.45ACP vs .45GAP, cont'd
Hate to re-open this, but I got locked out in the middle of typing a reply, and I hate when that happens!
quote: pdog77
UNLESS of course the shorter (front - back length ) is designed to make the [GAP] pistol shorter for a more concealable IE "compact or Sub Compact made for conceal carry
Well, overall length of a GAP round is 1.07", MAXIMUM overall length of a .45 ACP round is 1.27".
I just don't see how 1/5 of an inch of smaller front/back grip size is going to make any difference in concealability. If you want a smaller overall size for the gun, the easier way to do that is just to shorten the barrel and slide a bit, not invent an entirely new caliber!
As a secondary matter, if you look at say a 1911 magazine, its not all that big front to back. If the goal is to create a .45 with a small front-back grip size, I think there are ways you could tweak the frame design of an ordinary 1911, or use a different design to get a smaller grip without having to come up with a new caliber.
In fact, I'm pretty sure you can already find .45ACP pistols with roughly the same grip size as the GAP Glock.
Now, just to tweak things a bit, one of the reasons Glock came up with this cartridge isn't because of any deficiency with the .45ACP, but rather with its own .45ACP guns, which were (are) notorious for big blocky grips. Subsequently, Glock has come out with a "slimmed" version of its .45 frame.
On "death" of this round, I suppose it may eventually fade away, but I don't think it will happen in the immediate near term. The issue here, is that Glock is effectively subsidizing the round by giving the guns away dirt cheap to various cash-strapped police agencies. Since Glock guns are relatively inexpensive to produce, Glock gets the exposure and loses nothing by doing this. Glock also has deep pockets to market this gun, and its been using them.
The limiting factor for the lifespan of this round probably going to be whether the AMMO makers are selling enough of it to keep it in manufacture. And that's going to depend on both penetration of both the civilian and law enforcement markets.
quote: pdog77
UNLESS of course the shorter (front - back length ) is designed to make the [GAP] pistol shorter for a more concealable IE "compact or Sub Compact made for conceal carry
Well, overall length of a GAP round is 1.07", MAXIMUM overall length of a .45 ACP round is 1.27".
I just don't see how 1/5 of an inch of smaller front/back grip size is going to make any difference in concealability. If you want a smaller overall size for the gun, the easier way to do that is just to shorten the barrel and slide a bit, not invent an entirely new caliber!
As a secondary matter, if you look at say a 1911 magazine, its not all that big front to back. If the goal is to create a .45 with a small front-back grip size, I think there are ways you could tweak the frame design of an ordinary 1911, or use a different design to get a smaller grip without having to come up with a new caliber.
In fact, I'm pretty sure you can already find .45ACP pistols with roughly the same grip size as the GAP Glock.
Now, just to tweak things a bit, one of the reasons Glock came up with this cartridge isn't because of any deficiency with the .45ACP, but rather with its own .45ACP guns, which were (are) notorious for big blocky grips. Subsequently, Glock has come out with a "slimmed" version of its .45 frame.
On "death" of this round, I suppose it may eventually fade away, but I don't think it will happen in the immediate near term. The issue here, is that Glock is effectively subsidizing the round by giving the guns away dirt cheap to various cash-strapped police agencies. Since Glock guns are relatively inexpensive to produce, Glock gets the exposure and loses nothing by doing this. Glock also has deep pockets to market this gun, and its been using them.
The limiting factor for the lifespan of this round probably going to be whether the AMMO makers are selling enough of it to keep it in manufacture. And that's going to depend on both penetration of both the civilian and law enforcement markets.
0
-
The GAP does alllow for a slightly smaller grip frame for the Glock brand pistol, which would go hand in hand with a smaller overall size.. that was the idea Glock had when they introduced it. And yes, the original .45 "Blocks" were hard to hold with smaller than blacksmith-sized hands. I guess the slow selling numbers of the GAP, compared with the popularity of the ACP, has forced Glock to give them away at fire-sale prices to keep the "GAP" name going. As for the new Factory-slim frames, custom makers have been slimming Glocks (Robar, for one) for a while, and Glock finally got into the act by offering factory frames with better dimensions. Either way, it really wasn't intended as a 1911 caliber, it was intended as a Glock-themed caliber for a Glock design.
As for the .32 H&R and .41 Mag, like I said, they were great ideas, but ya gotta admit they're not easy to find on every gunstore shelf (unlike the .38/.357 or .44 mags are). I like shooting both rounds, and I wish I had the disposable coin to get guns in each, (Nickel 6" M-57 and a 6 1/2" Ruger Single-six are my favs) and like the GAP, the idea behind the cartridge was good, but it hasn't carried over into universal popularity...which in the case of the .32 and .41 is too bad IMHO.0 -
BTS
You seem to be forgetting that the US is NOT the only "gun market" in the world.
Some countries BAN the ownership of firearms, or ammo, that will accept "military" cartridges. Guess what, the GAP is NOT a military cartridge, but the people in those countries still appriciate having a 45cal available to them.
BTW, Glock isn't the first one to come up with this idea, COLT marketed there own shortened 45 round in Europe before you were born (I've seen your photo, your not that old).0 -
quote:Originally posted by Tailgunner1954
BTS
You seem to be forgetting that the US is NOT the only "gun market" in the world.
Some countries BAN the ownership of firearms, or ammo, that will accept "military" cartridges. Guess what, the GAP is NOT a military cartridge, but the people in those countries still appriciate having a 45cal available to them.
Where did you see my picture? Fortunately, I do photograph well. This is me going to work in the morning in my van:
Anyway, the USA isn't the "only" gun market in the world, but its by far the largest and most important one, by at least an order of magnitude over everywhere else. I don't take it for granted that private handgun ownership is heavily restricted or absolutely banned on most of the planet.
Your point about 45GAP being potentially available in countries where 45ACP is banned to civilian shooters is excellent, though this is at best only a minor factor (if one at all) in why Glock commissioned this round.
In practice, in those countries where military style calibers are banned from private possession (Eg Italy, France) legal concealed carry by civilians is invariably banned too. So in those countries, there isn't much point for micro-small .45 auto guns. Super small .45s (and indeed .45s in GENERAL) are really a highly American phenomenon. In Europe, they like 9mms, and they tend to think that .45s are too-big rounds for too-fat gas-guzzling Americans in their big SUVs!
Glock commissioned the GAP round explicitly to fit the round into Glock guns with smaller grips. (He also did it for ego reasons so that he could have a cartridge using the name "Glock" on it. . .his design team had to persuade him that calling the round the "45 Glock" was a bad idea!).
If you were going to specifically design a 45 caliber round to circumvent European-type bans on guns in military calibers, the path to do that is fairly well established, and this probably isn't the way you'd want to go.
Ideally, what you'd do is what IMI did to make the 9x21mm round. You'd create a 45ACP-like cartridge with a slightly longer case, then mount the bullet in a little deeper for a similar overall length. A round like this would be legal, since its not a 45ACP and couldn't chamber in ordinary 45ACP guns, yet with a simple barrel change it should run through any normal .45ACP gun using normal magazines. For all I know, its already been done.
Getting back to 45GAP, I don't think the round is intrinsically bad. For practical purposes, its ballistically identical to .45ACP, and if this round had come out 100 years ago instead, there would be no discussion about this.
I'm just skeptical about whether or not the mostly ergonomic benefits of this round are worth adopting it over the far more common and less expensive 45ACP. I think for most (American) shooters, this isn't true.
quote:Originally posted by Tailgunner1954
quote:Originally posted by beantownshootah
Where did you see my picture? Fortunately, I do photograph well.
You recently posted a couple on a MN-44 thread, Ref the fireball
Oh. . .you mean this one:
Here I am in video:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=68f_1243994304&c=1
And here I am in my debonair Russian wool jacket standing next to Jude Law. [;)][:p]0 -
quote:Originally posted by beantownshootah
Where did you see my picture? Fortunately, I do photograph well.
You recently posted a couple on a MN-44 thread, Ref the fireball0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
4 comments