First Shots: Smith & Wesson Bodyguard 2.0 vs Glock 42

October 28, 2024

Alan Hughes

Smith & Wesson isn’t new to the game when it comes to small, so-called “pocket pistols”. In both revolver and semi-automatics, they have nearly always had something in that niche. Until recently, their standard bearer in that class had been the Bodyguard. Earlier this year, the company released the Bodyguard 2.0. I expected it to be the original gun with a few little tweaks. I was wrong.

Shout out to my daughter for loaning me her Bodyguard 2.0 so that I could do the review.

5 Gun Control Lies Explained

The Original Bodyguard

The original Bodyguard (let’s call it the 1.0) has been around for quite a while. It is a polymer-framed micro pistol that competes directly with the Ruger LCP or Kel P-3AT. In 2014, it got a facelift, with some cosmetic and texture changes. It used a 6 round magazine, and some models incorporated a built-in laser. Unlike the rest of the M&P line, it is not a striker-fired gun. It is a hammer-fired gun with a long, heavy trigger pull, usually around 8-10 pounds.

The Bodyguard 2.0

Unlike Smith & Wesson’s previous update to the Bodyguard name, the Bodyguard 2.0 is a completely new gun. You can see this as soon as you look at it. While the original Bodyguard 1.0 is a chunky, kind of chubby little pistol, the 2.0 is a sleek, good-looking gun. It looks like the rest of the Military & Police (M&P) line, just smaller. This gun has better texture, better sights and a far better, striker-fired trigger. It ships with a 10-round and 12-round magazine.

Purchase one here

The Specs

Let’s look at the Bodyguard 2.0 compared to the Glock 42 and Ruger LCP Max.

MetricBodyguard 2.0Glock 42Ruger LCP Max
Overall Length- inches5.55.945.2
Barrel length- inches2.753.252.8
Width- inches0.880.940.97
Height- inches4.14.134.12
Weight- ounces11.513.7610.6
Capacity10/12610/12

All 3 guns are pretty similar in size, although the Glock 42 is a bit bigger while packing fewer rounds.

None of these are optics cut and none have an accessory rail, mainly due to their narrow widths.

Carjacking Prevention: 5 Ways to Avoid Being Carjacked

The Ergonomics

By just looking at the Bodyguard 2.0, you can see it’s radically different than its predecessor. But when you put the pistol in your hand, it just feels…right. Whereas the old BG was chunky a little blocky with a little texture, the 2.0 is sleek, with great texturing. The grip features texture along the entire length of both the front and back. There is a nice undercut on the trigger guard and a textured index point for your trigger finger near the front of the frame. The texture itself is in the Goldilocks zone. It is tackier than the M&P 1.0 texture, but not quite as aggressive as the M&P 2.0 texture. It’s just right.

I have pretty medium hands, but I was able to get a full grip on the gun with the flush-fit 10-round magazine. The 12-round gave me even more room. The 1.0 relied on an extension to increase grip length.

The slide has good, usable serrations on both the back and front. The steel sights consist of a blacked-out, serrated rear with an orange tritium night sight in the front. This setup is similar to the Ruger LCP Max and is very easy to use. It is a significant improvement over the original Bodyguard 1.0 sights. The sights even have a bit of a ledge on the front you could use to manipulate the slide one-handed if that was ever necessary.

My sample did not have an external safety, though there are versions that have them if you feel the need for that feature. The magazine release button is big, easy to hit and reversible for left-handed use.

The trigger is a flat-faced trigger with the little trigger safety dingus you are probably used to seeing on a striker-fired gun. My sample had a crisp break between 3.5 and 4 pounds. The reset was relatively short and audible. That is a drastic difference from the 1.0’s long and heavy trigger.

Which Small Pistol? Ruger LCP vs Glock 42 vs Ruger LCP Max

Shooting the Bodyguard 2.0

Admittedly, my expectations were pretty high at this point and the 2.0 did not disappoint. I loaded the 10-round mag up and emptied it at a B-27 target at between 7 and 8 yards. I shot at a pretty good pace and wasn’t unhappy with the result. All 10 in the 10 ring.

After a few more mags, I decided to see how well the Bodyguard 2.0 would group. The results did not suck. The picture below tells you what you need to know. I’m sure the gun could shoot better if someone with younger eyes was doing the shooting.

Overall, I ran 150 rounds of Browning 95-grain FMJ through the gun. There were no malfunctions or hiccups with the 2.0. I was a little concerned with the flat-nose design of the Browning when I bought it, but I did get a decent price on it from Bereli. So far, I’ve run it through this gun, the Ruger Security 380 and the Glock 42 with no issues.

The gun was easy to control. Some small guns, like the LCP, can be pretty snappy. That didn’t seem to be an issue with the 2.0. The recoil impulse was good, and the grip angle felt right. Getting the sights back on target quickly was pretty easy to do. Whether I shot the gun quickly or slowly and deliberately, it punched above its weight.

A Revolver for Self-Defense?

What Should Change?

This is where I normally drop the bad news. Truth is, I don’t have any bad news. There just isn’t anything I didn’t like about the gun.

Sure, I’d love an optics-ready version, but the gun simply isn’t wide enough. There would be overhang from even small optics like the Sig Romeo Zero Elite.

How Does It Compare to the Glock 42?

There isn’t a single metric I use in which the Glock 42 came out on top. Both guns have been 100% reliable for me. Both are accurate. But the 2.0 has a noticeably better trigger, steel sights, and in my opinion, better sights. The 2.0 is smaller and has a bigger capacity. Frankly, I can’t see any category in which the Glock 42 outperforms the Bodyguard 2.0 and I like the G42.

The photo below is a 2.0 with 12 rounds vs a G42 with 6 rounds.

Would I Carry It?

Based on my experience with the gun so far, I would give it two thumbs up. I easily would choose it over the Smith & Wesson CSX, even though that gun gives me a more potent ammo choice.

A few months ago, my daughter decided that she wanted a smaller alternative to the Hellcat that she normally carries. She chose the Bodyguard 2.0 and I’m comfortable with that choice. She picked a small, reliable gun with a good capacity that will shoot accurately and fast if needed.

Concealment with this gun is super easy, barely an inconvenience. I appreciate that. As a petite woman, she appreciates it even more. It is thin and small and several holster manufacturers have already started rolling out holsters for it. It’s a tiny gun, ideal for concealment or in the backup gun role.

Even better news, the Smith & Wesson Bodyguard 2.0 is reasonably priced. It’s easy to find them at the $399 price point. That’s a lot of gun for the money.

Keep in mind, this is just my opinion, based on a sample size of 1. Try the gun out for yourself and see. You can buy one here.

Note: As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases. Other affiliate links may also be present and earn a commission.

4 Comments

  1. Anthony colca on November 24, 2024 at 1:59 pm

    The g42 is a true combat weapon easy to totally disassemble for complete cleaning when needed. From the many reviews I have seen on bg 2.0 it is a little difficult ti get the striker out for cleaning also the 2 piece feed ramp is a little suspect.

    • Alan Hughes on November 25, 2024 at 9:01 am

      Thanks Anthony.

      I had no issues with disassembly and cleaning. However, with only a couple of hundred rounds through it, I haven’t taken the striker out of the BG. I don’t see a need to at this early stage.

  2. Jerry on December 15, 2024 at 10:10 pm

    Very easy to field strip the 2.0 for general cleaning, but to clean the striker channel the rear sight must be removed.

    • Alan Hughes on December 15, 2024 at 10:13 pm

      Thanks for that tip

Leave a Comment