I am on the fence about it. I honestly never had any real trouble with brass-to-face, and the breech face cut makes that SOB huck brass a LONG mother loving way… for those of us who pick up our brass and reload, that isn’t always awesome, LOL. But - consistent and vigorous ejection is certainly preferable to weak/poor ejection, so there is that. 
1 Like
Don’t have anything to add, just wanted to say thanks for your observations and efforts in here. Great and useful info.
(quick edit: Would love to for you to fire the Micro and the 43 back to back and hear your take on both. My biggest complaint about the 43 is the shootability, it’s just not a very pleasurable gun to shoot compared to the comparably-sized .380 G42, but I think the Micro’s grip could make a significant difference vs the 43.)
1 Like
So for clarification - if you mean a 43x and the Micro - I shot them back to back today actually. The Micro is easily more shootable than the 43x, I think because it’s got a nicer/more natural contour on the grip and better texture, so a) you have more surface area of your hand in contact with the gun, and b) the grippier texture keeps it from wanting to jump out of your grip. I found I could mag dump the Micro and keep my grip pretty perfect all the way through. When mag-dumping the 43x, my grip is usually getting sloppy by around round 7 or 8.
If you mean an actual Glock 43 (the tiny one that holds 6 rounds, smaller than a Micro Dagger), I did not shoot one back to back today, but I had one briefly a while back. I was not a fan. Grip shape was poor, no pinky rest, and it was very ‘jumpy’ in my hands, so much so I had to readjust my grip with almost every shot if I was shooting for accuracy. Yes, the Micro dagger is light-years nicer than this one.
Shadow Systems CR920 - basically a Glock 43x with the grip cut down to 43 size in terms of overall size class, double-stack like the Micro Dagger (10+1 with a short mag, or 13+1 with an extension). With the 10+1 (no pinky extension), it was vastly better than the 43, and about as good as the 43x, but not as good as the Micro.
Ruger LCP Max - flat out king of the pocket pistols IMHO - 10+1 or 12+1 rounds of 380, good sights, and really not bad to shoot. It’s never going to be as nice to shoot as a full size gun, sure, but for a gun that weighs barely a pound fully loaded, it’s miraculously nice to shoot.
And while we are at it, I will weigh in on the 380 vs 9mm thing. I hunt, my wife hunts, all my friends hunt, and I pack a pistol with me in the woods. Over the years I have finished off a couple of deer with a 380 and a couple of deer with a 9mm. Unless I told you which one I used, you would never know the difference - wound tract/wound profile was identical - clean pass through about 8-9 inches of solid muscle (neck), shattered the spine on the way through, and hung up in the hide on the far side. So if you got a 380 you love, I would not think twice about packing a 380 vs a 9mm. Just make sure the 380 has good ammo (XTP’s are good).
2 Likes
Thank you. I agree with all of your observations regarding the 43, I haven’t fired a 43x but I’ll 100% take your word for it. My current CCW is a G42 because at the time it was the only micro I could find that shot comfortably and smoothly (the Max wasn’t a thing at the time and the first-gen LCP was awful.)
I like the 42 and have no issues with it, but wouldn’t mind having something that fits in between it and my Dagger compacts, I considered the LCP Max but I believe the Micro would be a better fit, as a wholly average-sized guy at 5’9" 170lb I don’t love carrying compact to full size weapons, but I could easily alternate between the 42 for shorts/pocket carry/etc to the Micro for IWB. Given that I agree with pretty much every one of your observations I no longer have any concern over the shootability of the Micro (I was slightly worried it feel similar to the 43, which I didn’t like at all.)
Very much agreed on the .380 vs 9mm too. At self-defense ranges it’s a negligible difference.
1 Like
More things learned. Shield Arms S15 mag catch fits. Shield Arms S15 mags Gen 2 and Gen 3 fit, latch, and feed dummy rounds fine. Gen 1 S15 mags fit, latch, and feed, but won’t drop free.
The S15 mag catch button seems to protrude ever so slightly less than it should, but it functions with the S15 mags fine.
Hopefully I can give it a live fire run tomorrow to confirm it’s good to go.
Pictures with a Gen 2 S15 with Tarran Tactical +5 extension (20 round stick!).
3 Likes
I pretty much agree with all that. The Micro (or 43x) is a joy to IWB when compared to G19s, non-Micro Daggers, etc. But the Micro (or 43x) is just a whisker big to pocket-carry (IMHO anyway). So if you’re looking at it for an IWB gun, I’d be you $1 you love it! If you wanted to pocket-carry it, I bet you find it’s a touch too much to be really happy with it as a pocket gun.
If I was you, I’d still consider a LCP Max. For a pocket-carry 380, it’s a large upgrade from the 42. You get significantly more rounds, significantly less weight, and a significantly smaller gun (and night sights from the factory). IMHO, well worth the $299.99 next time PSA runs them on sale, and still worth it if you had to give the $369.99 MSRP or whatever it is these days.
Back on the Micro - as a general thought - I actually consider the Micro (and 43x) to be “really small full sized guns”. I say that because they hold 15+1 (same as a G19 or Compact Dagger), the handle is long enough for me to get my pinky involved in the grip, same as a G19 or Compact Dagger, and so-on. In other words, they are fairly tiny, but I wouldn’t feel like I had any “more gun” with a 19 or 17 sized gun than I do with the Micro/43x sized gun. So basically I get all the comfort features of carrying a small/thin/light gun, and all the firepower of a full sized gun if I ever needed it - what’s not to love?!?!?! I carry with 15+1 plus a 20 round spare mag, which seems like an almost crazy amount of firepower to have on me for 2 point something pounds of weight.
1 Like
Thanks again for your input. Appreciate it.
PSA should, too - you just sold another Micro.
1 Like
Got to give it a test-run tonight. It ran flawless with the Gen 3 Shield Arms mags, but it was NOT flawless with the Gen 2 shield mags (and I didn’t try Gen 1’s, due to aforementioned fit not being great). With the Gen 2 it jammed 2 out of 20 rounds. Bummer.
So I think that’s “asked and answered” - Shield Arms mags with Shield Arms mag-catch - looks like it can work with Gen 3 mags, probably (I would do way more extensive testing than I did to night before I trusted my life with it), but Gen 1 and Gen 2 probably not. I also was not 100% happy with how the SA mag release fit, so…
PSA and factory Glock mags only in the Micro for me, going forward.
I will do some investigation later to see if the Tarran Tactical (or Shield Arms) +5 mag extensions work with the PSA mags.
EDIT TO ADD - This may be an example of the same phenomenon noted in the Glock 43x community - some people (like me) have never had a single failure with a Shield Arms mag of any generation, and some people can’t get any of the 3 generations to run right in their gun - possibly some very minor tolerances between frames that affects if your gun “likes” them or not. So anyone else who wants to give it a go, don’t let me discourage you.
2 Likes
I have on hand, both Shield Arms S15 +5 extension, and several Tarran Tactical extensions for Shield Arms mags. I undertook to see if they could be made to work with the PSA mags.
TL;DR/conclusions
Tarran Tactical Shield Arms mag extensions - 100% will not work without major surgery to both the extension and the mag body.
Shield Arms S15 mag extensions - I am about 90% sure could be made to work with some surgery to either the PSA mag body or the extension (or both). Not sure enough to hack mine up when I only have one PSA mag, but sure enough that someday when I have half a dozen mags, I’ll take one and have a go with it.
The TL part
First, observe the shape of the mag extension that has to interface to the mag body. You will note, the The Tarran Tactical is a substantially different contour.
Next, look at the two mags where the interface to the mag extension. The basic interior contours are within a whisker of being identical. My calipers say they are close enough for government work. However, note that the exterior dimensions are substantively different, due to the plastic front-strap on the PSA mag.
So here is why I say the Tarran Tactical base won’t work - the plastic contour of the PSA mag will not fit into the cut-out. You would have to basically cut off all the plastic at the bottom of the PSA mag, and that seems unwise to me.
Moving along to what I think will work (I have not done it, but hear me out). Note the cut-out slot for the lip that stick out from the front of the magazine. The extension is narrower than the PSA mag, but a steady hand with a dremel and a tiny cutoff wheel could probably loosen than up. That looks to be the only mod needed here. You could also cut on the plastic on the PSA mag, but I would try not to do that if possible, personally.
here is how close it comes to fitting as-is. Also note, that there looks like there will be some interference from the contour of the plastic bit at the front. Again, looks solvable to me, but will probably look crappy.
4 Likes
Anyone tried the excess arms PSA Micro Dagger mag extension? (not sure if linking to some other vendor was kosher on the forum, but Google could find it for you)
1 Like
I have maybe 300-350 rounds on a slick psa mag with a excess +5 extension. No issues. Plus, it looks great witha empire magwell.
4 Likes
Just a few pics of the Micro Dagger lower side by side with a Gen 5 43x lower (was there ever a Gen4 43x?)
Overview of the differences I have spotted - the trigger return spring is different, the slide release spring and assembly is different, some minor differences in the frame molds; so they are not twins, but they are definitely brothers. (43x top, Micro bottom)
Closer up pic of the slide release springs (43x left, Micro right)
Close up pic of the slide-release on the Micro (top)
Close up pic of the slide release on the 43x (bottom)
And a pic looking down into the mag-well - some minor difference in the cut-outs in the trigger shoe, the Micro transfer bar and ejector both look a touch thicker (Micro left, 43x right).
1 Like
All the “Slimline” Glocks are Gen5’s as far as I can tell.
1 Like
Update on holsters
I found a second Safariland ALS holster that fits - model 7378-895 (mine has a date of 01/21 on it by the model number - not sure if that’s significant). It fits pretty snug, but it fits/locks into ALS, and isn’t a tight enough fit to impede drawing the weapon. The 7378 is the no-light/no-red dot holster, so if you wanted to run one of these, you don’t get either.
1 Like
My 6360? RDO for a G19 also fit snug with my compact Dagger. Better fit than a Brownells slide gave me though.
Iron sights info
Since the data below is kind of dry, I’ll give you all a TL;DR
The stock sights on the Micro appear to be 100% identical to the iron sights that came on my Compact Dagger slides. This means you should be able to mount any Glock aftermarket sights, not just the ones for 43/48/43x/43xMOS - cool!
Based on my measurements of the factory Micro Dagger sights, aftermarket sight sets spec’d for a G20, G20SF, G21, G21SF, G29, G29SF, G30, G30SF, G30S, G31, G32, G36, G36FGR, G40, or G41 will be the identical height (or height ratio) to the factory Micro Dagger sights.
Based on those same measurements, I expect to see a point of impact that is lower than factory sight heights if you use sight sets spec’d for a G17, G19, G22, G23, G24, G26, G27, G33, G34, G35, G37, G38, or G39, as Glock spec’s a lower rear sight for these models. If Ameriglo’s sight height calculator is correct, these will put your point of impact about 3 inches lower at 25 yards.
Keep in mind, that while any Glock sights should fit - that some aftermarket rear sights may have a lot of front or rear overhang as measured from the dovetail, so in some cases that may interfere with the optic, or overhang the rear of the slide to an undesirable level. So pay attention to that sort of thing.
OK, on to technical data:
Micro (and Compact) Dagger sights measured with my calipers:
Front sight is .165 inches tall
Rear sight dovetail is 0.089 inches in depth.
Rear sight is .080 inches tall measured at the bottom of the notch (.169 including dovetail depth)
Rear sight is .182 inches tall measured directly above the rear dots (tallest point) (.271 inches including dovetail depth).
Rear sigh is .701 inches wide
I got identical measurements when measuring the irons that came on one of my Compact Daggers.
That roughly corresponds to standard Glock front sight height (.161 vs .165), and Glock 6.9 mm rear sight (.271 vs .272). This corresponds to the factory sight heights on a Glock G20, G20SF, G21, G21SF, G29, G29SF, G30, G30SF, G30S, G31, G32, G36, G36FGR, G40, or G41.
A G17, G19, G22, G23, G24, G26, G27, G33, G34, G35, G37, G38, or G39 comes with a 6.5 mm rear sight, which is .255 inches tall (.016 lower than the 6.9mm sight).
Playing with Ameiglos sight calculator and a glock 43, looks like going from a 6.9 to 6.5 mm rear sight will put your point of impact about 1.2 inches lower at 10 yards and about 3 inches lower at 25 yards. So if you are a long distance bullseye shooter, you probably care. If you are a “any hit even vaguely center mass is good to go” kind of shooter, you probably won’t care at all/may not even notice.
Hope that helps someone(s).
3 Likes
What optics are y’all running? Any body running cheaper optics? Thanks in advance.
1 Like
The Micro Dagger slide is Shield RMS(c) cut, so on a budget, this one should fit, and on its current sale at $69.99, is by far the smokingest deal I know of on a Micro Dagger compatible dot sight right now.
I have only tried a Holosun EPS (which fit great).
The only issue with that one is no shake awake. If I’m mounting on a defensive/carry pistol, that’s a dealbreaker.
1 Like
Oh, definitely. For a defensive pistol, I’d run an EPS or one of the new extra tough Shields (both north of $300). I just posted that one because a question about cheaper optics was asked.