Regarding: Dick Metcalf’s Shooting Times article entitled, “.45 GAP Versus .45 ACP: The .45 GAP Wins!”, May 2004:

OK, Dick’s article did not address +P factory .45 ACP ammo in his comparison. When comparing .45 GAP ammo against standard pressure .45 ACP ammo, obviously the gap holds its own very well and is certainly not a short & weak caliber as many originally predicted. In fact, even the Glock 37 recoil was more mellow than the Colt Series 80 Commander with a Dick Heinie 4.5” barrel, according to Dick Metcalf.

In the near future we will be able to compare +P .45 ACP ammo against the hottest .45 GAP ammo made by Cor-Bon (another kind of apples and apples). I predict that even when this comparison becomes public, there won’t be a significant difference between the two calibers. Why do I say that? Let’s look at Cor-Bon’s current +P .45 ACP loads:

5 inch barrel firing .45 ACP +P ammo:
165 grain +P 1250 fps/573 ft/lbs of energy
185 grain +P 1150 fps/543 ft/lbs of energy
200 grain +P 1050 fps/490 ft/lbs of energy
230 grain +P 950 fps/461 ft/lbs of energy

I predict Cor-Bon will come fairly close to the same velocities with the .45 GAP caliber, based on reloading data. For example:

4.5 inch barrel firing .45 GAP ammo:
200 grain GAP N340 1047 fps/486 ft/lbs of energy
230 grain GAP Longshot 974 fps avg/484 ft/lbs of energy (Note: the multiple times fired reused brass that was used in this full power load still dropped completely into the Glock barrel chamber all the way. The fired brass had no bulging or pressure signs of any kind.)

Folks, whether you want to admit it or not, the .45 GAP is far exceeding even what the original developers of the cartridge projected.

Glocks have polygonal barrels, and I believe that is the reason for the Glock winning the comparison.

Besides, my USP can fire .45 Super in stock form, thats a 230 at 1100+.

One of the reasons its not high on my list is current ammo selection and price.

Again, please see my G37 rant on the Handguns board.

This caliber has no purpose. It exists solely to allow Glock to make a full size .45 slimmer than the G21, without having to spend a lot of money for a new frame mold. Period. The cost of developing the round was absorbed by the ammo companies, not by Glock.

I read Metcalf's article & he's full of it again. So what if some factory GAP loads are 100 fps or so faster than ACP loads. There won't be a dime's worth of difference performance wise. If anything the faster rounds can overexpand & underpenetrate. Remember, Metcalf is the guy who wrote around 1994 that the Colt 2000 was the wave of the future & its rotating barrel will "instantly obsolete the Browning designs". His assessment of the .45 GAP will prove to be equally prophetic.

The fact that it doesn't take the ubiquitous .45 ACP round (and has a super fat slide to boot) makes the G37 a very stupid gun, far outweighing any minor increase in speed of the GAP cartridge.

I'm just guessing, but when Glock partnered with Speer to have them create the .45 GAP, that Glock had to pay some healthy bucks for the project. Judging by the price of Speer ammo at the bulk houses, I'm even wondering if Glock is helping. I say that because it's unusual to be able to buy a brand new pistol caliber for only $10 to $13 per box.

The G37 does open up the door for a lot of Glock shooters who would not otherwise shoot a big fat 45. the pistol holds 10 + 1 and has a short trigger reach that even the USP45 cannot match.

I really like the new standard  of stronger gap brass shooting the .45 as well. It holds up better in the Glocks than standard ACP brass.

time will tell of course.

hy
Oh, yeah, I already use +P brass in all the 45ACP cartridges I load; and I can buy 45ACP ammunition, almost, anywhere I travel.  

Quoted: 'Why' do I need a 45GAP - anyway?  Don't need the rounds to go faster.  Don't need more recoil.  All my GM and G-21 45's carry just fine.  I haven't got little hands; (or feet) and Pepper Poppers always go, 'clank!' every time one of my ACP rounds hits one.  So, tell me, 'Why' do I need the,'GAP'?   Oh, yeah, I already use +P brass in all the 45ACP cartridges I load; and I can buy 45ACP ammunition, almost, anywhere I travel.

You don't.  If what you are currently using works good for you, great!

Quoted: Again, please see my G37 rant on the Handguns board. This caliber has no purpose. It exists solely to allow Glock to make a full size .45 slimmer than the G21...

Sorry, p-dog, but I haven't read your "rant" yet (although this is the second thread I've looked at in the last five minutes where you refer us to it - you must be mighty proud of it).  And I don't mean to single you out personally - I've seen similar comments in just about every .45GAP thread here.

You do realize that you shot your own proposition in the foot (no pun intended) in the statements above, don't you?  The Glock 37 most certainly will serve a valid & useful purpose (in your own words: to allow Glock to make a full size .45 slimmer than the G21) for those of us who:

1 - Like, own, & carry Glocks;

2 - prefer a 45-caliber handgun; and

3 - have small enough hands that the G21 (and, to a lesser extent, the G30) is not an option.

I am 6'3" and have no trouble concealing a mid- or full-size handgun in most modes of dress, but I have freakishly small hands for such a large guy.  I love the fit, feel, & function of the G17 & G19 and shoot them better than any other (non-competition) handguns I own.  I would prefer to carry a 45-caliber handgun, but the G21 is just to big for me to shoot comfortably/well (I've tried) & I have no interest in carrying anything besides Glocks (FTR, I own all kinds of handguns - but Glocks are my choice for primary carry).  For all of these reasons, I am very excited at the prospect of the G37 & look forward to trying one out.  A 45-caliber Glock that will fit my hands?  What's not to like?  I will admit that I won't switch to it for primary carry until it's been in use for a year or two & proves itself as utterly reliable as the 9mm Glocks - but because of its proprietary design, redesigned slide, etc. I am very hopeful that will be the case.

Now, I submit that if you can read my statements above and still insist there is "no reason for this cartridge/pistol," then you are probably a knee-jerk Glock-hater (KB, BF, etc.), completely entrenched in the lore & mythos of the "venerable .45ACP" (Jeff Cooper is God, no other pistol/crtridge will ever do, etc.), or both and you are not being remotely objective.

(Before all the 1911 purists here (yes, I know who you are) gang-jump me, please remember that I own several 1911s and like them just fine - they're just not my first choice for daily concealed-carry.)

Now I'll go hunt for this "rant" of yours & see if I have you pegged all wrong...

Okay, I found it and read it.  The responders there brought up my points above & then some.  And you're clearly not in the "all-Glock-bashing-club," so I was way off base there.  It sounds to me like the burr under your saddle is that Glock doesn't offer a "full-size" higher-capacity version of the G36, and I've seen that (understandable, IMO) sentiment expressed elsewhere as well.  I do find it amusing that you criticize the design & marketing acumen of a company that managed to become a primary trend-setter & predominant force in the LE handgun market (and others) in its first two decades in existence, against several companies with 100+ years' head start - but that's certainly your prerogative.  Having read Metcalf's article (and others) regading .45GAP ammunition performance, I am encouraged at the possibilities & suspect this gun will sell very well.  If they go one better & manage to develop another .45GAP model approximating G19 size down the road, I'll be among the first in line for one.  As it is, a G37 is on my list - just not high on my list at this time.

I still fully reject the premise that "there is no reason" for this cartridge/pistol.  You don't have to like either of them, but there obviously are valid reasons for them...

Have I not read that the G37's slide is wider than that of the G17/22/31's? How much wider...if any?

What's to get all bothered about? Are we not all big boys and girls who can make our minds up for ourselves? I can see where the GAP could fill a need for some people, and just might catch on well enough to hang around for a while. Me, I don't see a use for it in MY situation...right now...but ya never know what may happen tomorrow.

And I take ALL articles written in magazines that accept advertising money with a grain of salt!

Quoted: ...What's to get all bothered about? Are we not all big boys and girls who can make our minds up for ourselves? ...

Amen and amen.

Thanks for reading my post Hardshell-

The point I'm trying to make (for the thousandth time) is that your (and my) need for a .45 larger than a G36 but slimmer than a G21/G30 could have been better met by making a new frame mold that would be an extended G36 design. With the slide extended for a 5" barrel, we could then shoot the ubiquitous .45 ACP from a thin-slide full size gun; in other words "have our cake & eat it too."

Now we're saddled with a "fat bastard."

I know Glock has been very innovative & successful in the past. Just remember people can get overconfident & make mistakes.

I'm just thinking I want a G26 size 45!  Anybody know what the thickness of the slide is?

Quoted: I'm just thinking I want a G26 size 45!  Anybody know what the thickness of the slide is?

That is what I am hoping/waiting for. I caRRY A GLOCK 21 on duty and would like a small 45
calibre back up instead of the 26 I currently carry.

I recently got a chance to shoot the .45 GAP and it seemed to shoot just fine. It did have a bit more felt recoil than the standard .45 Glocks I have shot but it wasn't difficult to shoot. It was accurate enough for the shooting I was doing with it. Does that mean I'm going to run out and buy one? No probably no time soon. I still prefer my G22 over the rest so I'll stick with that. If I had money to spend on whatever, I would probably buy one just for the novelty factor. I don't see it feeling any void in the defensive handgun field though.