I'm sure there are posters here who have both a G43 and a J-frame of some model. If you do, can you take a set of pictures showing how the two guns compare directly in size. The back to back, side to side from the back, each stacked over the other. I'm sure everyone has seen this with other gun pairs. I just can't seem to find a direct comparison between these two guns, which is a little ironic because I think a lot of people are using the G43 in the same role as the J-frame.
BTW, I did try to search for this. If these type of photos are out there, and I just missed them, please post the link.
I did the same search, and had found those. But none were quite right. One is a 43 vs some off brand revolver. Another is a G26 vs a J-frame. More like that.
Neither a G43 nor a steel J-frame is a suitable pocket gun, and I've tried. The G43 is a bit too big and heavy, the steel J is ok on size but still too heavy.
An Airweight/Airlite J-frame is a great pocket gun, excellent reliability but pounds your hand when practicing and has the other typical revolver shortcomings.
Any J makes little sense as a belt gun because there are many other guns like the G43- similar size/weight/concealability but with the typical autoloader advantages.
Of course, John Dillinger is supposed to have said "Never trust a woman or an automatic pistol."
Pocket carry is a very individual thing, the only way to be sure is by experimenting. Expensive experimenting, unfortunately.
Now that's pretty much in the 10 ring. Since you have both (in multiples), which do you like carrying better. Does the G43 work as well for pocket carry?
One thing the specifications don't show but the pictures do, is that the J is much more rounded in it's profile and contours. Because of that, it prints less than a 43 and is easier to draw from a pocket.
After a couple of years of experimenting, my J's and my G43 sit in the safe, my G42 sits in my pocket. Many but not all other people have reached a similar conclusion.
If I'm going to the trouble of a belt holster, cover garment, being careful bending over, etc; then I skip the G43 and go straight to my G19. In this respect, not as many people do like me.
This image shows the main issue with trying to conceal any Glock (but in particular the sub compacts). That squared off rear portion of the slide prints like a mofo. Other makers round off the rear of the slide to prevent that, but I doubt that Glock wants to alter the 'Glockness' of their carry guns
What else are you looking for? I have a 42, 43 and 642 Airweight. I used to pocket carry the J, now it's the 42 for pocket and the 43 in a leather belt holster. 42/43 sometimes also ride in a Sneaky Pete. Hardly ever carry the Smith anymore.
Pictures are good. Are there no gun stores in your area that you could handle one of each? Maybe side by side? They might even let you try them out in a pocket or waistband if you ask.
I've been pocketing my Scandium M&P340 with +P .38's for a long time. I normally wear Carhartts or 5.11s, but even with dress slacks and a jacket...no printing easily discernible. The chunky G43 would be another matter I think.
^
You're calling the G43 chunky, but it's the same length, less than a tenth of an inch shorter vertically, and a quarter inch narrower. It's maybe four ounces heavier. I don't see those given the G43 any real disadvantage in concealability.
^
The end of the slide protrudes more aft than my 'hammerless' M&P340 and the barrel is narrower than the 43's slide. Maybe not much, but something to consider.
Truth be told, I consider them somewhat equivalent as far as carryabiliy. Each has advantages and disadvantages. The Glock is flatter. The revolver with what is essentially the beveling of the hammer shroud may have some draw advantages in pocket carry.
Once out, from a shootability/effectiveness standpoing, I give it to pistol. Two more rounds bone stock (and with the possibility of easily adding one more round.) And reloading a small revolver in a gunfight is a much more theoretical concept than with an auto.
Based on what you've written in this thread, you want the G43, so buy it
But just in the interest of truth, the G43 does not carry better than the S&W 642. Nor is the G43 always better.
The 642 is rounded, whereas the G43 is square. That makes a big difference, especially where the slide is above the belt-line in IWB carry. The 642 does not have that issue, does not have any material in that area.
Some think a revolver carries wide, because of the cylinder. But the cylinder is below the belt-line in typical IWB carry. The 642 is also lighter.
The revolver has the natural advantage of being able to shoot from any body position, with any type of grip. I believe Glocks to be the most reliable semi-autos, but they are not quite as versatile or reliable as a revolver in this regard.
As for practical accuracy at distance, and speed of re-loads, that is where the G43 generally outperforms the S&W 642. While the 642 is actually more mechanically accurate than the G43, most shooters cannot shoot a snubbie revolver very well at distance. The Snubbie takes a lot of practice. The recoil of the G43 is also less than the 642.
In fairness, I personally do not believe you can say one is better than the other. The G43 and S&W 642 have many differences, pluses and minuses. The question is merely, which do you prefer? And which one fits your needs better?
I find the 442 very easy to pocket carry, and the 43 somewhat easy. This is especially true with a thin pocket holster like the Uncle Mike's size 4. The 442 prevails in this regard because it mostly smooth, like a used bar of soap, and has few 90 degree corners.
Either a 43 or a Centennial will hide in sloppy shorts, assuming no one is looking too closely. I will carry either down at camp where it isn't a big deal. For in town or jeans, the 42 hides a bunch better.
I bought a 43 for pocket carry and gave it to a buddy to try; my daughter walked in and asked the inevitable Mae West question about a gun in his pocket.
An Alabama Holster kydex will help smooth the outline of any of the above, but size and weight-wise, the 42 is the choice for pocket carry.
Moon
I pocket carry the 43 in a very thin suede holster, very happy with it.
I used to own a Chiefs Special, never felt right, my groups were a joke, very uncomfortable to shoot, long recovery periods between shots, got rid of it fast.
Shooting a J-gun double action is not a skill learned in 10 minutes; Centennials are a little better because of the lower bore axis. The steel ones are easier, but are heavy for a pocket.
That said, NRA', you're not the first guy to have a hard time shooting a J well. Forty twos and threes are easier to learn, no doubt.
Moon
In my own opinion, I think the Glock 43 beats the Kahr PM9 for my needs, and that their size and weight is similar enough (with the G43 being just a smidge longer).
The Kahr shoots very nice. But I think the Glock is a more reliable design and easier to operate. However, I will admit that I am a Glock fanboy
Those kahrs are expensive! and what do you get?
A fancy single stack 9mm that is an almost copy of a Glock?
I like the Glock 26.(also pocket carry a 380acp)
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Glock Talk
21M posts
185.2K members
Since 1999
A forum community dedicated to Glock firearm owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about optics, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, troubleshooting, accessories, classifieds, and more!