firearms make sense.
• I plan to carry appendix.

What does everyone think? I imagine the topic of capacity will come up. Personally, I don't see the low capacity of either as a downside. But I'm curious as to what everyone thinks.

Was there a criteria that led to those options ?

Appendix carry? And finally which one are you the most proficient with under a variety of circumstances?

 

[Trigger Time]

Glock pistols are the world's most reliable and durable pistols without going broke buying or upgrading them. They work in any environment you could put them through and beg for more abuse.

Yeah folks, 1911's work too and are great once you drop a kidney on them. Same with jeeps. Great after you put 30k into them.
**** breaks on revolvers if you put it through not even half the abuse a glock could take

 

[Usmccookie]

Glock pistols are the world's most reliable and durable pistols without going broke buying or upgrading them. They work in any environment you could put them through and beg for more abuse.

Yeah folks, 1911's work too and are great once you drop a kidney on them. Same with jeeps. Great after you put 30k into them

Op I would listen to this guy, just fyi

 

[tcecil88]

I have both the G43 and a J frame revolver. Both would serve you well in a defensive situation. They are close in price as well.
With the G43 you will get good reliability and accuracy, better sights, better capacity by 2 rounds, lower recoil, quick reloads and if you liked it and shot it well, then it's a pretty easy choice. You can add a light to it easily and fairly cheap. Aftermarket support is through the roof for Glocks should you decide to upgrade it at a later date.
With the 642, you get pretty much absolute reliability, a better choice in grips to fit your particular hand and decent accuracy with practice. It also makes a better pocket carry gun as there is much less things to snag on when drawing it. But you lose in muzzle and cylinder blast, fixed sights that are very expensive to upgrade and slower reloads. The long heavy trigger can be a challenge for people, but a set of trigger springs will help with that. If you can learn to shoot the 642 well, then you can shoot pretty much any handgun well.
Of the 2 you listed, the G43 would be my first choice, and the 642 would make a great backup gun to it. JMHO, YMMV.

(Edited to remove an incorrect statement)

 

[Route 45]

Find a Sig P365 to try before settling on a Glock 43. Being smaller in stature, the P365 might fit your hand better, and 11 rounds on tap vs 7 rounds on tap is something to consider. Nothing wrong with the Glock, of course, besides the limited capacity for size compared to more modern offerings.

I currently carry a S&W Shield Plus. I have owned the P365 and a Glock 43, and find that the Shield Plus fits my hand a little better. But any of them would serve you well.

Size comparison, P365 vs Glock 43:

 

[NHT3]

Look into a 43X, more bang for the buck than a 43. As TT said where reliability and durability are concerned the choice is obvious.

 

[Trigger Time]

Look into a 43X, more bang for the buck than a 43. As TT said where reliability and durability are concerned the choice is obvious.

Listen to this guy!
He is the guy Ive trusted for YEARS when it comes to GLOCKs

 

[Dechrissen]

Look into a 43X, more bang for the buck than a 43. As TT said where reliability and durability are concerned the choice is obvious.

I originally considered the 43X, but I think (?) the smaller footprint of the 43 is what I value. With the pinky extension mag, the 43 feels pretty good.

 

[Jaybird1980]

I originally considered the 43X, but I think (?) the smaller footprint of the 43 is what I value. With the pinky extension mag, the 43 feels pretty good.

Spend some time shooting one. I've shot a 19 and 17 quite a bit, the 43 just did not play well. I had to really fight to shoot it good, I shoot a
j frame better and easier than the 43.

Although a 642 would not be my first choice. I would go 340, LCR, K6,

 

[Route 45]

With the 642, you get pretty much absolute reliability, a better choice in grips to fit your particular hand and decent accuracy with practice. It also makes a better pocket carry gun as there is much less things to snag on when drawing it. All stainless construction is a bonus that will help with muzzle flip and corrosion as well.

You also get crappy sights, a long DA trigger pull, slow reloads, less powerful ammunition further neutered by a dinky barrel and 5 rounds to empty. There is no stainless construction that will help with muzzle flip, as the 642 is an aluminum frame revolver. Only the cylinder is stainless steel. Bigger aftermarket grips also negate some of the concealability.

The work put in to learn to shoot a J frame Airweight effectively and accurately at anything past "get off me" distance would be much better spent training with a platform that gives you all of the advantages of a modern subcompact semiauto 9mm pistol to start with.

 

[Dechrissen]

The work put in to learn to shoot a J frame Airweight effectively and accurately at anything past "get off me" distance would be much better spent training with a platform that gives you all of the advantages of a modern subcompact semiauto 9mm pistol to start with.

 

[Tomahawkman]

I have shot and carried both thee Glock 43 and Jframe revolvers extensively. Currently both are in use. I purchased a Glock 43 years ago and sold it shortly after because I was more interested in other guns at the time. Currently I carry a standard 43 rather than a 43X and I use plus 2 extensions on it that bring the grip length to that of a Glock 43X but gives me the option to use the flush mag for deeper concealment if needed.
Ive also had it cut for a trijicon RMCC and in that configuration its a very capable small gun that I can shoot very well. This is my primary carry gun.


I have also carried a S&W 340PD appendix for a long time prior to getting back into a 43. You can definitely get competent with a J frame but it takes more work to stay proficient with one than a 43 in my opinion. Additionly with the use of a red dot optic on the 43 I can make hits on steel at 50 plus yards where as such a task with a Jframe is not so easily done just due to the design of the gun/grip/sights. Doable but not practical. My 340PD is now strictly carried as an ankle gun while I am working in a law enforcement capacity. I'm not willing to substitute my ankle gun for anything other than a revolver. This is for several reasons.... the shape of the gun itself lends well to concealing under a pant leg, the ability to make muzzle contact shots and the gun remain in battery and the design of most ankle holsters for semi autos require a strap or snap system where the wilderness tactical ankle rig I use its friction fitted to the trigger guard of the gun. Clearing the pant leg is the only needed action before I can draw.

As a smaller framed individual you may actually find that a J frame in the right holsters i.e. Phlster city special, or something similar will conceal better(print less) than a semi auto of similar size just due to the shape of the grip. (this has been my experience)

However all of that said I would suggest the one that you shoot the best if you are only going to own one of the two. Your ability to shoot the gun should over ride any pro or con listed here.

Basically what I have found, both guns are excellent options for carry. As long as you know their limitations and use them appropriately for the task you are requiring them to perform in.

 

[tcecil88]

You also get crappy sights, a long DA trigger pull, slow reloads, less powerful ammunition further neutered by a dinky barrel and 5 rounds to empty. There is no stainless construction that will help with muzzle flip, as the 642 is an aluminum frame revolver. Only the cylinder is stainless steel. Bigger aftermarket grips also negate some of the concealability.

The work put in to learn to shoot a J frame Airweight effectively and accurately at anything past "get off me" distance would be much better spent training with a platform that gives you all of the advantages of a modern subcompact semiauto 9mm pistol to start with.

I did not know that the 642 was aluminum framed, my error, as I thought it was all stainless. Other wise, I stand by everything else I said, and which you mirrored most of my cons for the 642. Without getting into a silly caliber debate, I would not say .38 Special ammo is less powerful than 9mm as you can get +p loadings, with the greater muzzle blast and cylinder blast, as I stated as a con for the 642. The Glock 43 in 9mm is certainly a better choice for defense IMO, but to disregard a J frame or similar sized revolver with the right load for defense would not be correct. I can easily hit a 5" steel plate at 15 yards with my 340PD and I don't shoot it alot.

 

[tscherry70]

I have carried both semi autos (Glocks, p365, M&P Shield plus) and small revolvers (Colt Cobra, SP-101, LCR, 442) over a period of time in my never ending quest to find the holy grail of carry guns. Here's my experience:

The J-Frame size revolvers with a 2 inch barrel are hard to be consistently accurate unless your target is at point blank range or have some help with a laser. Course, limited in capacity, and reloading speed. There are some pros though, no ejected brass and won't be pushed out of battery in a contact shot. They are generally reliable and won't fail to feed or eject. Can pull the trigger again if a dud round is encountered.

I do love revolvers, I grew up with them. They have a place still today as any proper tool, but I have come to the realization that I would rather have something that has more capacity, easy to reload, easy to conceal and maintain and most importantly; easier to get on target consistently.

Today I carry a Sig P365 XL. It's slim, has 12 round mags and I'm more consistently accurate with this pistol than a J-Frame. Just make sure you test your carry ammo and get a nice holster with some proper training with whatever system you go with. Good luck.

 

[bwframe]

I wouldn't recommend either if these two tiny guns for a new shooter. Both are difficult to maintain a solid grip to the unseasoned shooter.

Just shoot a magazine or cylinder and see how many times you'll reposition your grip. You don't want that. Besides slowing you down, it makes for poor accuracy, knowing the gun will be jumping around beyond your control.

Nothing wrong with these guns for the seasoned shooter. I personally would never choose the revolver, when the alternative is so much better.

I would get a Gen5 Glock 19 (MOS is a better investment.) Learn how to shoot the most popular pistol in America well first. You can specialize later, if you choose.