# Single Stack 9mm



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

So I was talking with my local dealer this afternoon, and a fellow customer was looking at the Glock 42. After they left, one of the others sales guys was talking about how nice the G42 is when my dealer said Glock has confirmed that they are producing a single stack 9mm version of the G42. His guestimation is that it will be essentially the same width, but probably a half inch longer to accommodate the 9mm round. 

So there you have it! Let's see if they do. He said it should be pretty soon.


----------



## rustygun (Apr 8, 2013)

I have heard of people seeing the proto type glock single stack 9mm. Whether it is actually in production is another question. It was about this time last year we were getting definite answers on what the 2 new models would be that ended up being the 41 and 42. I would think we should know something in the coming weeks. Glock likes to release these things at shot show which is about 5 weeks away.


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

I would definitely be interested in this. At present, the sub-compact I judge everything by is my XDs .45, because it is almost identical in size to my Kahr K-9 and K-40, but feels better in my 'largish' hands. If a Glock 9mm felt as good as the G42, it would be perfect for me, I think, since Glock typically doesn't add all of the unnecessary safety switches. The grip safety on the XDs does not inhibit me, but is unnecessary, in my opinion, and having another XDs in 9mm doesn't seem necessary, since the .45 is the same size and is not that much more unpleasant in the recoil department.


----------



## Scorpion8 (Jan 29, 2011)

GCBHM said:


> His guestimation is that it will be essentially the same width, but probably a half inch longer to accommodate the 9mm round.


If it's the same width, what's the point? The whole basis to go with a single stack is to accommodate hands that don't do double-column-widths very well. For example, I have both the Beretta 84 (double-stack .380) and 85 (single stack .380). There is a noticeable grip width difference as well as different magazines. If you're going to make it with the same width, just produce a single stack magazine that fits the current gun.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

The Glock 42 .380 is 0.94" wide. That's pretty thin. The standard Glock 9mm is 1.18" wide.


----------



## berettatoter (Sep 1, 2011)

Wonder what G# they will give it? :watching:


----------



## rustygun (Apr 8, 2013)

43 I do believe. I bet they are saving 40 for a single stack .40


----------



## berettatoter (Sep 1, 2011)

rustygun said:


> 43 I do believe. I bet they are saving 40 for a single stack .40


Lol! Probably.


----------



## Shipwreck (Jan 26, 2006)

The Glock that has been promised for like 10 years. The mythical unicorn 

I'll stick with my Shield.


----------



## muckaleewarrior (Aug 10, 2014)

No thank you Glock, got that covered here already!


----------



## rustygun (Apr 8, 2013)

To me it seems like a gun everybody thinks they want but the Glock 26 is an excellent option. Standard mag holds 10 and you can get +2 mags or add +2 mag extensions yourself for 12+1 that's a lot of fire power in a small package. I like the Glock 42 but 6+1 rounds,if they make a single stack 9mm patterned off Glock 42 with 6+1 rounds of 9mm and further down the case is a S&W shield with an 8 and 7 round mags I'd pick the shield if I wanted a single stack 9mm.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

That's the beauty of so many different types. Everybody can pick the one they want. I like the 26 too, and have never really liked the idea of carrying a single stack when there were options with higher capacity, but there are niche situations where a single stack 9mm would be perfect for almost anyone. I carry my G42 when I need ultra-deep cover protection, like at weddings or other formal affairs where it simply isn't kosher to pack a mid/full size pistol. I think a Glock SS 9mm would be an excellent platform for such an occasion, especially if it is only slightly longer than the G42. If it is even remotely as soft a shooter as the G42, then hey. I'm in.


----------



## rustygun (Apr 8, 2013)

To me the 42 (.380) is good enough to serve the purpose of a "ultra-deep cover" weapon.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

rustygun said:


> To me the 42 (.380) is good enough to serve the purpose of a "ultra-deep cover" weapon.


I think it is also, but for those who want a little more than the 9mm short, the G"43" would work nicely.


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

Scorpion8 said:


> If it's the same width, what's the point? *The whole basis to go with a single stack is to accommodate hands that don't do double-column-widths very well*. For example, I have both the Beretta 84 (double-stack .380) and 85 (single stack .380). There is a noticeable grip width difference as well as different magazines. If you're going to make it with the same width, just produce a single stack magazine that fits the current gun.


I like the single stack because it's noticeably lighter for all day deep concealment, and the narrower width makes it somewhat easier to conceal. I do prefer the double-stack grip size for my largish hands, but have learned how to adapt that for single stack, and prefer to make that trade-off, if I can get it in 9mm Luger, or better. If .380 is the best I can do, I'll just avoid carrying it, unless that's the best I can do on a particular day.


----------

