What is the Difference with 45 Auto and GAP [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : What is the Difference with 45 Auto and GAP


HD_Renegade
06-27-2010, 16:17
What is the Difference with 45 Auto and GAP. I see that they are both 45's but what is the difference??

Thank you

9x45
06-27-2010, 16:25
.45acp, .45 auto rim, and .45 gap all use the same diameter bullet, but are dimensionally different. The .45 GAP came almost 100 years after the acp, and is shorter. You have to create new loads every so often to sell more guns....

jknight8907
06-27-2010, 16:25
The case is shorter and stronger in the GAP. Basically you end up with identical performance in a smaller framed gun.

HD_Renegade
06-27-2010, 16:28
So basicly it was done this way like someone said, to sell more guns? Is one of them more used then the other or maybe easier to find ammo for?

jknight8907
06-27-2010, 16:30
So basicly it was done this way like someone said, to sell more guns? Is one of them more used then the other or maybe easier to find ammo for?

ACP is infinitely more popular than the GAP. For the most part ammo is the same price, and in a lot of places equally available. If you're smart and get ammo online anyway, then there's no difference. Plus the GAP Glocks are usually available at a steep discount.

Free Radical
06-27-2010, 16:35
So basicly it was done this way like someone said, to sell more guns? Is one of them more used then the other or maybe easier to find ammo for?


That's not the reason. The .45GAP (Glock Auto Pistol) was developed in response to demand for a .45 caliber hand gun in a smaller sized frame. The GAP framed pistols are dimensionally similar to pistols chambered in 9mm. &.40 S&W. .45ACP requires a larger platform. For many people with smallish hands that platform was uncomfortably large.
Do not assume that because the GAP has a shorter case that it is less powerful. Not so. The two are ballistic twins.

Scamp
06-27-2010, 16:39
That's not the reason. The .45GAP (Glock Auto Pistol) was developed in response to demand for a .45 caliber hand gun in a smaller sized frame. The GAP framed pistols are dimensionally similar to pistols chambered in 9mm. &.40 S&W. .45ACP requires a larger platform. For many people with smallish hands that platform was uncomfortably large.
Do not assume that because the GAP has a shorter case that it is less powerful. Not so. The two are ballistic twins.

Good post!

One is no better than the other, they each have their own place in the world of calibers.

HD_Renegade
06-27-2010, 17:04
Interesting for sure, thank you folks for the info on this.

MrVvrroomm
06-27-2010, 17:28
What is the Difference with 45 Auto and GAP.
Does google not work on your computer? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.45_GAP

tonyparson
06-27-2010, 17:37
Does google not work on your computer? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.45_GAP

You know I see this alot on here, If you really think about it cant any question you want to know the answer to be googled, if so then why even have a forum?

glocknbruce
06-27-2010, 17:42
You know I see this alot on here, If you really think about it cant any question you want to know the answer to be googled, if so then why even have a forum?

for real, just scrap glocktalk and just "google" everything.....

BOGE
06-27-2010, 17:42
You know I see this alot on here, If you really think about it cant any question you want to know the answer to be googled, if so then why even have a forum?


It gives my followers a chance to visit with me. :supergrin:

TSAX
06-27-2010, 18:31
The GAP models seem to be easier to find than the ammo around here. I wouldnt give up my G38 but when the Gen4 G38 I may have to consider a switch

coal
06-27-2010, 19:25
The case is shorter and stronger in the GAP. Basically you end up with identical performance in a smaller framed gun.

This. The GAP is an improved .45acp relying on higher pressure (using faster/newer powder) get equal velocity. The smaller load fits in smaller guns of the 9mm/.40 platform. It's a great concept that's struggling (IMO) to really catch on despite Glock best efforts to market it. Thus, IMO, it remains a novelty semi-auto load like .357sig and 10mm. Like anything novel, it has a small, loyal, vocal following. However, until it's mainstream most pass on it, including myself.

Sonnytoo
06-27-2010, 19:58
You know I see this alot on here, If you really think about it cant any question you want to know the answer to be googled, if so then why even have a forum?

Generally, I use Google to find out facts, like the dimensional and ballistic differences of those two cartridges and the forum to get folks' opinions and the benefit of their experience. Not a big deal.
Sonnytoo

bac1023
06-27-2010, 20:19
I not a fan of the GAP, but I guess it serves a purpose for those who feel they benefit from a slightly smaller grip.

G-Lock808
06-27-2010, 21:17
If you really think about it cant any question you want to know the answer to be googled, if so then why even have a forum?


you 'd have found your answer to this question if you googled first.:whistling:

Butch
06-27-2010, 21:30
.45 GAP is meaner than .45 ACP.....

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0603/ButchG17/Ammo%20pics/45GAP.jpg


And shorter.....

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0603/ButchG17/Ammo%20pics/DSC08687.jpg


But they are not interchangeable!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0603/ButchG17/Ammo%20pics/45s-labeled.jpg


Other than that, they are pretty similar. :)

glock2740
06-27-2010, 21:34
The main difference is that the 45ACP is a man stopper and the 45GAP is only a practice round, that's designed to punch innaccurate holes in paper.














































:tongueout: That ought to get the Gappers fired up...:rofl:

In reality, they are both just as good as each other for SD use. In a Glock, by using the 45GAP load, it will let you use a gun that is the same size as the G26/27, G19/23 and G17/22. Calm down Gappers and.............:panties:

glock2740
06-27-2010, 21:38
.45 GAP is meaner than .45 ACP.....

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0603/ButchG17/Ammo%20pics/45GAP.jpg


And shorter.....










Yeah, you know, it's basically the same round, except for the GAP round suffers from "little man syndrom". :rofl:

CDR_Glock
06-27-2010, 21:41
The 45 GAP was made to allow for 45 ACP in a cartridge smaller than a 9 mm. This allows for people with smaller hands to use these larger caliber cartridges. What baffles me is that the capacity is less than the conventional 45 or 40 SW.

Butch
06-27-2010, 21:41
Don't let the 'Googleers' bother you, this what GlockTalk is here for.

But then, you shoulda asked this in Cartridge Corner.....or the Bull Dawg forum instead of General Glocking. :)

Oh heck.......I'm in the wrong forum....... :embarassed:

...time for bed.

NoyzeeGlocks
06-28-2010, 01:51
The GAP models seem to be easier to find than the ammo around here. I wouldnt give up my G38 but when the Gen4 G38 I may have to consider a switch

GAP ammo is too easy to find around here compared to ACP. I guess an unpopular round can have some advantages.

cowboy1964
06-28-2010, 07:18
I agree that GAP and ACP are ballistically about the same but I don't think there is a GAP equivalent for +P ACP.

454ThunderGod
06-28-2010, 12:00
I never really understood the idea of a shorter cartridge, for a smaller grip, for smaller hands.

There existed plenty of 45acp pistols with smaller grips than the glock. Certainly pocket pistols like the Kahr PM45 should be indicative that the premise behind the 45GAP concept was highly flawed from its inception.

marvin
06-28-2010, 14:32
I never really understood the idea of a shorter cartridge, for a smaller grip, for smaller hands.

There existed plenty of 45acp pistols with smaller grips than the glock. Certainly pocket pistols like the Kahr PM45 should be indicative that the premise behind the 45GAP concept was highly flawed from its inception.


sure can get .45acp's in a smaller frame, by going to a subcompac with 6 rounds in it.

but if you wanted a glock .45, and didn't like the full size frame of the glock 21 you were out of luck. along comes the Gap and now you can have the glock you wanted in a .45.

454ThunderGod
06-28-2010, 14:55
sure can get .45acp's in a smaller frame, by going to a subcompac with 6 rounds in it.

but if you wanted a glock .45, and didn't like the full size frame of the glock 21 you were out of luck. along comes the Gap and now you can have the glock you wanted in a .45.



Right, but then all Glock really neded to do was just redesign their frames. My point was, if manufacturers like Kahr were able to squeeze the 45 acp into such a compact frame, then Glock shouldve been able to do the same thing, without having to invent a whole new cartridge.

454ThunderGod
06-28-2010, 15:01
Right, but then all Glock really neded to do was just redesign their frames. My point was, if manufacturers like Kahr were able to squeeze the 45 acp into such a compact frame, then Glock shouldve been able to do the same thing, without having to invent a whole new cartridge.

I see the 45GAP as nothing more than a reinvention of the wheel

jwizzl497
06-28-2010, 19:54
Like someone else said, Glock missed the boat on this. If you want a subcompact 45, which would you rather carry; a single stack Kahr PM45 or a double stack glock 39, each holding 6 rounds? Sorry just not enough pros to to outweight the cons, when there are much better alternatives. If they shoved 10rounds, now you're talking but until then - PASS. Also, why carry a G39, when the G36 is slimmer? I dont get it, but I still respect those who do.

GRR
06-28-2010, 20:20
Like someone else said, Glock missed the boat on this. If you want a subcompact 45, which would you rather carry; a single stack Kahr PM45 or a double stack glock 39, each holding 6 rounds? Sorry just not enough pros to to outweight the cons, when there are much better alternatives. If they shoved 10rounds, now you're talking but until then - PASS. Also, why carry a G39, when the G36 is slimmer? I dont get it, but I still respect those who do.

The 36 is pretty much the size of a 19, just thinner (too thin for me). If I'm going to carry something the size of the 36, I'd rather carry a G38 with 8 rounds of 45 in the magazine (which I do). Between the 39 and the 36, I'd rather the 39. Quite a bit smaller than the 36. Also, the PM45 is pretty much the size of the 39, almost twice as expensive, and only holds 5 in the magazine while the 36 and 39 each hold 6 in the magazine.

jwizzl497
06-28-2010, 21:32
The 36 is pretty much the size of a 19, just thinner (too thin for me). The G36 is not only slimmer, but also shorter in grip height by .25in and smaller in Overall length by .08in - I think this adds up to be noticeable but if you don't then fair enough. Most importantly, 1.18in vs 1.13in or a .05in difference in thickness seems on paper to be minute but ask anyone who holds the two, there's a notable difference, at as you have also indicated being that the G36 is "too thin."

If I'm going to carry something the size of the 36, I'd rather carry a G38 with 8 rounds of 45 in the magazine (which I do). All the more power to you! Again, the G38/19/23/32 is larger in every dimension .08in longer, .25in taller, and .05in wider. Too others these reductions are significant and add up. Personally, If i am going to carry a G38 of 8roudns of 45, I'd defer to the G19 giving me almost twice the capacity @ 15 rounds of 9mm.

Between the 39 and the 36, I'd rather the 39. Quite a bit smaller than the 36. The G39 is smaller in length by .48in and shorter by .56. Definitely smaller in those dimensions! However it is thicker by .05in and many, including me, feel that this is the determining factor when it comes to concealing (IWB) and doing so comfortably. Therefore, I would take a slightly longer, slightly taller gun in grip for reduced thickness. Again, if I have the option of a a G39 holding 6 rounds of 45, I would defer to a G26 giving me twice the capacity but If my heart was dead set on a 45, I'd go the slimmer route for a G36 or better yet, a 3in or 4in 1911.

Also, the PM45 is pretty much the size of the 39, almost twice as expensive, and only holds 5 in the magazine while the 36 and 39 each hold 6 in the magazine. I would disagree that these are the same size being that the PM45 is Substantially smaller in every dimension. .67in smaller in length, .71in shorter in grip .17in thinner and, not too mention lighter too. Again if I was dead set on a 45acp, I would go with the PM45 or G36 or a 3in 1911 before going with a fatter G39 - but that's just me.

Just trying to share a respectfully different perspective on size. Bottom line for me if if I am going to sacrifice comfort by adding thickness, then you dang well better believe I am adding rounds in exchange for that, assuming we're talking IWB carry. All that said, I really do think the 45gap is a cool round, I just wish they could have rammed more rounds in a G39.

The G39/26/27/33
Length = 6.29
Width = 1.18
Height = 4.17
Capacity =6/10/9/9

G36
Length = 6.77
Width = 1.13
Height = 4.76
Capacity = 6

PM45
Length = 5.67
Width = 1.01
Height = 4.49
Capacity = 5

G38/G19/23/32
Length = 6.85
Width = 1.18
Height = 5.0
Capacity = 8/15/13/13

marvin
06-28-2010, 21:47
Right, but then all Glock really neded to do was just redesign their frames. My point was, if manufacturers like Kahr were able to squeeze the 45 acp into such a compact frame, then Glock shouldve been able to do the same thing, without having to invent a whole new cartridge.


your right it doesn't do anything that other guns do in a subcompact. but what if you don't want a subcompact? why redesigh their frames when they already had one that worked. and by inventing a new cartridge they get new press and the hot new thing for a day.

and lets face it if company's needed to have something truly new we wouldn't have very many new rounds to work with.

357 sig barely beats a 38 super
.40 smith is a 38-40 or a 41AE
300 WSM isn't as good as a .300 WM
for that matter the 7mm WSM or the .270 WSM don't match the 7mm remmington or the .270 weatherby
.308 win is just a .300 savage with a little longer neck and the savage is just a 30-06 shortened.

change the case, put it in a new gun and see how great it is.

it goes on and on, why shouldn't glock get in on it to.

454ThunderGod
06-28-2010, 23:40
your right it doesn't do anything that other guns do in a subcompact. but what if you don't want a subcompact? why redesigh their frames when they already had one that worked. and by inventing a new cartridge they get new press and the hot new thing for a day.

and lets face it if company's needed to have something truly new we wouldn't have very many new rounds to work with.

357 sig barely beats a 38 super
.40 smith is a 38-40 or a 41AE
300 WSM isn't as good as a .300 WM
for that matter the 7mm WSM or the .270 WSM don't match the 7mm remmington or the .270 weatherby
.308 win is just a .300 savage with a little longer neck and the savage is just a 30-06 shortened.

change the case, put it in a new gun and see how great it is.

it goes on and on, why shouldn't glock get in on it to.

Ok, youre completely missing the boat. First off - The cartridges you list at the end are completely irrelevant because none of them were developed under the same premise as the .45 GAP.

Second - its not about having a subcompact. The point was, if someone else can actually make a subcompact in .45 acp, then Glock couldve certainly made a full sized .45 acp that fits the smaller hands better.

Instead Gaston wanted to invest in the gimmick of having his name on his own cartridge,

marvin
06-29-2010, 16:23
Ok, youre completely missing the boat. First off - The cartridges you list at the end are completely irrelevant because none of them were developed under the same premise as the .45 GAP.

Second - its not about having a subcompact. The point was, if someone else can actually make a subcompact in .45 acp, then Glock couldve certainly made a full sized .45 acp that fits the smaller hands better.

Instead Gaston wanted to invest in the gimmick of having his name on his own cartridge,

maybe i'm missing the boat. if others can make a full size .45 that is smaller or the same size as a glock 17 frame, you'd think that they would.

it's all about marketing, glock wanted to be able to put their name on a cartridge and sell more guns. sounds like a good ideal to me.

and wasn't the .300 WSM about getting .300 winmag performance out of a smaller, lighter gun? sounds just like what glock did.

454ThunderGod
06-29-2010, 17:00
maybe i'm missing the boat. if others can make a full size .45 that is smaller or the same size as a glock 17 frame, you'd think that they would.

it's all about marketing, glock wanted to be able to put their name on a cartridge and sell more guns. sounds like a good ideal to me.

and wasn't the .300 WSM about getting .300 winmag performance out of a smaller, lighter gun? sounds just like what glock did.

Ok, so reiterated for me, the .45 GAP is nothing more than a marketing gimmick. As I stated before.

Regarding the .300 WSM - No, it was developed to match the WinMag in a shorter action. And Action size, has no bearing wahtsoever on overall rifle size. Besides, the short action magnum is more of a take from benchrest cartridge design philosophy.

marvin
06-29-2010, 18:26
Ok, so reiterated for me, the .45 GAP is nothing more than a marketing gimmick. As I stated before.

Regarding the .300 WSM - No, it was developed to match the WinMag in a shorter action. And Action size, has no bearing wahtsoever on overall rifle size. Besides, the short action magnum is more of a take from benchrest cartridge design philosophy.

yes, it's a marketing gimmick, but so what? if you are one of a few that really likes the 17 frame but want it in 45 then the Gap is right up your alley. i say good for you. why shouldn't people be able to get what they want.

regarding the .300 WSM- yes it is. the gap was made to give people the .45acp performance in a smaller frame. the WSM was made to give winmag performance in a smaller action. if you build a rifle with a 24 inch barrel on a long action. then build the same barrel with the short action you end up with a shorter, lighter rifle. how much shorter i don't know, maybe a .5 inch maybe a 1/2 pound lighter. not a big deal, but plenty of folks have been buying them in the last 10 years or so. so somebody thinks its worth it.

454ThunderGod
06-29-2010, 18:43
yes, it's a marketing gimmick, but so what? if you are one of a few that really likes the 17 frame but want it in 45 then the Gap is right up your alley. i say good for you. why shouldn't people be able to get what they want.

regarding the .300 WSM- yes it is. the gap was made to give people the .45acp performance in a smaller frame. the WSM was made to give winmag performance in a smaller action. if you build a rifle with a 24 inch barrel on a long action. then build the same barrel with the short action you end up with a shorter, lighter rifle. how much shorter i don't know, maybe a .5 inch maybe a 1/2 pound lighter. not a big deal, but plenty of folks have been buying them in the last 10 years or so. so somebody thinks its worth it.

:upeyes:

Wrong again Marvin. The whole premise behind the GAP was to accomodate people with small hands. This does not correlate in anyway with the WSMs.

Your assertion that smaller action means a smaller, lighter rifle, is completely flawed and shows that you really dont know what your talking about. There are short action rifles on the market that are equal in weight to long-action rifles. There are long-action rifles out there that are lighter than short-action rifles. Again, the length of the action has no bearing onm the total size and weight of the rifle itself.

The difference in weight of the actions alone, is negligable relative to the total weight of the rifle.

But by all means, find me an official statement from a manufacturer to corraborate your statement that the WSMs were developed to provide magnum performance in a "Smaller and Lighter rifle."

the iceman
06-29-2010, 18:51
What I don't understand is why does the 45GAP round use a small primer instead of a large one?

jknight8907
06-29-2010, 18:52
What I don't understand is why does the 45GAP round use a small primer instead of a large one?

Why not? Some 45 ACP uses small primer too.

Foxtrotx1
06-29-2010, 22:04
:upeyes:

Wrong again Marvin. The whole premise behind the GAP was to accomodate people with small hands. This does not correlate in anyway with the WSMs.


And here i thought the gap was just a cool way to say hey, technology is better, lets improve a 100 year old round and make it fit in a gun that has parts and size/ergonomics commonality with our other guns that we already know people like!

rwrjr
06-30-2010, 07:34
Glock is a pretty smart company and has done pretty well by giving large customers (foreign military, police departments, some agencies) what they are looking for. At successful companies, market demand drives product development, not the other way around. It's very clear that "large customers" were asking for a double stack .45 round with a smaller frame that would work better for individuals with smaller hands. That is the large customers wanted the ballistic profile of the .45acp, AND the relatively large capacity of a double stack magazine AND the ability to standardize on a single frame for all individuals that the customer needs to outfit. So Glock stepped up to the plate and determined that a new round would need to be developed to satisfy the demand of some of it's larger customers. IMO, Glock doesn't develop products for the civilian market but those civilian sales are just icing on the cake. Perhaps the G36 was a nod toward civilians but that's about it. If Glock was going after the civilian market we would have a whole suite of small, single stack Glocks targeted at the CCW crowd, but we don't.

So the simple answer as to why the .45gap exists is Glock created it to satisfy specific market demands from some of it's larger customers.

marvin
06-30-2010, 14:17
:upeyes:

Wrong again Marvin. The whole premise behind the GAP was to accomodate people with small hands. This does not correlate in anyway with the WSMs.

Your assertion that smaller action means a smaller, lighter rifle, is completely flawed and shows that you really dont know what your talking about. There are short action rifles on the market that are equal in weight to long-action rifles. There are long-action rifles out there that are lighter than short-action rifles. Again, the length of the action has no bearing onm the total size and weight of the rifle itself.

The difference in weight of the actions alone, is negligable relative to the total weight of the rifle.

But by all means, find me an official statement from a manufacturer to corraborate your statement that the WSMs were developed to provide magnum performance in a "Smaller and Lighter rifle."

http://www.ruger.com/products/m77RugerCompactMagnum/index.html

this was the first place that i looked, not WSM but the same idea.

shorter doesn't always mean lighter. but if you look up the lite weight rifles from just about anyone, they use a short action for their carbines. no, not every carbine is a short action but most do.

to say that it has no bearing is just wrong to. sure you can have varmit rifles that weight 10 pounds or more. but if you builded the same rifle with the same barrel, same stock design, except that you use a long action, it's going to weight more. if you wanta lite wieght hunting rifle odds are your going to get a short action. remmington's model 7 as an example.

not that you cann't have lite weight long actions, (the new ultra lite model 24 comes to mind)

to some up. glock made the Gap so that they could sell more guns to people how wanted a .45 that fits in a 17 frame, with out having to totally redesign a new gun from scratch.

ETA. i found out from the winchester site that a .308 M70 featherweight is 1/2 inch shorter and wieghs 8 onces less, than a30-06 featherweight. is it a big difference, no but it is a difference.

engineer151515
06-30-2010, 14:34
:upeyes:

Wrong again Marvin. The whole premise behind the GAP was to accomodate people with small hands.

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Too funny

I guess the 1911, with it's really slim grip, was made to accommodate REALLY small hands

Do you consider a G-17 to be a "small hands" grip too?

Glock1911
06-30-2010, 16:02
I thought GAP stood for Girly Auto Pistol. You learn something new around here every day.:supergrin:

454ThunderGod
07-01-2010, 02:22
http://www.ruger.com/products/m77RugerCompactMagnum/index.html

this was the first place that i looked, not WSM but the same idea.

shorter doesn't always mean lighter. but if you look up the lite weight rifles from just about anyone, they use a short action for their carbines. no, not every carbine is a short action but most do.

to say that it has no bearing is just wrong to. sure you can have varmit rifles that weight 10 pounds or more. but if you builded the same rifle with the same barrel, same stock design, except that you use a long action, it's going to weight more. if you wanta lite wieght hunting rifle odds are your going to get a short action. remmington's model 7 as an example.

not that you cann't have lite weight long actions, (the new ultra lite model 24 comes to mind)

to some up. glock made the Gap so that they could sell more guns to people how wanted a .45 that fits in a 17 frame, with out having to totally redesign a new gun from scratch.

ETA. i found out from the winchester site that a .308 M70 featherweight is 1/2 inch shorter and wieghs 8 onces less, than a30-06 featherweight. is it a big difference, no but it is a difference.

1/2 inch shorter and 8 ounces lighter eh? Marvin that difference is completely negligeble, I already told you earlier that it was negligeble. Why? Because you wont hardly notice the difference when fielding the rifle.

The WSMs were designed to take advantage of more efficiency of powder burn and some level of improvement in inherent accuracy because of this. Any decrease in rifle size and wieght was nothing more than a by-product of the end result.

Besides, as you reiterrated my point earlier, Short Magnum popularity has found them in rifles of all shapes and sizes. This is not indicative of the SHort Magnum being developed for any one specific model of rifle.

I say teh .45 GAP is a gimmick, and you agreed. Youre just accepting of the futility of its existance, while I am not.

marvin
07-01-2010, 11:14
1/2 inch shorter and 8 ounces lighter eh? Marvin that difference is completely negligeble, I already told you earlier that it was negligeble. Why? Because you wont hardly notice the difference when fielding the rifle.

The WSMs were designed to take advantage of more efficiency of powder burn and some level of improvement in inherent accuracy because of this. Any decrease in rifle size and wieght was nothing more than a by-product of the end result.

Besides, as you reiterrated my point earlier, Short Magnum popularity has found them in rifles of all shapes and sizes. This is not indicative of the SHort Magnum being developed for any one specific model of rifle.

I say teh .45 GAP is a gimmick, and you agreed. Youre just accepting of the futility of its existance, while I am not.

negligible, maybe but people buy guns all the time on the what they see as advantage. to some the 8 ounce might be the deciding point.

i wouldn't say gimmick. i'd say niche, and i don't see the difference between it and many others.

BOGE
07-01-2010, 13:28
1/2 inch shorter and 8 ounces lighter eh? Marvin that difference is completely negligeble, I already told you earlier that it was negligeble. Why? Because you wont hardly notice the difference when fielding the rifle.

The WSMs were designed to take advantage of more efficiency of powder burn and some level of improvement in inherent accuracy because of this. Any decrease in rifle size and wieght was nothing more than a by-product of the end result.

Besides, as you reiterrated my point earlier, Short Magnum popularity has found them in rifles of all shapes and sizes. This is not indicative of the SHort Magnum being developed for any one specific model of rifle.

I say teh .45 GAP is a gimmick, and you agreed. Youre just accepting of the futility of its existance, while I am not.

I actually have spoken to the engineer who designed the GAP. You donīt know what youīre talking about. But I digress. :upeyes:

454ThunderGod
07-01-2010, 14:00
I actually have spoken to the engineer who designed the GAP. You donīt know what youīre talking about. But I digress. :upeyes:

Well by all means, share with us, what did this engineer say?

Also, why in the world would you mention this, and not even elaborate on it at all? This would be completely pertinent to the discussion at hand, but yet all you did was throw some nonsense out there.

Thats the sort of thing that liars do.

I have no doubt that Marvin would be equally interested to know what this engineer had to say as well.

454ThunderGod
07-01-2010, 14:04
negligible, maybe but people buy guns all the time on the what they see as advantage. to some the 8 ounce might be the deciding point.

i wouldn't say gimmick. i'd say niche, and i don't see the difference between it and many others.


Marvin, you already said Gimmick in a previous post. And if you dont see the difference between it and other cartidge developments, then thats really not anyone else's short coming but your own.

Bello
07-01-2010, 14:10
also i didnt read on here that the 45 gap ammo uses smaller pistol primers

BOGE
07-02-2010, 00:26
Well by all means, share with us, what did this engineer say?

Also, why in the world would you mention this, and not even elaborate on it at all? This would be completely pertinent to the discussion at hand, but yet all you did was throw some nonsense out there.

Thats the sort of thing that liars do.

I have no doubt that Marvin would be equally interested to know what this engineer had to say as well.


Read the posting rules: we donīt call people names here. It`s no use using logic with you as your mind is made up. You`re now on my block list. :wavey:

454ThunderGod
07-02-2010, 02:03
Read the posting rules: we donīt call people names here. It`s no use using logic with you as your mind is made up. You`re now on my block list. :wavey:

Ok so youre still not willing to tell us what the engineer said. Brilliant, next time, dont even bother bringing it up.

syr74
07-02-2010, 02:31
I think 45 GAP is one of those items that worked better on the drawing board than it does in the real world. On paper it sounds great, the ballistics and bullet diameter of a 45ACP in a case closer in length to the 9mm Para. cartridge most DA semi-autos were initially designed around.

The problem here is that the real problem they were trying to 'fix' as it relates to 45 ACP and a slimmer, more compact grip in a double stack pistol is largely created by that rounds width, not it's length. Solving the .45's size problem in a double stick semi-auto by shortening it is like trying to lose weight by cutting your legs off, technically it works but ultimately it doesn't actually accomplish what you really wanted to.

There are a lot of stumbling blocks to this rounds success IMO. First, some of the semi-autos designed around 9mm are actually too narrow to accomodate a 45 cal round of any kind, which means a redesign is in order if a 45 caliber round of any kind is going to be chambered which arguably defeats the purpose. Even more, a great deal of the semi-auto pistols that could accommodate the wider 45 GAP cartridge were either designed from the outset to be able to utilize 45ACP or a modified version that could do so is already on the market. Again, 45 GAP just doesn't have a lot of incentive here as a manufacturer's chambering at this point unless it becomes popular before the fact.

Worst of all IMO, the best you can hope for with 45 GAP in terms of double stack, grip reduction is to shorten the front strap to back strap length of the grip which arguably doesn't accomplish much since that isn't the major griping point of a double stack's grip size...again, width is.. Don't get me wrong, I get it, the round does take some girth out of the equation. Still, in this instance that is not a lot of incentive for a manufacturer to put a lot of money into a round that doesn't really bring anything new to the table.

Ironically, given who created the round, single stack pistols like the 1911 are arguably where this round could shine....and Springfield's own EMP could have been the poster child for this cartridge since, in that single stack pistol, shortening the grip frame front to rear changes the grip diameter in a way, and more importantly to a degree, that could be very appealing to women and even for men where concealment is a really big deal. The difference in grip size certainly feels more meaningful than you find with the Glocks IMO, likely because almost none of the Glock pistols feel compact through the grips for obvious reasons.

But, even Springfield eventually gave up on the 45 GAP despite the fact that they initially based the concept of the EMP around it. Go figure.

marvin
07-02-2010, 13:53
Marvin, you already said Gimmick in a previous post. And if you dont see the difference between it and other cartidge developments, then thats really not anyone else's short coming but your own.

i was repeating what you said in the other post, but you're right i said it.

and no, i don't see it as any difference between it and other cartridge
developments. glock saw a way to sell more guns. they thought a smaller frame would convince people that they needed one. how is that any different than winchester making a new cartridge and rifle combo, when they already had a combo that matches the new one.

new guns sell, even if it doesn't do anything that much different than the old one. they'll tell you it's more accurate, more efficient, comes in a smaller gun, whatever it takes to convice people that they need a new gun.

and don't miss understand that i think that's a bad thing. i need every excuse i can get to buy new guns.