G&R Tactical
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 39

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

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    2,988
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by tacticaldesire View Post
    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.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,016
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Todd.K View Post
    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.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    2,988
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    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?

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    1,591
    Feedback Score
    10 (100%)
    Glock tried to seize the zeitgeist of the moment by doing for .45 ACP what S&W did with the 10mm.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    The Sticks, TN
    Posts
    1,454
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bret View Post
    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.
    Psalm 34:19

    To argue with a person who renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. ~ Thomas Paine

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    2,988
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    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.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,016
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Todd.K View Post
    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.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    8,029
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Todd.K View Post
    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?
    Last edited by 26 Inf; 06-12-19 at 22:55.
    "If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse." - Henry Ford

    “You are responsible for your actions, but the world doesn’t turn around you, so it’s important that you find something bigger than yourself to work for, a way for you to make a difference.” - Drew Dix, MOH VN '68

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    suburbs of Philly Pa
    Posts
    3,243
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Bret View Post
    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.

  10. #30
    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.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

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
  •