G&R Tactical
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 39 of 39

Thread: Why did the 45 GAP/M37 Glock not catch on ?

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    2,988
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    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.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    N. Alabama
    Posts
    2,015
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    I think a G37-sized pistol chambered in .40 would be a hoot of a gun.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    598
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    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


  4. #34
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    21
    Feedback Score
    0
    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.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    10,885
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Well ya see it was the early 2000s and ecstasy was making a comeback...

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    103
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    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



    Last edited by ARx3; Yesterday at 18:44.
    I'll keep my weapons,my freedom,and my money!! You can keep the CHANGE!
    Glock Certified Armorer

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    456
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by lowprone View Post
    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 donít 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.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    856
    Feedback Score
    11 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by 26 Inf View Post
    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.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    178
    Feedback Score
    0
    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.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •