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

[Todd.K]

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.

[Bret]

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.

[Todd.K]

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]

Glock tried to seize the zeitgeist of the moment by doing for .45 ACP what S&W did with the 10mm.

[flenna]

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.

[Todd.K]

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.

[Bret]

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.

[26 Inf]

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?

[Arik]

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.

[Todd.K]

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.