Sure, they both have benefits.

442 caries easier and prints less, especially if IWB. 43 is a little flatter in pocket carry.

442 might be more reliable if you don't shoot a semi-auto well. Generally the G43 is about equal in reliablity, but grip will matter more with the semi-auto. 442 will be function when shooting from inside a pocket better than the G43.

442 is easier to operate for a newbie or weaker person (but will have more recoil). Easier to open cylinder and see if loaded. Racking slide on G43 or any small semi-auto takes just a bit of technique and a tiny bit of strength and coordination. Plus if you rack the slide, then take out the mag, there could still be a round in the chamber. So with a semi-auto you have to know just a little more than with a revolver, and the sequence matters.

G43 has 6+1, 442 has 5. So 7 rounds on board is better than just 5. Plus G43 is generally quicker to reload.

Once taught proper form, the G43 will shoot easier and more accurately with less recoil for 99% of owners than the 442. But if putting in a lot more time on the 442 some of those people may be able to shoot the 442 almost as well as the G43

Power is about equal between them, with the 442 (and revolvers in general) having available a much wider range of loads. G43 typical loads are hotter and faster, but at the top end of 442 cartridges you can get heavy and stout loads.

 

GLOCK 43 is better.

 

The 43 would be easier on the technical shooting part. The 442 would be easier on the rest like admin handling (loading/unloading) coming out of a pocket easier, not relying on proper grip, etc. So you have to choose what is more important to you.

 

5 for sure.

 

Between Murphy's law and KISS there is less to go wrong with a revolver. Ammo failure won't affect it (I know about the raised primer concerns), magazines won't affect it. Limp wristing won't affect it. Shooting from a bad position won't affect it. If you shoot while holding it close in by your side, the slide won't hit you and possibly keep the gun form cycling another round. Faster recovery from a FTF, just pull the trigger again. If necessary, you can fire it from your jacket pocket or hoody pouch. Not recommended, but it can be done.

I always have a 637, 642, or 638 with me. Even if I have a semi auto with me.

 

The Glock 43 can do just about everything a larger 9mm can, just a little slower and with less magazine capacity. The 442/642 cannot come close to the performance level of the Glock except for a world class shooter. The 442/642 is more snag free than the Glock when drawing from the pocket, and does provide a little more advantage with a contact shot. In my experience, small revolvers that live in pockets can have reliability issues and are not 5 for sure. I gave up revolvers about 6 years ago.

 

I never carried a revolver, but carry my G43 often.

 

I own a few revolvers, but don't carry any. My 43, though not my favorite Glock has become my most carried.

 

.

 

I have and carry both. J-frame is easier to pocket carry (and draw from a pocket), the G43 has (much) better sights and a couple extra, but generally less powerful, rounds. Both have been 100% reliable over many thousands of rounds.

If you look up the ballistics of .38 Special vs 9mm, you'll find that 9mm (even non +p) has a significant advantage in energy and velocity.

 

The G43 is the better choice for someone that will take the time and effort to become competent with it. The 442 is less prone to "operator errors" than the G43.

 

The lighter 442 would be better in the pocket. The G43 is easier to shoot accurately and would be better for belt carry- IMHO.

 

I will take the J frame any day of the week

 

For pocket, the j frame hands down.

 

+1 I concur with Berto's suggestion. I carry, in a pocket holster, either a 642 or a 342 (If I'm in the mood for some possible pain, that is). I like the Glock 43. Very nice pistol. Don't own one as I already have two Ruger LC9 (one an "old" model, the other the "Pro" model), so don't really need another 9mm of that size. If I were starting from scratch, I'd probably own a 43.

None the less, as Berto opines, if the handgun is going to be carried in a pocket, then both weight and size matter. Much over 15 ounces and it's a "no-go" for me. According to Glock, the weight of a loaded model 43 is over 22 ounces. That's a tad too much iron to be hanging out in my pocket, at least for my comfort level.

 

I prefer the snub. I own several both 642's/442's and they are my usual EDC's.

The primary advantage to the autoloader for me is capacity and with the Glock 43, you really aren't gaining much there over the snub. Plus I have never seen any evidence or stats that demonstrate that 5 rounds are likely insufficient in all but the rarest of circumstances. In fact, I can't recall even a single civilian concealed carry self-defense case where it wasn't.

The Glock 43 will be more shootable for most people, but how common are ranged gunfights for civilians. The vast majority occur within a few yards, if not a few feet or even contact distance. My goal is to avoid trouble and disengage if it's an option, so any conflict I'm involved in will most likely be reactive and occur at very close if not contact range and the snub performs very well in ECQ scenarios as others have already stated. My gun is there to get me out of trouble, not in it. Reloads are no doubt easier and faster with the G43, but I've never seen an example of a civilian actually reloading their carry weapon in a defense encounter.

 

Funny you should ask. I have a 42 & 43, and a couple Centennials, both steel and alloy.
The only one that can be hidden in less than huge pockets is the 42. Unless you are an experienced double action shot, the Glocks are easier to shoot. The Glocks have better sights than most revos, tho' mfgs are catching on to the lack of sights on wheel guns.
Power-wise, there's not a huge range among .380s/9s/.38spls (someone will challenge that, but I did say not a huge range, but there still is a range). The .357 iterations of the revos are a somewhat different; given a little more than 2", 140 gr will crowd 1200 fps. That is a hammer, but follow up shots aren't quick. Really powerful loads in the alloy wheelguns just aren't much fun.
A PP noted, wheelies are easier for administrative handling, the autos are easier to shoot.
You pays your money and takes your choice.
Moon

 

I don’t agree that the 442 is better for a new shooter.

Minimal sights, long trigger pull, strong recoil. Grip does matter if you want to shoot it well. Like anything else, grip it high, grip it strong.

If I’m carrying a small gun, it’s my j frame. I have an XDs but I prefer the j frame. Typically carry the Glock 19, but for a small gun, like my j frames.

I carry a 442 as my BUG on duty. If my duty gun is out of commission or unavailable, it is probably going to be a close encounter with gun use at contact distances. The revolver wins there.

Either will suit you well. The j frame, especially an airweight, will take more practice to master. But after working that double action trigger and mastering it, it will make you a better semiauto shooter as well.

 

We used to counsel Centennials for defensive use by new shooters, but they are a challenge to shoot with the long trigger pull.
Moon

 

The biggest advantage of the 442, is it draws better from a pocket, in my experience.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

 

I considered a Glock 43 when they first came out. I didn’t find the Glock 43 to actually be very pocketable for me.

My 442 can be a belt gun, pocket gun, or ankle gun. The Glock 43 felt like a small discreet belt or inside the waistband gun, and not a true pocket pistol.

Plus, I just like revolvers.

Sometimes it’s not just the size of a pistol, but the shape also. The revolver doesn’t have any hard corners like the Glock 43 does.

 

I'd go with a steel J-Frame, in case I need to smack someone upside the head instead of shooting them.

 

Carry the one you shoot best.

Go to a range you can rent both (on the revolver, it doesn't have to be the exact model, just close size and weight wise), buy a box of ammo for each and see how you do.

You will know quickly which is the better choice for you.

 

I can 'pocket' a 340 SC, assuming baggy cargo shorts. One has ridden there many miles, and has been used to murder some snakes. Off in the tulies, it works fine; town, not so much.
The 43 is more of the same; I'd hoped to pocket carry it, since it appeared to be the same size as my 42. Nope. My daughter took one look and made a Mae West joke.
But we're all not the same size; we have a guy here who can pocket a 26. As Willy suggested, try them out and make a decision.
Moon

 

I pocket carry a 442 a lot. Occasionally shoot it in ICORE matches for practice/grins.

A big disadvantage with five rounds;




But I am up to the task.

:supergrin:

 

I think it’s inevitable that I pick up a j frame for summertime. Always goes bang, light, and pocket carries 2x better without the printing that screams gun!

 

Objectively, the 43 makes more sense for the majority of shooters. For those that are willing to train or just enjoy revolvers? An Airweight Smith has a very long track record of doing it's job.

Even with my 43, I still fall in to the latter category upon occasion.