PDA

View Full Version : GAP or ACP?


psycho nut
September 8, 2005, 10:11 PM
Which would you take? Why?

chris in va
September 8, 2005, 10:19 PM
Not sure exactly what you mean, but my next firearm will be a 45ACP. GAP seems to just be a boutique round limited to certain guns. ACP can be had *anywhere*.

psycho nut
September 8, 2005, 10:25 PM
Not sure exactly what you mean

If you could choose between one or the other which one would you take?

Help any?

rwilson452
September 8, 2005, 10:38 PM
There isn't enough difference in the external ballistics to worry about. the primary reason for the GAP round was to make the grip smaller in a hicap so smaller hands can hold it properly. As my glove size is XL I will stick with the ACP. At this stage the ACP ammo is much more available. If your hands are to small for an ACP you might give the GAP a try. I always say "fondle before you buy". Would you buy a pair of shoes before you tried them on? Same with a pistol.

kymasabe
September 8, 2005, 10:42 PM
My apologies to the Glock folks...I do like Glocks..really...but I just see no reason for the .45GAP. My local range caries it becasue they are a Glock dealer but it IS more expensive than .45ACP. And .45ACP comes in so many varieties. In a few years, .45GAP will be a what-were-they-thinking round.

Impact of Reason
September 8, 2005, 11:21 PM
i agree... dont waste your time on the GAP. just stick with the ACP. its cheaper, it works in waaaay more guns, its been around forever and will stay around forever. i doubt the GAP will...

Majic
September 8, 2005, 11:57 PM
Since my hands aren't small (the only reason for the GAP) I would get an ACP which is easier found and cheaper.

jonathon
September 9, 2005, 12:08 AM
GAP is great if you want a .45 in a 9mm frame, with the same performance as a .45 ACP... and some people have smallish hands, so a double stack .45ACP gets kinda big.

The ACP though works just fine, and is cheaper though. So my vote goes ACP.

I think if GAP catches on, it will be a new standard. If though...

And if I wanted a 9mm frame.. I'd be getting a 9x19 :cool:

Alaskanmonte
September 9, 2005, 01:31 AM
.ACP its a hundred year old caliber. I like to stick with the tried and true calibers. GAP is a fad as far as I'm concerned but we will see.

Ftom14cat
September 9, 2005, 01:40 AM
That question was a joke right?

RWK
September 9, 2005, 01:58 AM
^ ^ ^ ^
What Ftom14cat said, +1. Not one vote for .45 GAP, which helps restore my faith in the fundamental intelligence of the American people . . . or, at least, TFL's membership.

Davy Jones
September 9, 2005, 09:11 AM
it's the answer to a problem that didn't exist!

ATW525
September 9, 2005, 09:16 AM
Don't have anything against the GAP as a cartridge, but there's no gun worth buying that's chambered in it, so ACP it is.

Fremmer
September 9, 2005, 09:23 AM
Go with the ACP.

Don't like the ACP? Try a .40.

The .40 fills the 'gap' between the 9mm and the .45 ACP. :)

OBIWAN
September 9, 2005, 09:29 AM
Since I already have 45 acp pistols...I will stick with them

If I was starting out....I would have to think about it more

JesusKills
September 9, 2005, 09:39 AM
+1 .ACP, .GAP seems kind of dumb to me. It'll probably fade in another 10 or so years like the .41AE round did.

-Corey

Seraph
September 9, 2005, 10:13 AM
It's ludicrous to claim that GAP matches ACP. ACP is clearly superior to GAP. ACP has more room in the cartridge case, while GAP is fairly topped out. One has merely to look at Double Tap's 230gr offering, which is not +P (just under), to see this point. .45 Super really drives the point home.

Corey, your username blows.

WillBrayjr
September 9, 2005, 10:28 AM
45acp, reason is simple. The gap can't do anything the acp can't. The gap gives those who live in a country that doesn't allow military ammo another defensive caliber. I don't really think the gap will last long here in the states.

TehBeefWhistle
September 9, 2005, 10:58 AM
Seraph: Better? I forget, people always jump to the religious figure rather than the Spanish name. No big deal, fixed.

-Corey

4thHorseman
September 9, 2005, 10:59 AM
The GAP aint dead just yet, but it sure is twitching on the ground and gasping for it's last breath. Quick, someone take a 45 ACP and shoot it between the eyes to take it out of it's misery!
A solution in search for a problem.

WillBrayjr
September 9, 2005, 11:25 AM
TehBeefWhistle if you are the same Corey as JesusKills you cannot have two user accounts. If you wan't to change your username you simply PM one of the moderators and give them you new username. The moderators are in bold print at the bottom of the forums in the user list.

perception
September 9, 2005, 11:59 AM
I was actually suprised at how long I went without hearing about the GAP. I guess this thread proves it is not completely dead, some people are thinking about it at least. Oh well, its on its last legs.

mgdavis
September 9, 2005, 12:01 PM
Until I know that the GAP will not fade into obscurity I will stick with one of the most available rounds in the world, the .45 ACP. Even then, I really have no reason the go for the GAP.

Seraph
September 9, 2005, 01:03 PM
Seraph: Better?
Yeah, much better to go the descriptive route, than with the offend-a-bunch-of-people-you're-here-to-conference-with route.

IM_Lugger
September 9, 2005, 03:58 PM
If the .45gap would cost as much (or less) then the .45acp and have as many guns chambered for it PLUS the 9mm frame guns!. There wouldn’t be any reason to go .45acp.

denfoote
September 9, 2005, 04:24 PM
The GAP round is a solution in search of a problem.

I categorize it as a very narrow niche round and it's niche, as I see it, is in the Glock 39. All the other models are superfluous!!!!

I understand that other makers, notably Springfield, are chambering a small 1911 pattern pistol for the round, but they are redundant!!!

CobrayCommando
September 9, 2005, 04:35 PM
True, I voted for GAP. But as the situation is now I'll never get one.

chris in va
September 9, 2005, 05:06 PM
Aha! You're the one vote. :D

CobrayCommando
September 9, 2005, 05:15 PM
Hehehe :D

Half-Price Assassin
September 9, 2005, 06:52 PM
why not? you get .45ACP performance in a smaller package, whats wrong with that? i havent heard of one respected source say the .45ACP is better (not including +P, but then again who shoots +p .45?). if it wasnt for the price $14-$17 a box of 50rounds of .45GAP, i would own a GLOCK 37 (od green). but like the store clerk said, "that ammo would eat you alive". other then price, the .45GAP is a great idea! now if the U.S. military picked it for their new pistol, i would buy one the next day, no joke! :D

psycho nut
September 9, 2005, 07:05 PM
Go with the ACP.

Don't like the ACP? Try a .40.

The .40 fills the 'gap' between the 9mm and the .45 ACP.

I have no intention of getting a GAP, just seeing what peoples' thoughts are about it.

hkg3
September 9, 2005, 07:43 PM
ACP has been around for 100 years as of this year.

Ozzieman
September 9, 2005, 09:20 PM
People with smaller hands would find the smaller grip that comes with a GAP to be an advantage, but thats about all I see would make me choose it over the ACP. The 1911 fits me well and I dont see the need for a double stack 45 so I dont need the GAP guns.
Its a good idea and I held the glock but I am not in need of a smaller 45.

JohnKSa
September 9, 2005, 09:43 PM
The results of this poll are meaningless because your question doesn't offer any clues as to why you would even be considering such a decision.

psycho nut
September 9, 2005, 09:49 PM
I have no intention of getting a GAP, just seeing what peoples' thoughts are about it.

The results of this poll are meaningless because your question doesn't offer any clues as to why you would even be considering such a decision.

I'm not considering it, don't want one

better question for the poll; which would you choose to use, buy, etc.

JohnKSa
September 9, 2005, 10:11 PM
witch would you choose to useAhhh--you just want to know what people prefer.

I can tell you that without a poll. You will be able to as well after you read the following sentences.

.45 ACP has been around for about a century, is chambered in a huge variety of firearms and was a military issue cartridge in this country for many decades.

GAP has been around a very few years, is somewhat of a niche cartridge and is only chambered in a very few handguns.

CraZkid
September 9, 2005, 10:21 PM
"i havent heard of one respected source say the .45ACP is better (not including +P, but then again who shoots +p .45?). "

Hi, my name is CraZkid, I shoot .45 +P loads.

Also, I personaly haven't heard one respected source say that the GAP is better (no qualifyer, but then again who shoots GAP .45)

BLKLABMAN
September 9, 2005, 10:31 PM
I own several custom 1911's and a G38.

I wonder how many of the "internet expert's" have actually owned or... much less tried the .45GAP???
Bueller? Bueller?
Just thinking outloud.
FYI- .45GAP cost on average $1 more per box than .45ACP.

JohSA,
This was not directed at you.

perception
September 9, 2005, 10:42 PM
There wouldn’t be any reason to go .45acp.

Actually, correct me if I am wrong, but .45 GAP is loaded to a pretty high pressure. Load a .45 ACP to the same pressure, and you have a much better round.

I think the GAP has a limited niche, and that is all it will ever achieve. It is an excellent round for those who cannot handle anything bigger than a 9mm frame, but for everyone else the ACP can be a much more versatile round.

JohnKSa
September 9, 2005, 10:50 PM
correct me if I am wrong, .45 GAP is loaded to a pretty high pressure. Load a .45 ACP to the same pressure, and you have a much better round.You're wrong. ;) It's loaded to .45ACP +P pressures which are not at all high. .

45ACP +P/.45GAP pressure is 23,000psi--only 2,000psi higher than .45ACP, and 12,000psi lower than 9mm.

For comparison, the .22 LR pressure is 24,000psi. You are right that the .45ACP +P will outperform the .45GAP.

Is the .45ACP +P a MUCH BETTER round than the .45GAP? Well since the .45GAP is identical to the .45ACP, the .45ACP +P is as much better than the GAP as it is better than the standard pressure ACP.

In other words, if the .45ACP +P is a "much better round" than the .45ACP then the .45ACP +P is also a "much better round" than the .45GAP.It is an excellent round for those who cannot handle anything bigger than a 9mm frame, but for everyone else the ACP can be a much more versatile round.You'd have to say 9mm/.40 frame since they're both the same size. You're right that the .45ACP is more versatile--that's what more case capacity will do for you. Of course, case capacity/versatility isn't everything, or there would be no .40S&W--only the 10mm would exist because it has more case capacity and versatility. ;)

mathman
September 9, 2005, 10:58 PM
I shot the Glock 37 at a range and thought that the recoil was a little 'snappier' than a 45 ACP. However, I liked it...I just didn't like the gun that shot the round. ;) I've pretty much accepted the fact that I am a 1911 45 ACP guy...and I don't see any compelling reason to change that. And by the way, I'm only 34 years old...not in the 'old timer' crowd....right?

JohnKSa
September 9, 2005, 11:08 PM
You know, the thing that gets me is that the GAP is never going to be the ruling .45. That's just the way it is. The ACP is always going to be more versatile, and the millions of firearms out there chambered in .45ACP will ensure that there will be a huge following of the cartridge as long as there are guns.

So it's really not necessary for the .45ACP fans to ardently attack the GAP. It's not a threat to the .45ACP in any way. No more than the existance of the .260 Remington is a threat to the 6.5x55Swede.

And since the GAP duplicates ACP standard pressure performance, it's kind of silly for an ACP supporter to knock the performance of the GAP. But I guess logic isn't a major factor here, is it...

mathman
September 9, 2005, 11:13 PM
I'm not knocking the GAP, just sayin' that it's not for me ;) .

JohnKSa
September 9, 2005, 11:41 PM
Well, I wasn't really talking about anyone in particular, more about the general tenor of most of what I see about the GAP.

But even saying something like "it's not for me" about the GAP is sort of weird. If one day you wanted an ultracompact pistol with .45ACP performance, wouldn't the GAP be JUST the thing for you? I mean, I'm not a big fan of the .380, but I can definitely see that there are times when it is the perfect cartridge for a particular application.

I don't see how caliber can be some sort of personal taste issue. They're tools--some calibers do one thing well, others do other things better. Saying you don't care for a cartridge without a reason other than personal preference doesn't make sense to me. What is it that you like or don't like about a cartridge? OAL, case capacity, the general feel of a loaded round in your hand? Calibers are all about performance, not preference, and if two perform identically then it makes sense for someone to use the one that dimensionally suits the platform/application best.

Your comment about the Glock 37 having more recoil than the .45ACP is nonsense--you know that... You can't compare the recoil of a platform to a recoil of a cartridge. It doesn't make any sense. You and I know what generates recoil, and if two calibers push the same amount of metal at the same velocity then the recoil is identical. PLATFORM recoil is another thing, but to even mention it as an indictment of the GAP CALIBER is silliness.

That's the kind of stuff I'm talking about--it's almost like people are REACHING for some way to say something negative about the cartridge. I just don't get it.

BTW, I don't own a gun in either .45ACP or .45GAP and have no plans to change that fact. So I'm not really arguing for or against either cartridge, just commenting on the controversy.

Texas Pete
September 9, 2005, 11:50 PM
+1 Acp

mathman
September 10, 2005, 12:07 AM
But even saying something like "it's not for me" about the GAP is sort of weird.

Well, I thought this thread was about opinions :rolleyes: .

Your comment about the Glock 37 having more recoil than the .45ACP is nonsense--you know that...

Actually, I said it was 'snappier'...not more recoil...and yes, that probably had to do with the platform...which is why I said 'However, I liked it...I just didn't like the gun that shot the round.'

You're right, there is nothing wrong with the GAP, but I personally don't need one (right now) which is all I can comment on...does that clear things up a bit?

michael t
September 10, 2005, 01:26 AM
Their can only be one and 45crap :barf: isn't it

JohnKSa
September 10, 2005, 01:52 AM
that probably had to do with the platformOf COURSE it did. I know from reading your other posts that you know enough about math and science to say that without question the platform was what made the difference. You have the knowledge to say it with confidence and even back it up mathematically if called upon to do so.

denfoote
September 10, 2005, 02:47 AM
I wonder how many of the "internet expert's" have actually owned or... much less tried the .45GAP???

Just because something is superfluous does not mean it won't become popular. I consider all other varieties of Oreo cookie , save the one I grew up with, to be superfluous. That opinion does not detract from their popularity!!

I would consider getting the G39 because I consider that model to be the GAP'S useful niche.

Pointer
September 10, 2005, 04:05 AM
Seems I saw an article somewhere that was offering a 1911 in the GAP.

The purpose was primarily to make a shorter gun with the same length barrel.

Thinner and shorter makes it a very nice "pocket gun" It should be a great replacement for such as the .380 autos and .38 Snubbies.

It IS, in fact, equal in power to the ACP unless you roll your own. Then the argument of powder capacity is correct, but "factory" is equal.

The thinner grip is not merely for smaller hands... many people with longer fingers still find it very ergonomic. And the 1911 GAP tested was very accurate as well.

It is very much worth a look. Especially if you want a more powerful "little gun". Traditionalists who are emotional and sentimental about the ACP will miss out if they don't pay attention. :p

My memory ain't what it used to be, but I think it was a Springfield???
I have my doubts they would have built the 1911 in the GAP if they thought it was inferior or wouldn't have a place in market.

Stick around fellas... We have yet to hear "the rest of the story!" ;)

WESHOOT2
September 10, 2005, 09:54 AM
The GAP case is much easier to sort from the thousands I've collected than I thought it would be; just don't get other sizes jammed in it (taper?).

The GAP cartridge is much less forgiving of setback, but the internal case taper will help.

The GAP weighs less per whatever-measure-you're-using; military consideration.

The GAP performs like the 45, yet smaller hands will be able to hold GAP-designed guns (military consideration?).


NOT like the 41 AE (which is a much better cartridge than the 40); goin' go bye-bye unless a military unit picks it up......

Webleymkv
September 10, 2005, 12:12 PM
As I've said before, the .45 GAP is a wonderful solution to a nonexistant problem.

Seraph
September 10, 2005, 12:27 PM
What is the most potent 230gr .45 GAP factory ammunition available today?

JohnKSa
September 10, 2005, 01:49 PM
Seraph,

You probably know that when the GAP came out it was released with the caveat that it would not handle 230grain bullets. However, Winchester quickly released a 230grain loading for the GAP that duplicates 230grain .45ACP performance. Their website now lists several 230gr loadings for the GAP.

You can search ammunition websites as well as I can, but here's the Winchester 230gr JHP GAP loading.

http://www.winchester.com/products/catalog/comparehandgun.aspx?symbol=USA45G&atype=2&ctype=1&action=remove&wurl=L2ZvcnVtcy9zaG93dGhyZWFkLnBocD9wK0FEMC0xNjgzMTc1

230gr JHP @ 880fps

Those numbers are exactly what one would see for standard pressure .45ACP ammunition--in fact, the above link also lists the ACP loading of that bullet and you will note that the specs are identical.

It's been said before, but I'll go ahead and say it again anyway.

.45GAP duplicates or slightly exceeds the performance of standard pressure .45ACP ammunition out of similar length barrels.

That statement is correct as it stands without caveats.

Eghad
September 10, 2005, 03:44 PM
Basically the only thing the GAP offers is a decrease in size of the grip. I dont think there is enough performance difference to matter.

Seraph
September 10, 2005, 04:04 PM
Yes, John, I am aware of that, but I didn't ask about "standard pressure" ammunition, as we are not limited to "standard pressure" ammunition for use in our defensive weapons. I did ask about maximum performance factory ammunition, as in commercial ammunition, which may exceed what is considered "standard pressure," i.e. +P rated loads. +P factory ammunition is not the same as "wildcat rounds" or "hand-rolled hot loads." It is perfectly common commercial ammunition. To insist upon comparing GAP to "standard pressure" ACP is intentionally obtuse, and is the same old chicanery all GAP demagogues use to bolster the relative stature of their sweetheart cartridge.

These are all commercially available cartridges:

Winchester 230gr .45 GAP load: 880fps, 396ft/lbs (about 23,000psi, same as ACP +P)
Winchester 230gr .45 ACP "Ranger T": 990fps, 501ft/lbs (yeah, Winchester isn't trying to make this available to us mere citizens, but it is available nonetheless)
Double Tap (yes, they are a commercial manufacturer) 230gr .45 ACP (not even +P): 1010fps, 521ft/lbs
Texas Ammunition (another commmercial manufacturer) .45 "Tactical" 230gr JHP: 985fps, 495ft/lbs
Texas Ammunition .45 Super 230 gr FMJ/JHP: 1100fps, 617ft/lbs (this one is actually considered beyond .45 ACP +P pressure at 28,000psi, but it uses a stronger cartridge case)

kgpcr
September 10, 2005, 05:37 PM
NO .45CRAP i mean GAP for me. Why buy a gun that is hard to find ammo for and does nothing that a .45ACP wont?? Doest make sense. .41AE again. I just dont see any reason for it. why would you buy a gun that is not going to be around ...maybe....

Half-Price Assassin
September 10, 2005, 09:26 PM
you guys are missing the point, the .45GAP, was never intended to "outperform", the .45ACP, but to match its performs, in a smaller package................MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

and to those that shoot +P .45ACP, the .45GAP was never ment for you, it was made for those that wanted regular .45ACP performance (which is still very effective), the .45ACP +P, is the better round then both the standered pressure ACP, or GAP. so for people to say "oh but the +P .45ACP is better then the GAP, well duh., the GAP was never intended for those shooters. but for the majority of people that just want a regular .45 pistol, in a easier to hold and conceal package the .45GAP does that, and does it well!


oh and why to people still after over a year of the GAP being introduced still call it, "crap"? after it has the same performance as the ACP, so are they saying the ACP round is, "crap", aswell? where is the logic? like i said before, i dont own a GAP pistol, but if you have good reason in not liking it, please share, dont hate it, cause its different (once again, where is the logic).

here is a thought i just had, when i was at teamglock.com, i clicked on the GLOCK 37, 38, and 39, and the background picture behind the pistol shows US soliders, so does GLOCK know something (like the US military possibly choosing the .45GAP in the near future)????????

JohnKSa
September 10, 2005, 09:37 PM
Seraph,

Fancy phraseology notwithstanding, your post misses one important point which Half-Price Assassin has already noted.

.45GAP was never intended to outperform .45ACP--consequently it CERTAINLY wasn't intended to match or exceed the performance of .45ACP+P.

Just my humble opinion, but I think that accusing the GAP of not being able to do things it CLEARLY wasn't intended to do is a spectacularly weak indictment of the cartridge.

And implying that it takes chicanery to bolster the status of the GAP is another feeble argument. The GAP's status is well documented and universally recognized--it performs identically to standard pressure .45ACP. Exactly as it was designed to do. How the heck can anyone reasonably believe that it's "intentionally obtuse" to say that a cartridge meets its design specifications?

Furthermore after I've already said I don't own nor intend to own a GAP or .45ACP, how is it that you feel it's reasonable to imply that I'm a GAP demagogue or say it's my sweetheart cartridge? What a REACH that is!

Which gets me back to my earlier post--it seems that people are REALLY stretching to find something negative to say about the cartridge.

And now, apparently, that extends to implying negative things about anyone who says a word in support of the cartridge too...

psycho nut
September 10, 2005, 10:16 PM
My memory ain't what it used to be, but I think it was a Springfield???

it's called the Defender :cool:

Seraph
September 10, 2005, 11:27 PM
Sorry, John. I apologize if my phraseology was a bit caustic. My point is simply that, when one claims the performance of the GAP round equals the performance of ACP, one forgets that the performance envelope of the ACP cartridge should be rightly understood to include +P loads, and other high performance loads, like Double Tap (again, this is a sub- +P load that excels the GAP by a good margin), since such loads are popular choices for defensive use. If these rounds were some sort of "hand-rolled wildcats," then it wouldn't be legitimate to measure GAP against them, but that isn't the case. What GAP has going for it is a big, fat .45 caliber slug, atop a case that gives it shorter OAL than ACP. This is supposed to put a .45 caliber handgun into smaller hands which find it difficult or uncomfortable to grasp a .45 ACP handgun's grip. In the singular case of Springfield's .45 GAP "Defender" compact pistol, a single stack gun which has yet to become available, the advantage of a grip shorter in the front-to-rear dimension than a traditional 1911's grip is realized, for those who need it. However, all other GAP pistols that I've heard of have been double stack pistols. A double stack .45 GAP pistol offers no ergonomic advantage over a double stack pistol chambered for the already well established .40 S&W.

JohnKSa
September 11, 2005, 12:16 AM
A double stack .45 GAP pistol offers no ergonomic advantage over a double stack pistol chambered for the already well established .40 S&W.No argument there.

There's no question that the .45ACP cartridge can outperform the .45GAP cartridge at the same pressure levels--that's what extra case capacity buys you. I just don't see that as an indictment of the GAP since it was designed with that limitation implicit. It does what it was designed to (fit standard pressure* .45ACP performance into a smaller frame) and a little bit more since it works pretty well with 230gr bullets which it wasn't really designed for.

It's not the .45ACP, and it will never challenge the .45ACP in terms of versatility, sales, popularity, firearms variety, etc. It's just another tool in the chest.

I just continue to be surprised at how upset people are about the introduction of this cartridge. I guess I just don't get it...

*I know that it irks you for people to say this, but if I don't specify this caveat then it looks like I'm claiming more than I am. If I just say ".45ACP performance" then we get into just the sort of misunderstanding you mentioned--a lot of people group .45ACP and .45ACP+P together as one cartridge. Therefore to be correct, it is necessary to include the "standard pressure" caveat. In fact, it would be misleading to do otherwise.

kozak6
September 11, 2005, 02:43 AM
I'm sure .45 GAP isn't a bad cartrige, but I sure as hell won't get one because it's going to be real rough trying to pick up a box of ammo for it in 10 years.

The .45 acp, on the other hand, is going to be with us until we switch to laser pistols.

Jericho9mm
September 11, 2005, 06:35 PM
I'm sure .45 GAP isn't a bad cartrige, but I sure as hell won't get one because it's going to be real rough trying to pick up a box of ammo for it in 10 years. The .45 acp, on the other hand, is going to be with us until we switch to laser pistols.

With all due respect, I know this is the wrong thread to mention this but many gun companies said that about the .17hmr and now those same companies all have rifles and some pistols that shoot it. it just takes the right market i think the 10mm was tried for much the same reason and now it is going the way of the dinosaur.

CraZkid
September 11, 2005, 07:00 PM
Just my personal observations, feel free to correct me.

The gun companies are tending towards more specialized guns. It just makes finacial sense. If only X amount of people are going to buy guns, make them all fill a specific niche so they buy more guns to make up for those who buy no guns. Case in point; the Colt SAA in .45 Colt. I have a friend(albeit a strange friend) that uses a SAA for cowboy action shooting, deer hunting and home defense. He has loads that work for each. The longer OAL facilitates heavy loads for HD and hunting but is equaly well suited to light loads for action shooting. I have my Para (for those who do not know it is loosly based on the 1911)in .45 ACP. It fills IPSC, IDPA(soon) and HD roles. Would I use it for hunting? No. Now say I have a G-whatever number is the GAP glock. Would I use it for competition? No, it is more expensive to buy. Would I use it for personal protection? No, I prefer +P HPs for that work. And do not even ask about hunting. Now, if I wanted a sub-compact .45 for concealed carry and had small hands I would use the glock? No, but I might consider an XD chambered for GAP. But then again, I would probly just go with a Para Warthog, because I have large hands.

My conclusion is that GAP is not a soulution in search of a problem. Mearly a soultion to a problem of very narrow scope:I provides .45 caliber power to those who need a 9mm-.40 caliber gun due to their average-small hands. Mission accomplished, but you still aren't going to get one dollar out of my ham-sized fists.

maximuss
September 11, 2005, 10:43 PM
I have never shot GAP. I have heard anything about GAP. I have no idea where, why who invented GAP. Only one thing reminds me something similar is:
Back in 80s, Sony invented Beta video tapes. Nobody cared for it. :D

Pointer
September 12, 2005, 01:45 AM
Maximuss

Beta was universally accepted as vastly superior to VHS...

BUT, the VHS had already captured the market and people didn't want to switch. And the movie makers were already set up for VHS... They didn't want to switch epuipment either.

That does not make it inferior... just inconvenient.


Kozak6 Entry #63


They said exactly the same thing about the .40 S&W when it was brand new.


Seraph Entry #61


Are we saying that no matter what, the GAP is inferior because it can't shoot +P? The powder capacity ALONE is enough to condemn it? :eek:

It has been made more than CLEAR that the GAP is performing exactly as designed. :confused:

Like fine wine... it may take time, but the Springfield 1911 Defender is going to win the hearts of concealed carry permitees as a POCKET GUN :p

JohnSKA

GOOD JOB! :D

kgpcr
September 12, 2005, 01:50 AM
What about the kittens??? doesnt anyone care about the kittens?? someone help the kittens.............

Lord_Nikon
September 12, 2005, 02:03 AM
So what if the GAP is doing what it was designed for? The original question was "What would you choose?" If the ability to load up readily available +P ammo is enough to win a vast majority, the GAP has lost this round.

And I do prefer +P .45s for kittens... kidding.

Pointer
September 12, 2005, 02:09 AM
Maximuss

The .45 GAP was created by Glock... therefore Glock haters, and plastic gun haters, and 45 ACP lovers who were under the misconception that the GAP was trying to replace the ACP... condemned the cartridge out-of-hand. :rolleyes:

The purpose was (1) to shorten the overall length of the gun, (2) to provide a grip that had a smaller circumfrence, and (3) provide .45 ACP factory performance in a more easily concealed pocket-hider.

They have accomplished all design specifications.

Now that Springfield has created a 1911 GAP... The new cartridge has received a big boost on its' way to market. :)

I want to own one and I'm just waiting for my money-tree to sprout leaves. :)

joshua
September 12, 2005, 06:13 AM
At the same velocity the GAP is in the higher limits of it's working pressure while the ACP is not souped up yet. I've made my decision with the ACP because I like to hot rod the round some and I'm building me a 6" fully supported barrel 1911, it should put the 10mm to shame. :D josh

maximuss
September 12, 2005, 07:06 AM
I don't have any preference to GAP either like it or dislike it. I am sure most of us married out there supporting their family, guns are expensive and hard to buy one just to test it out even Glocks. Especially, I assume many of us have to deal with wives, too. :D

As far as, what I hear among my friends tested did not like, that goes same to WSM and WSSM cartridge for hunting. and less I hear they like it less likely I would go buy it because with my little budget I want to buy what is most likely I like. :)

RustyRP
September 18, 2005, 08:13 PM
Gap more expensive? at your local gun stealer? - yes. but I just picked up a 10 box carton of win 230 grain fmj 45 gap for $110.00 ($11/50).

cost and availability are a huge issue for individual officers or civilians buying ammo by the box at the local gun stealership (and indoor range),

but cost and availability are non-issues for any department that is buying ammo in bulk.

(PS - wanna know how much they had the Win 45 acp for? $11.00 per 50)

maximuss
September 18, 2005, 08:23 PM
I am not sure if your comment is for me. What I mentioned was that I cannot afford to buy .45 GAP GUN JUST TO TEST IT OUT. OK, at least I don't want to spend my gun allowance to spend. Not GAP ammo is more expensive. I have NOT even bothered to checked it out. If your post it saying to me, I just wanted to clear it out.

Webleymkv
September 18, 2005, 09:01 PM
The GAP performs its function just as it was intended to do. The problem is that it is really an unnecesary function. The GAP isn't that much smaller than the ACP and doesn't outperform it. I have a hard time believing that a GAP will be that much more comfortable in the hand because the round is minutely shorter. Small handed people already like a 1911 because it is slim. Those whose hands are too small for the 1911 are usually pretty small statured and go for a lighter caliber anyway. The round itself isn't flawed, but I think the logic behind it is. Like I've said before, the GAP is a wonderful soulution to a nonexistant problem.

Davy Jones
September 19, 2005, 09:26 AM
VHS or Beta?

great comparison..

joshua
September 20, 2005, 04:35 AM
Now that Springfield has created a 1911 GAP... The new cartridge has received a big boost on its' way to market If a 1911 owner decides the GAP is not for him he can always get the barrel reamed to 45 ACP. If I wanted a small package pistol that has the stopping power of the 45 ACP I would get an officer model. Don't get me wrong now, Glock does have the very compact model in 45 ACP and I wouldn't mind having one of those as my car gun, but I rather have my 5906 S&W with the 469 slide/barrel installed that packs 15 rounds. GAP - isn't that a store where they sell jeans? :D josh

auto45
September 20, 2005, 07:13 AM
The ACP in 3"-3 1/2" bbl 1911's are not known for their reliability

If the shorter case, for whatever reason, proves to be more reliable in short guns(1911's) then, I think it will sell quite a few for a long time. If not, it will sell for awhile because it's different.

The GAP in Glocks, or any wide handgun, may make sense but IMHO, the popularity of the 40 will stunt the growth of a GAP style gun. If the GAP had come before the 40, I think it would sell quite a few, again, in wide double stack guns.

BreakerDave
September 20, 2005, 09:29 AM
It was my understanding that the idea behind the GAP cartridge was not just a slimmer frame for shooters with smaller hands but a slimmer slide. This was supposed to aid shooters who desired the power of a .45 ACP in a trimmer double stack package for concealment. I do not know about the other platforms, but it seems with Glock that what they ended up with is a gun that has the frame with the same width of its 9mm and .40 S&W pistols, but has a slide with the width of their .45ACP and 10mm pistols. Glock's marketing materials seem to gloss over this issue, but if one looks at the pictures, one can see how the slide is slightly wider than the frame for pistols chambered in .45 GAP.

I'm not opposed to new calibers in pistols, but new calibers have a poor record of acceptance in the marketplace. It seems like a Catch-22, who wants to be stuck with a gun chambered in a failed round even if the round was a good one? Many who shot guns chambered in .41 AE felt it was a good round but it still suffered a rapid demise. The 10mm which at one point was going to be the new hallmark round for LE has been relegated to niche status and 357 Sig seems to be heading that way despite the deals LE is getting on the guns. FN's 5.7 x28 seems to have stalled after a lot of buzz. Of the new defensive handgun rounds, only .40 S&W has broken into the mainstream and become common.

While some say that the .45 GAP is as available and the same price as the .45 ACP, I have not found that to be the case, at least not yet. If the gun companies want me to be a pioneer to help the .45 GAP establish itself in the marketplace, they'd have to provide a better incentive than the cartridge is like an existing cartridge in a slightly slimmer platform.

Webleymkv
September 20, 2005, 10:13 AM
I don't understand how the GAP can make the anything slimmer. The round is just as fat as the ACP, its just shorter. I'm not trying to be argumentative here, it just doesn't make sense to me.

leadcounsel
September 20, 2005, 10:34 AM
I did not vote nor do I own the ACP or GAP.

I think the GAP will fade into obscurity because there are only a few guns chamberd for it and the ammo is too expensive.

I do like the idea of a smaller bullet in the .45 caliber however and think it CAN work. But it's an uphill battle:

My advice is that if the GAP is to LIVE it needs an immediate following: My thoughts are to market it better.

GAP ammo needs to be offered at a LOSS and become a LOSS leader. Sell the ammo for $2 per box and sell the guns with a significant rebate. In a few years the GAP ammo and guns will flood the market and everyone will have one. The way I see it, GAP makers will lose significant money if the round dies due to research and development costs, so why not make an attempt to make the round LIVE. THEN it will have a strong footing.

Barring that, it won't survive.

Charles S
September 20, 2005, 10:40 AM
Two words. Ammunition availability.

Charles

RsqVet
September 20, 2005, 12:55 PM
I will own a GAP gun when sig takes the 239 makes it in a stainless frame and figures a way to make it work the with 45 GAP (if they would ever do that, or for that matter make a stainless 239 in any caliber as I would be all over that)

We could go in circles as to if this is possible, however I am convinced that something close to this idea is possible and that is what the real turn on is for me in regard to the GAP cartrige --- having 45 power in that size envolope would be, well a real advantage. I hope that this happens, though who knows with the ebb and swell of popularity what will shake out. And yes I am aware of other small / powerful gun / calber platforms, however I'd just personaly like to see what I have described.

Lastly with all of our personal ideas and preferances aside, I have to ask, if the 45 (ACP or GAP) offers the advantages that many believe that it does, AND for various reasons some LE departments feel / see / have need for a smaller grip frame service pistol (without allowing choice between diffirent pistols or aftermarket services like grip reduction) THEN how can the GAP be bad?

Only time and the market will tell but my guess is the GAP is about 3 years too late as much of the rash / wave of LE trade in / upgrading from 9mm to other (mostly 40 S+W) has already happened and I don't see a lot of folks wanting to get the ball rolling again to go from 40 to 45, not to mention the civilian and voter elected minders who will be all over another big expense as has been seen with departemtns that chose poorly and have switched around a lot in duty wepons.

shield20
September 20, 2005, 02:04 PM
I am one who is waiting for Springfield's Micro in .45 GAP - I don't want one, but once they have that perfected, maybe they will make it in .40SW and we can get the extra round back, and have a 1911 platform specifically designed for a shorter round, and have a compact ltwt. with less recoil and still decent power.

Breaker,

GAP is not thinner. it's shorter - the Micro cuts 1/8" off the length of the slide/chamber and the grip depth.

anasfox2
September 20, 2005, 03:21 PM
45 ACP..I am just plain cheap. When 45GAP becomes as cheap, and I can buy them from 2 dozens suppliers , I may try it then...

But then I went a got myself, not 1 but 2 S.A. in .38 super...so my logic may be failing me here.

IZinterrogator
September 20, 2005, 05:47 PM
GAP ammo needs to be offered at a LOSS and become a LOSS leader. Sell the ammo for $2 per box and sell the guns with a significant rebate.One problem with your solution. The big ammunition makers don't care if Glock makes a profit. They will care that they are losing money to promote Glock's new guns with no kickback to them. If you go the other way (Glock sells the GAPs for Hi-Point prices and ammo is current price), Glock has a lot of guns out there, but will face backlash when he raises the price to something profitable.

Supply and demand will settle this one. It remains to be seen if it is profitable enough for the ammo companies and Glock to continue this experiment. I think Glock will continue to make his GAP pistols, even if only to appease niche shooters that feel his weapons are the best compromise. After all, who besides Glock sells a lot of 10mm pistols these days? I know other companies do (I have a Kimber 10mm myself), but does anyone else approach his market share in 10mm? Since all Glocks are basically the same (except the 36), Glock is offering a platform for whatever caliber you want, not an innovative new design. So you would have to be a fanatic about the GAP cartridge to buy one. The cartridge won't become more popular than the ACP at current prices. So we are back to your solution (the ammo companies drop prices and suck it up) which, as I said earlier, won't help their bottom line. If you want a .45, they will sell you the ammo, regardless of the case length.

BreakerDave
September 20, 2005, 06:01 PM
Shield20, I'm aware that the cartridge is shorter not thinner, but when you look at the grip of the handgun and mags you can make it thinner from front to back as opposed to left to right. Also, I'd expect that you could go single-stack (or even make a double-stack magazine that wasn't as wide) and give up some capacity for the tradeoff. -With the Glock .45 GAP pistols, we're only talking about guns with between 8 & 10 round capacity. I can tell you that 8 round 1911 mags are really thin and in the ballpark of the typical double-stack 9mm/.40 S&W mags for height. I have no doubt that that they can make grip slimmer, since we're not taking about the typical double-stack, high capacity .45 ACP mag that holds about 13 (Glock 21) or 14 rounds (Para Ordnance P14-45).

JohnKSa
September 20, 2005, 09:27 PM
I don't understand how the GAP can make the anything slimmer. The round is just as fat as the ACP, its just shorter. I'm not trying to be argumentative here, it just doesn't make sense to me.Same way that .40S&W guns have smaller grips than 10mm guns even though both rounds are the same diameter.

tinkanting
September 20, 2005, 10:27 PM
acp

Webleymkv
September 22, 2005, 11:05 AM
Same way that .40S&W guns have smaller grips than 10mm guns even though both rounds are the same diameter.

I understand that. But isn't the difference between a 40S&W and a 10MM bigger than the difference between the GAP and ACP. I know that the grip can be made shorter front to back but the difference would seem to be so small it becomes insignificant.

Gewehr98
September 22, 2005, 12:51 PM
.45 GAP is, hopefully, a passing fad at best. ;)

Happy trigger
September 22, 2005, 06:01 PM
is a big problem

the .45 ACP is one of the famous rounds in the wolrd a lot of guns used it and i guess .45 ACP is going to stay in the market a few centurys more.

what is the purpose of Glock to invent .45 GAP round?

to take out the .45acp to the market and that all, they compare in all the advertising and all.

imagine someone compite with the 9mm round and create a 9mm GAP

Fatelvis
September 22, 2005, 08:29 PM
Im more than happy with the size and power of the old ACP. No need for me to change to the smaller version.

abelew
September 22, 2005, 08:36 PM
ACP is the better choice. It's a well established, mass produced, easy to find quality ammo for, does the same thing as the GAP, has more firearms to choose from, is easy to reload (not finicky), and did I mention, ammo can be found at 99.9999% of all retailers that sell firearms? (and that .00001% is out of stock at the time you tried to purchase it).

JohnKSa
September 22, 2005, 10:26 PM
know that the grip can be made shorter front to back but the difference would seem to be so small it becomes insignificant.It's significant in that it shortens the cartridge enough that it can be shoehorned into a 9mm sized frame--EXACTLY the same goal of shortening the 10mm to the .40S&W. The fact that it didn't have to be shortened as much is actually a PLUS and is part of the reason that it was possible to duplicate .45ACP standard pressure ballistics with the GAP. The .40 was shortened a good bit more, and was therefore totally incapable of even approaching 10mm ballistics.what is the purpose of Glock to invent .45 GAP round?

to take out the .45acp to the market and that all, they compare in all the advertising and all.No one in their right mind with even a passing knowledge of the firearms world would introduce a new round with the idea that it's going to put the .45ACP out of business... It was introduced to do just what it said it was introduced for. To fit .45ACP standard pressure performance into a pistol with a 9mm sized frame.

Webleymkv
September 23, 2005, 11:58 AM
No one in their right mind with even a passing knowledge of the firearms world would introduce a new round with the idea that it's going to put the .45ACP out of business... It was introduced to do just what it said it was introduced for. To fit .45ACP standard pressure performance into a pistol with a 9mm sized frame.

Totally agree with that. If it could, the ACP would've put .45 Colt out of business about 80 years ago.

21CFA
September 23, 2005, 01:48 PM
My 21C has always fit my hands. With the 30-rd magazines it is even smoother. Ergo, GAP is superfluous for me. What I'd REALLY like to buy is a GAP-powder-charged cartridge in 50 cal, double-stack. I'd like the barrel about one-inch longer than stock 21C bbl length. Already this cartridge (sans the GAP-style powder) is offered on 1911-type rail-guns. Hey, Gaston, let's satisfy the new market. How many on this forum would buy one? Single-stack? Double-stack?

Dre_sa
September 24, 2005, 06:10 AM
i chose ACP, cuz GAP sounds funny ;)
and its cheaper.

WESHOOT2
September 25, 2005, 09:26 AM
The BOTTOM LINE


GAP = Girlie-sized Autoloading Plastic-piece-a-crap......


Yee-haw, ay? :D