Reply to Thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dmc707" data-source="post: 4366327" data-attributes="member: 54876">.Obviously i agree with this statement - LOL&nbsp; - although i should probably procure a hammerless Centennial or 642 versionThat said - i am somewhat routinely on the lookout for a Glock 42 (the .380 version ) -- i used to pocket carry a Sig 238 baby 1911 in a neoprene sleeve and it was quite small - 7 shots vs 5, and can carry 2 extra mags very unobtrusively-- but one day after acquiring a bigger .380 (Walther PPK ) - i thought -- lets have a shootout between the old German and the newer carry gun&nbsp;&nbsp; --- That 238 was dry, but was a jam-o-matic - couldnt make it through one 6 round magazine without 3 tap-racks.&nbsp; &nbsp; Such a nice pistol too but it was then that i decided that it was too finicky for a pocket carry piece and went back to a J Frame -&nbsp;&nbsp; Dont have to run it wet for it to be reliable&nbsp; - the Glock 42 doesnt require much pampering either.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dmc707, post: 4366327, member: 54876"] .Obviously i agree with this statement - LOL - although i should probably procure a hammerless Centennial or 642 version That said - i am somewhat routinely on the lookout for a Glock 42 (the .380 version ) -- i used to pocket carry a Sig 238 baby 1911 in a neoprene sleeve and it was quite small - 7 shots vs 5, and can carry 2 extra mags very unobtrusively -- but one day after acquiring a bigger .380 (Walther PPK ) - i thought -- lets have a shootout between the old German and the newer carry gun --- That 238 was dry, but was a jam-o-matic - couldnt make it through one 6 round magazine without 3 tap-racks. Such a nice pistol too but it was then that i decided that it was too finicky for a pocket carry piece and went back to a J Frame - Dont have to run it wet for it to be reliable - the Glock 42 doesnt require much pampering either. [/QUOTE]

Verification