The Glock 43 has been a huge success in the sense of providing consumers with an ultra-compact, reliable and accurate pistol ideally suited for concealed carry. During our classes, we define a primary carry pistol as having a minimum magazine capacity of ten rounds. The idea behind our choice is simple: multiple threats. The larger magazine capacity platform will hopefully provide sufficient ammunition to defeat the multiple threats one may face, or best case, more than enough for an isolated threat. It is becoming the norm to see multiple attackers, so planning for this contingency requires putting greater thought into your pistol selection. 

Am I making a concession when I choose to run a Glock 43 as my primary? The honest answer is yes. However, the advantage of carrying under broader conditions helps bring balance to the universe. Right about now, some people are rolling their eyes as they mutter under their breath how adept they are at carrying their full-size wonder-nine decked out with all the bells and whistles. Having completed as many concealed carry classes as I have, I'm not surprised. These are the same people who do a poor job of concealing their load out. There is a difference between concealing or covering your load out. The casual observer is not the concern. The concern is the violent criminal capable of identifying subtle clues. 

The whole point to concealed carry is to truly conceal the entire load-out, not simply to cover up. Day to day activities often place the concealed carrier in compromising positions and it becomes easier to print. There seems to be a blasé attitude regarding the idea of printing. This attitude should fall into the same camp as those who profess open carry as the end all be all. The bottom line is the majority of folks could be doing a better job of concealing. Hence, my experiment with the Glock 43. I wanted to see how deep I could go and how well I could conceal in everything from formal wear to workout attire. In the end, I gained a greater appreciation for this little blaster. 

This makes it an excellent choice for those who have reduced options for concealment. In this case, either attire or environment create restrictive measures making it difficult to conceal or grave consequences for discovery. As for the pistol itself, from a reliability point of view, having put over 2,500 rounds through it since putting it into service I'd say it performs above standard. Shooting as many rounds through an ultra-compact frame can be difficult with other platforms, but I found this platform problem free. 

Then there is accuracy component, both mechanical and technical. From a mechanical point of view, it is plenty accurate. Designed for close range engagements, it has proven itself impressive out to 25 yards. The technical side has more to do with the difficulty one might have either through the recoil impulse being rude or the platform not having the inherent accuracy. The last issue I have is durability. Any skill must be practiced and while you have the added benefit of similar controls, the ultra-compact frames typically are not robust enough to sustain the volume necessary to sustain skill level. That is not the case here. The bottom line: is it my first choice with all things equal? No. However, I don't have a problem carrying one when it becomes necessary. 

Originally posted on M4Carbine.net's Newsletter (2017) -- Used with Permission.

Discover M4Carbine.net (M4C.com)