View Full Version : Why did the 45 GAP/M37 Glock not catch on ?
Just perusing the 2018 Glock catalog and I wonder why the 45 GAP ( Glock Auto Pistol ) cartridge / Model 37,38,39
never really caught on ?
It really was a great idea, 1/2" goodness in a Model 17 size frame.
I just don't see them, don't know anyone who owns one.
I would say, largely, due to the fact it doesn’t really do anything better than existing cartridges AND it costs a premium over the traditional 9mm, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP. The reality is that economics and narrowing performance gaps due to improving bullet technology is making everything besides 9mm an outlier for duty pistols.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Because the market for people who want small frame pistols (9mm & 40S&W cartridge length) with large diameter bullets is very very small. Most people who want large diameter bullets buy 1911's anyway. A check of ammoseek.com shows that it costs about $30 more per case than 45ACP. I would have thought the difference would have been more.
MountainRaven
06-11-19, 15:12
I’m surprised anyone thought it was a good idea.
Maybe if it offered a similar recoil impulse to 9mm, I could see why it might be of interest during the AWB and states that have gun laws stuck in 1994 - or worse. But otherwise? Meh. At best.
Glock saw some of the success SIG was having with 357SIG and decided to attract the 45ACP crowd with 45GAP.
It's a solution looking for a non-existent problem.
The story that I heard was that some larger agencies expressed interest in 45's but found the G21 frame too big. Ergo, the .45GAP. Remember, .45GAP was introduced in 2003, which was before LE began switching en masse from .40 and .45ACP to the 9mm.
As to the demise of the round - not as many choices in ammunition loading or pistols, for that matter. .45ACP also had like what, a hundred year head start?
Well, it was a solution to a problem that (nearly) only Glock had.
As one who frequently shoots 45-ACP, I'm not upset that the GAP never became more popular. Weeding those short shells out of regular 45 brass was a nuisance.
titsonritz
06-11-19, 18:59
Just one more fly by night cartridge that didn't catch on.
SF frame and eventually Gen4 frames fixed the grip issues of the 20/21.
A niche cartridge, like REALLY niche. Almost .45 ACP ballistics so the resulting ammo could be loaded in smaller frame pistols. Was the juice worth the squeeze, i.e. introducing an entirely new cartridge for minimal gains? Apparently not.
Glock did have a couple large agencies buy into it, no doubt enticed by "free" (or almost free) weapons:
New York State Police, South Carolina Highway Patrol, Florida Highway Patrol, Pennsylvania State Police, and Georgia State Police, most of which have subsequently switched to other calibers.
Because its a GAP in all likelihood. GAP should stick to jeans.
PB
I would say, largely, due to the fact it doesn’t really do anything better than existing cartridges AND it costs a premium over the traditional 9mm, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP. The reality is that economics and narrowing performance gaps due to improving bullet technology is making everything besides 9mm an outlier for duty pistols.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It's not that bullet technology is improving. It's that Americans are belatedly catching on to the fact that 9mm stops bad guys as well as any other cartridge, and the .40 S&W and .45 ACP - and the .45 GAP -- need never have been born.
Weeding those short shells out of regular 45 brass was a nuisance.
I use my casefeeder to separate them - it jams on 380 in 9 and 45GAP in 45. :jester:
El Pistolero
06-12-19, 00:27
I think Glock may have anticipated a renewal of the AWB in 2004 and if everyone would be limited to 10 rounds in a Glock 17-size frame then making them bigger (.45) would appeal to many.
Because its a GAP in all likelihood. GAP should stick to jeans.
PB
I dunno, GAP makes some pretty nice rifles.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I own a 38 and used to have a 37 as well. The 38 was my EDC for many years but I have since switched to a 19. For the same size I have almost double the capacity and less weight. I will say the 38 is fun to shoot and very accurate.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
tacticaldesire
06-12-19, 07:35
The niche it filled doesn't need to be filled anymore. Most of the large agencies that adopted it have since moved on to 9mm or .45acp. Glock doesn't even care about the round anymore. The 38 and 39 are still Gen 3 frames and holsters/parts for the GAP pistols are weird and harder to find. If you want widespread adoption, you have to make things easier. One of the things that killed the GAP is that the slides were still too fat. Yes, it's a G17 frame but the slide is still chunky necessitating their own generic holsters whereas a .357 Sig can use standard G17/G22 accessories. Agencies look at that stuff. If I want to switch from 9mm or .40 to .357 sig the transition is easy as almost everything is compatible. GAP not so much.
It's not that bullet technology is improving. It's that Americans are belatedly catching on to the fact that 9mm stops bad guys as well as any other cartridge, and the .40 S&W and .45 ACP - and the .45 GAP -- need never have been born.
Blasphemy! I am reporting this post to the mods.
ViniVidivici
06-12-19, 12:02
Like others have said, it's kind of pointless at this stage.
Only reason Glock ever really made any headway with it was that they were practically giving them away to dome big LE agencies.
Of the ones who adopted it, I wonder how many are still using it.
Always seemed gimicky to me. Much more so than .357 SIG.
If I had been running the show, Glock would have made a single stack 9mm right after they introduced the G17 to the U.S. market, and a single-stack .45 right after they introduced the G21.
I have large hands and just don't like the way the G21 feels. It is simply too big for a lot of folks.
As a brand that's original focus was on LEO in the U.S. it was short-sighted not to address the issue of smaller hands in their initial offerings.
One of the things that killed the GAP is that the slides were still too fat. Yes, it's a G17 frame but the slide is still chunky necessitating their own generic holsters whereas a .357 Sig can use standard G17/G22 accessories.
I'm in the camp that thinks the 40 S&W and even more so 357 Sig shouldn't have been shoehorned into 9mm sized pistols.
I'm in the camp that thinks the 40 S&W and even more so 357 Sig shouldn't have been shoehorned into 9mm sized pistols.
The primary design point of the 40S&W and 357Sig was for more powerful cartridges that could be fired from 9mm grip sized pistols. The 40S&W was way more successful than the 10mm for this reason.
I'm aware of the marketing department's take, and the accounting department's interest in as many parts as possible being the same. How about the engineering department? Did they think the same RSA was ideal for both the G17 and G22?
EzGoingKev
06-12-19, 19:12
Glock tried to seize the zeitgeist of the moment by doing for .45 ACP what S&W did with the 10mm.
The primary design point of the 40S&W and 357Sig was for more powerful cartridges that could be fired from 9mm grip sized pistols.
And used the same duty gear as the 9mm Glocks. Thus no additional equipment expenses to "upgrade" a caliber.
Ok, I'll try a different approach. The G22 is what happens when you give engineers a G17 and tell them make the 40 S&W fit. If you give them the 40 S&W and ask for a gun to be built around it I think it would be a bit bigger, like the GAP is.
If you give them the 40 S&W and ask for a gun to be built around it I think it would be a bit bigger, like the GAP is.
That's what happened when the H&K USP40 and Steyr M40 were designed. The slides don't seem to be any wider than a 9mm.
I'm aware of the marketing department's take, and the accounting department's interest in as many parts as possible being the same. How about the engineering department? Did they think the same RSA was ideal for both the G17 and G22?
Why make an assembly bigger if you don't need to do so for function?
Outside diameter of the .40 case is .033 larger and .096 longer than the 9mm - apparently engineering felt they could ream the chambers to the size and still be safe with the pressures.
Sig did the same thing with the original P220, it was designed as a 9mm for the Swiss Armed Forces - they punched it up to .45 for the U.S. market. The main difference being the P220 was a big beefy pistol from the beginning. However, Sig also offers the P226 in 9mm, .40S&W and, of course, .357Sig. IIRC, same slide and frame dimensions, except for the holes at the muzzle end of the slide.
Other folks have done the same, such as Ruger with the P85/P89 series.
Or, maybe I'm missing your concern?
That's what happened when the H&K USP40 and Steyr M40 were designed. The slides don't seem to be any wider than a 9mm.In HK case they went backwards from Glock. Instead of taking a 9mm handgun and fitting a 40sw to it they built a 40sw handgun and then fitted a 9mm to it.
I expect to see more broken parts and a narrower operating window with the fit 40 into a 9mm sized gun. Not a gun blowing up because the chamber is too thin but a shorter service life.
G22 Gen3 problems are why we have a Gen4. Gen4 doesn't share the same RSA in 9mm and 40 do they?
Several other designs that have come out AFTER the 40, do seem to be a bit chunkier to me as well.
I expect to see more broken parts and a narrower operating window with the fit 40 into a 9mm sized gun. Not a gun blowing up because the chamber is too thin but a shorter service life.
G22 Gen3 problems are why we have a Gen4. Gen4 doesn't share the same RSA in 9mm and 40 do they?
Several other designs that have come out AFTER the 40, do seem to be a bit chunkier to me as well.
RAM Engineer
06-18-19, 13:12
I think a G37-sized pistol chambered in .40 would be a hoot of a gun.
Mrgunsngear
06-18-19, 13:52
I love the G37 personally.
smooth recoil
cheap if it's a trade in
most people don't shoot enough for ammo cost to matter
during the Clinton ban it *sort of* made sense for folks that prefer bigger bore loads
https://youtu.be/Gziky-BGpnE
It's an oddball caliber and ultimately how popular a gun or caliber will become is how well it's embraced by Agencies/ consumers. The way I looked at it is ammunition wasn't commonly available like 45acp and more expensive with limited loads. It wasn't picked up by a variety of popular gun manufacturers. Ballistically what big advantage did it have over say 45acp+P? A handful of agencies adopted it and how many are left that still issue it? I don't have what I consider large hands and never had trouble with 45 sized frames and the big selling point was.supposed be the smaller size. The Military, big Federal agencies, State, local agencies, and civilians didn't buy into the idea of the 45 Gap.
It basically never got off the ground, almost nobody wanted it or had any interest. It happens, sometimes you get a home run and sometimes you strike out. It just was never meant to be.
Well ya see it was the early 2000s and ecstasy was making a comeback...
I've owned 45 GAP pistols since October 2003. My wife and I have all three models as well as the Gen 4 G 37. The are accurate and the 9mm size frame fits our hand size better.My G38 is great for CC and with 8+1 rounds of 230 HST I don't feel any more unprepared than I do with my 1911.We have used them in GSSF / IDPA matches since 2003. Most people have never actually had any hands on or shot a GAP pistol, but most of the people that have shot our pistols have commented the low perceived recoil and its' accuracy. Is it better than 45 ACP,no but it is every bit its' equal in performance. The bottom picture was shot offhand at 20 yds with my G38 and 230 HST. If you buy ammo in bulk online it's not any more than 45ACP. YMMV
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/640x480q90/923/fFVQ6B.jpg (https://imageshack.com/i/pnfFVQ6Bj)
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/640x480q90/921/8RKtYP.jpg (https://imageshack.com/i/pl8RKtYPj)
MadAngler1
06-18-19, 19:07
Just perusing the 2018 Glock catalog and I wonder why the 45 GAP ( Glock Auto Pistol ) cartridge / Model 37,38,39
never really caught on ?
It really was a great idea, 1/2" goodness in a Model 17 size frame.
I just don't see them, don't know anyone who owns one.
What does 45 GAP do that .45 ACP, 9 mm or .40 S&W don’t do with defensive rounds? Same goes for .357 Sig. Heck, .38 Super is a better load in the 1911, but 9 mm is here to stay unfortunately.
sundance435
06-19-19, 11:32
If I had been running the show, Glock would have made a single stack 9mm right after they introduced the G17 to the U.S. market, and a single-stack .45 right after they introduced the G21.
I have large hands and just don't like the way the G21 feels. It is simply too big for a lot of folks.
As a brand that's original focus was on LEO in the U.S. it was short-sighted not to address the issue of smaller hands in their initial offerings.
I'd be all over a 10 round Glock 41 or 21 with the frame sized accordingly. It could compete directly with the cheaper 1911s and 2011s, too. I really don't know why they haven't done something like that. Not like there's a lot of R&D investment going into something like that and it would be a legitimate 1911 competitor.
ViniVidivici
06-19-19, 12:43
They haven't because once again, they are a business, and everything they do or don't do is based on market projections, sales, etc.
They have so much coming in from LE and .mil sales, worldwide, they still don't need to innovate as much as some other companies do, to stay profitable.
Again, look how long they took with things like interchangeable backstraps, the G42/G43/G48, etc.
Vvv, your observations are spot on.
RAM Engineer
06-19-19, 15:54
They haven't because once again, they are a business, and everything they do or don't do is based on market projections, sales, etc.
They have so much coming in from LE and .mil sales, worldwide, they still don't need to innovate as much as some other companies do, to stay profitable.
Again, look how long they took with things like interchangeable backstraps, the G42/G43/G48, etc.
In terms of the new models, I think it's not so much that they don't HAVE to innovate, but rather their production capacity is limited. Every G43 is a G19 they're NOT making.
In terms of the new models, I think it's not so much that they don't HAVE to innovate, but rather their production capacity is limited. Every G43 is a G19 they're NOT making.
You engineer, you. Great point. Do you have knowledge of their production processes, i.e., do they have to actually shutdown a line of other pistols to make G43's?
ViniVidivici
06-19-19, 16:19
They probably consider their production capacity, in those terms, to be "streamlined", rather than "limited".
RAM Engineer
06-19-19, 16:49
You engineer, you. Great point. Do you have knowledge of their production processes, i.e., do they have to actually shutdown a line of other pistols to make G43's?
I do not, but like VVV said, most modern manufacturing companies run a pretty lean production. They have the ability to ramp up, but they only do so carefully, considering the risks of getting stuck with stuff that wont sell. What we perceive as "lack of innovation" they see as "fiscal responsibility"
sundance435
06-20-19, 10:14
I do not, but like VVV said, most modern manufacturing companies run a pretty lean production. They have the ability to ramp up, but they only do so carefully, considering the risks of getting stuck with stuff that wont sell. What we perceive as "lack of innovation" they see as "fiscal responsibility"
First, you're assuming that Glock has a top-notch market analysis operation. I'm glad they're not Sig, but I think it's more that they're incredibly risk averse (as many Germanic peoples can be). They likely make triple the profit, or more, on every civilian gun they sell vs. mil and LE contracts. Despite Glock being cagey with numbers, a significant portion of their profit is from civilian sales. Glock's product line is not Sig's and wouldn't even be close in schizoid terms with a few new models. Following some of your assumptions to their conclusion, Glock would only make gen 4 and 5 17s, 19s, and 26s, since that's likely 70%+ of their current sales and the only thing holding them back from selling more is manufacturing capacity.
They got burned on GAP, but I think they took the wrong lessons from it.
If they didn't need to innovate to sell guns beyond mil and LE, then there's no reason for them to build the 43x and 48. It's not like they're doing it out of the
I would say, largely, due to the fact it doesn’t really do anything better than existing cartridges AND it costs a premium over the traditional 9mm, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP.
This is your answer right here.
El_Chingon
06-20-19, 21:45
is the 45 gap ammo hard to find?
is the 45 gap ammo hard to find?Not really. SGammo has Gold Dots, S&B, Magtech and Winchester
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.