I was finally able to get to the range today and shoot the new Glock 42. As all of you out there know, the Glock model 42 is a single stack .380 ACP. It created a bunch of negative feedback in the interwebs, not because of it's ability to shoot, but because of the chosen caliber. It has been much maligned by those who wish to stroke their own egos. I have shot .380 ACP (.380 Kurtz) all of my life, starting with my father's Walther PPK/S, through a myriad of other pistols (Bersa, Makarov, CZ, Carpatti, Beretta, Ruger, and others) to this new Glock 42. It was the first round that I ever reloaded. My first carry piece was a .380 pistol. I like .380, and am not dissuaded to use it for EDC because it is ballistically inferior to many other cartridges out there. I'm not, however, carrying it into battle. I have other weapons for that. My main concern, and the objective of this pistol, is for EDC in varied conditions. It has to be able to take my sweat, because it's going to be close to me. The Tennifer finish on all the other Glocks I ever carried had no problems with my perspiration, and I don't think this one will differ from that. It has to be thin, so it conceals easily. This pistol is thin! It has to have actual sights I can use. These sights are just like any other Glock sights. The trigger on the model 42 feels just like every other unmodified Glock out there (other than the New York models). As a matter of fact, it feels just like every other Glock out there except it's really, really thin. For a comparison, I measured a Walther PPK/S with the model 42, and found they were almost identical in dimensions. I believe Glock must have used this iconic pistol as a base line for the length, width, and height. It is less than half the weight of the Walther. This is where most of the people who had problems with the new Glock, saying it was too large for the caliber it was made for. Most were surprised Glock went with .380 instead of 9mm. Yes, there are other companies out there that make a 9mm the same size, or even smaller than the model 42. And yes, there are plenty of other .380's out there that are physically smaller. That was the reason I sold my Ruger LCP, I didn't like the sights or the trigger. The pistol was a delight to carry, I just couldn't get over the fact that it's best features were what I didn't like about it- small sight radius and a lousy trigger. I was brought up shooting the PPK/S, and at 15 yards when one would yell out "left eye!" I would shoot a hole through one of two ping-pong balls glued to a piece of cardboard the size of a human head. The pistol was that good, and ruined me for other pistols ever since. I compared the Glock 42 with my Kahr CM-9, to see how different a 9mm is to a .380. Although they are very similar in dimensions, the Glock is thinner, and the grip is easier to hold. This is due to the construction- the trigger guard is up higher on the grip than the Kahr. The receiver is also thinner, whereas the trigger is physically closer to the slide than the 9mm Kahr. This is where I believe the problem lies for a compact 9mm. The receiver has to be a little higher to allow for the greater forces involved with 9mm. You can't cheat physics. The grip on the Kahr is much smaller and harder to grip than the model 42. In comparison to the PPK/S, although they are the same width, you can get your hand further up the grip than a PPK/S. The recoil impulse generated by firing the Walther is much sharper- due to the blowback design. The Glock is a tilting barrel/Browning type design and was no harder to shoot than a .22lr pistol. It was really comfortable to shoot. My biggest problem was loading the magazines; I am so used to loading three times the rounds into a regular Glock magazine, and was constantly trying to cram more than siz rounds into them. I wish I had more magazines, because I would have shot far more rounds this evening. I spent the majority of my time loading magazines. The magazine baseplates are from Pearce Grips. I just received them this morning and put them on just before shooting this evening. It was a thirty second operation to swap out base plates, and they add so much practical functionality that it is worth the extra length they stick out. I shot four types of .380 this evening; Federal 95gr ball, Winchester 95gr, ball, some reloaded Rainier Ballistics 95gr round TMJ, and lastly some Remington Golden Sabers loaded over 4.2 grains of Unique. The Rem GS were quite a handful with the PPK/S, and sadly this was the last of a batch of 1000 I loaded almost ten years ago. There were no malfunctions during this test firing. I fired 120 rounds total of the four types of ammunition pictured above. All of the 95gr cartridges were smooth and very soft shooting. I did not shoot for accuracy, as it was getting late and I had to use a flashlight to finish up all the rounds I had with me. I will be shooting for groups later this weekend. I did shoot single-handed to try to induce a "limp wrist" but failed to jam the pistol. The Golden sabers gave me fits wit a couple of other .380 pistols I shot in the past. They are a few thousandths of an inch longer and caused all sorts of feeding problems in the Ruger and Beretta. I was curious to see how they would fit in the Glock's magazine. There isn't much room to spare, but the pistol didn't show any signs of disliking the Rem GS other than a slight bulge in the primer of the spent cartridge. There was one interesting downside to the .380 Glock, and that is it left a lot of unburned powder on my arm. I don't know if some of the Unique was left unburned and flew all over the place or for some other reason. I started to notice there was residue there before I started to shoot the Rem GS. At least it wasn't as bad as the Carpatti and the Beretta; they would shoot unburned powder back into your face and eyes when shooting. So far, just shooting it to hear the bang and aiming for center mass of the target (a box lid just a little smaller than an IDPA target) actually achieved some good results. I was practicing drawing and know I flinched the first couple of rounds. I also know my timing was off for a few rounds while walking towards the target. The saturation of rounds in the bottom half of the target, and quite a few groups of scalloped holes gives me the impression that this is going to be an accurate pistol. They do seem to be in the lower half, and slightly more in the left side than the right. I was shooting near dark and didn't have a Sharpie to make a crisp target in the middle. I could be anticipating a bit, when drawing from a low carry. I was just going for center of mass and squeezing until it popped. I'll get more technical this weekend.