In Praise Of The 45 GAP

[rc]

We see the trend in LE back to 9 for 1. cost and 2. ease of use for small officers and 3. because the new JHP ammo is supposed to be better than before. I really think that anything beyond cost is just an excuse. The GAP is a solution for a problem that creates another problem. The recoil is still above the comfort level of many small officers so what does it gain for agency use? Nothing.

[Forte S+W]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

Very few people have difficulty gripping a 1911. The problem Glock faced was that many police departments wanted their duty weapons chambered in .45 ACP, but the Glock .45 ACP model (whichever number that is) has such a big, blocky grip that most females and many smaller males can't hold it properly. So Glock's answer was to create a cartridge that packages .45 ACP performance in a cartridge that's the same length as 9mm and .40 S&W.

Here's something that I've never understood about Glock. Practically nobody actually "likes" the way that the Glock fits in their hands. Many folks have grown accustomed to the feel over time, but even then, the most they'll say in favor of Glock grips is "it works" or "it's okay" perhaps followed by "one you get used to it" but nobody ever says "it feels good in the hand" much less "it fits like a glove" or anything even vaguely resembling actually praise or favorability towards how it feels in their hands.
So why is it that Glock has never made an effort to actually address the fact that their pistols have a reputation for feeling awkward in shooters hands? Sure, they've changed the texture a few times, experimented with finger grooves, and now they have interchangeable back straps, but let's face it, all they have managed to do is treat the symptoms of the actual underlying issue that is poor grip angle/geometry.

Honestly, way back in 1994, Smith & Wesson released what was essentially a blatant clone of Glock's design with the Sigma Series, and they even got sued over it. However, the one thing that Smith & Wesson completely changed was the grip, which they based off of the M1911A1. Granted that the Gen 1 Sigmas had reliability issues, but one thing that practically everyone can agree that Smith & Wesson got right was the grip. The grip of the Sigma has remained more or less unaltered to this very day in the current iteration of the Sigma which is the SD Series as well as the M&P Series, albeit the M&P Series (sans the single stack M&P Shield) has replaceable backstraps to better accommodate bigger or smaller hands, but for most the basic grip angle/geometry is viewed favorably.
Smith & Wesson figured out how to improve the Glock's grip angle/geometry way back in 1994, by adopting a variation of grip designed in the early 1900s, yet to this very day, the grip angle/geometry of Glock pistols remains more or less unchanged.

Why in the world is Glock so stubborn about changing the grip on their firearms? Why are they willing to go to such extreme lengths that they would sooner redesign a cartridge than redesign the firearm itself? Heck, forget "redesign" they don't even need to put money into R&D when they could just do the exact same thing that Smith & Wesson did and adopt a variation of the 1911's grip to the Glock design and the decades-long criticism of their grips would instantly be replaced by glowing praise, so why won't they do it?
Sure, the new Glock Gen 6 probably couldn't use the same magazines anymore, but who cares? Would anybody actually be angry at Glock over that?

It's absolutely absurd to think that Glock would make an entirely new cartridge sooner than make changes to the grip angle/geometry of their pistols, but then again, it's completely absurd to think that after all this time, Glock still hasn't bothered to address the issue that is the poor grip angle/geometry of their pistols. They've made plenty of internal design changes over the years from pins, to RSAs, to barrels, but they just won't change the grips, eventhough its easily the single most non-cosmetic criticism of an otherwise household name in firearms.

[amd6547]

Well, I'm the guy who will tell you I really like the Glock grip...particularly my Gen4 G22 with no backstrap installed.
It fits my hand like a glove.

[Forte S+W]

Okay, have you ever made such a statement ever before in your life of your own free will, and if so, could you link to a post in which such a statement was made?

It shouldn't be hard to find at least one example of yourself saying that you like the way the Glock 22 fits your hands before if you actually feel that way and aren't merely just making a statement to the contrary of something I just said.

Just sayin'.

[AK103K]

I like the way my 17's (and 37) and 26's fit my hands. The 19's are OK too, but I find thier grips to be slightly cramped. And thats coming from a die hard 1911 carrier/shooter for a number of decades.

I shoot all sorts of things, SIG's, Glocks, Berettas, 1911's, a bunch of S&W revolvers, and a few other things, and on a regular basis, and the Glocks are my favorites.

[rc]

The CZ 75 is perfection in the hand. Browning got pistol grips right with the 1911 the first time but the government screwed it up with the A1s arched main spring so most 1911s today have gone back to a flat main springs. Glocks are like a brick in the hand and have wild changes of balance while they are being used. Newer grips have improved them but agencies buying large amounts of guns do so based on price, reliability and ease of training. Safety and ergonomics don't seem to be placed in as high a regard. Too many unintended discharges with glocks due to the short trigger reset. Hopefully we won't get forced to buy only certain smart model handguns in the near future.

[AK103K]

Originally Posted by rc

The CZ 75 is perfection in the hand. Browning got pistol grips right with the 1911 the first time but the government screwed it up with the A1s arched main spring so most 1911s today have gone back to a flat main springs. Glocks are like a brick in the hand and have wild changes of balance while they are being used. Newer grips have improved them but agencies buying large amounts of guns do so based on price, reliability and ease of training. Safety and ergonomics don't seem to be placed in as high a regard. Too many unintended discharges with glocks due to the short trigger reset. Hopefully we won't get forced to buy only certain smart model handguns in the near future.

Ive always prefered the 1911's with the arched MSH and the short trigger, long before Glock ever showed up too.

Funny thing is they point very much like a Glock, and the grip angles are very similar.

The reason the military went with the arched MSH, because so many bitched the guns pointed low and the arch raised the POI.

Glocks are not a brick, and the 9mm guns are actually narrower in width than my 1911's. Ive checked them both a number of times and its still the same.

The "wild changes" thing is BS, as are the safety concerns.

[RC20]

I disagree. Glock already had a pistol chambered in .45 ACP. The gun scribes all reported at the time the .45 GAP was introduced that the reason was because Glock needed a smaller grip so females and males with small hands could properly hold the pistol.

Really, 5 mm difference, and you ignore the refusal of Glock to refer to 357 Sig by its correct name.

All evidence says it was ego

[amd6547]

“... Okay, have you ever made such a statement ever before in your life of your own free will, and if so, could you link to a post in which such a statement was made?

It shouldn't be hard to find at least one example of yourself saying that you like the way the Glock 22 fits your hands before if you actually feel that way and aren't merely just making a statement to the contrary of something I just said.

Just sayin'....”-Forte

Well sonny, I have liked lots of pistol grips. Carried the HiPower for a lot of years, carried the 1911 off and on. Even carried a Tokarev occasionally, and that’s a grip plenty criticize, that I happen to like.
As for Glocks, the G26 grip works great for me, either with 10rd flat base mag or 12rd with extension. And I was perfectly happy with my Gen3 G17’s grip...both the G26 and the G17 point like a finger for me.
However, I couldn’t ignore the police surplus .40 bargains pre-plandemic, and got the Gen4 G22 cheap. I find I really like the new grip texture, and with no backstrap, it puts my trigger finger right where I want it. When I slide my hand onto the grip in the dark, the grooves fit my fingers, and my thumb goes into the tiny thumb ledge on the side, and I know right where it’s pointed.
As for proving that I’ve expressed my like of the Glock grip previous to your post, it seems rather narcissistic to accuse me of making it up just be contrary to you. Insulting, even.
Just sayin’.

[TruthTellers]

Originally Posted by rc

We see the trend in LE back to 9 for 1. cost and 2. ease of use for small officers and 3. because the new JHP ammo is supposed to be better than before. I really think that anything beyond cost is just an excuse. The GAP is a solution for a problem that creates another problem. The recoil is still above the comfort level of many small officers so what does it gain for agency use? Nothing.

The AWB also had something to do with it. 10 rds of .45 in a fat Glock 21 vs 10 rds in a slimmer Glock 37 is a thought provoking decision. If there was an AWB and the GAP was as available and the same price as .45 ACP, I would probably buy a .45 GAP

[JohnKSa]

Equally its a scary cartridge because it is shorter than a 45 ACP and they can be mixed up.

Well, not really that scary. It's only loaded to .45ACP +P levels which are extremely unlikely to harm any .45ACP pistol in decent condition. But yes, it was a bit unusual in that respect.

It's absolutely absurd to think that Glock would make an entirely new cartridge sooner than make changes to the grip angle/geometry of their pistols, but then again, it's completely absurd to think that after all this time, Glock still hasn't bothered to address the issue that is the poor grip angle/geometry of their pistols.

What's missed in this argument is that there are a lot of people who find that the grip angle/geometry fits very well. That's a big part of why they remain popular even though there are many options out there with different geometry.

When I first picked one up, many years ago, I was disgusted with how it felt in my hand--light and plasticky--and how the trigger sounded when I dryfired. But it pointed very well for me right from the start and fit my hand well.

As far as the original topic of the thread goes, I have no use for the GAP or the guns it chambers. I honestly thought it might take off, given that it was very similar to the idea of the .40S&W, but better. i.e. the .40S&W was a short, lower-powered version of the 10mm that would fit in a 9mm-sized pistol. The .45GAP was a short, similar-powered version of the .45ACP that would fit in a 9mm-sized pistol. On paper it seemed like a good idea--not something I was interested in (like I'm not really interested in the .40S&W and for somewhat similar reasons) but something that seemed to fill a niche for some folks out there. Just goes to show how wrong someone can be.

I think timing is really crucial with this kind of thing. For example, the .41AE which was very similar to the concept of the .40S&W flopped because it came along just a little bit too early.

[5whiskey]

The older I get, the more I see value in .45 GAP. It was knee-capped by patriotism and fondness of .45acp I believe. I also believe that love of the .45 acp has waned a bit since .45 GAP came out. I actually believe it would do better if introduced new today, with a pistol that would hold 12-13 rounds, than it did when it was.

As for oddball calibers, I’m pretty mainstream when it comes to pistols. I really kind of want to pick up a .38/200 Colt Official Police just to say I have it... but honestly it makes no sense when I have a blue million .38 Spc cases, dies, .38s&w cases are hard to come by, and a decent specimen costs the same regardless of caliber.

[Forte S+W]

Originally Posted by amd6547

Well sonny, I have liked lots of pistol grips. Carried the HiPower for a lot of years, carried the 1911 off and on. Even carried a Tokarev occasionally, and that’s a grip plenty criticize, that I happen to like.
As for Glocks, the G26 grip works great for me, either with 10rd flat base mag or 12rd with extension. And I was perfectly happy with my Gen3 G17’s grip...both the G26 and the G17 point like a finger for me.
However, I couldn’t ignore the police surplus .40 bargains pre-plandemic, and got the Gen4 G22 cheap. I find I really like the new grip texture, and with no backstrap, it puts my trigger finger right where I want it. When I slide my hand onto the grip in the dark, the grooves fit my fingers, and my thumb goes into the tiny thumb ledge on the side, and I know right where it’s pointed.
As for proving that I’ve expressed my like of the Glock grip previous to your post, it seems rather narcissistic to accuse me of making it up just be contrary to you. Insulting, even.
Just sayin’.

My apologies, but I'm used to people on the internet being extremely petty and contrarian to the point that they'll disagree with just about anything for the sake of an argument.
I have quite literally NEVER seen anyone say that they legitimately like the Glock's grip, or at least not without following up that statement with another decided less enthusiastic statement like; "It's fine once you get used to it..." or "Although it could be better..." or something else which suggest that they don't actually like it, but rather they like the gun itself so they feel the need to defend it as a whole, thus they hastily provide some half-hearted praise for the grip which they almost immediately back out of.

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

What's missed in this argument is that there are a lot of people who find that the grip angle/geometry fits very well. That's a big part of why they remain popular even though there are many options out there with different geometry.

When I first picked one up, many years ago, I was disgusted with how it felt in my hand--light and plasticky--and how the trigger sounded when I dryfired. But it pointed very well for me right from the start and fit my hand well.

Suffice to say, most people do not like the grip on Glock pistols, much less do they absolutely love them to the point that they would say that they're in no need of improvement.
The fact that even you admit that you didn't like it at first illustrates that the grip is most often an acquired taste at best that most folks simply learn to live with because they like the rest of the gun so much.

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

As far as the original topic of the thread goes, I have no use for the GAP or the guns it chambers. I honestly thought it might take off, given that it was very similar to the idea of the .40S&W, but better. i.e. the .40S&W was a short, lower-powered version of the 10mm that would fit in a 9mm-sized pistol. The .45GAP was a short, similar-powered version of the .45ACP that would fit in a 9mm-sized pistol. On paper it seemed like a good idea--not something I was interested in (like I'm not really interested in the .40S&W and for somewhat similar reasons) but something that seemed to fill a niche for some folks out there. Just goes to show how wrong someone can be.

I think timing is really crucial with this kind of thing. For example, the .41AE which was very similar to the concept of the .40S&W flopped because it came along just a little bit too early.

Undoubtedly the .40 S&W cartridge's success was mostly the result of good timing. The FBI was using downloaded 10mm Auto loads which could be duplicated in a smaller case, so Smith & Wesson took the initiative and collaborated with Winchester to produce a cartridge which provided the same performance that the FBI was using at the time but in a shorter case that could be fit in a smaller size pistol which fit more agents hands better than the larger S&W Model 1076 did.

However, I think that if .40 S&W hadn't been invented, then the FBI would have most likely stuck with 10mm Auto. They might have adopted .357 SIG, but not .45 GAP, as they had already determined that .45 ACP didn't meet their needs because it didn't penetrate barriers as well as they wanted it to, hence why it wasn't adopted in the first place. Furthermore, most Law Enforcement Agencies that adopted the .40 S&W were just following the example of the FBI, so otherwise they most likely would have either chosen reduced power 10mm Auto loads like the FBI or otherwise adopted .357 SIG down the line since it duplicated the performance of the preferred .357 Magnum load.

.40 S&W succeeded for lack of anything better because it provided pretty much exactly what the FBI wanted at the time, not because the novel formula of duplicating the performance of another cartridge in a shorter case was a winning formula that would have been equally successful under the same circumstances even if it were a completely different cartridge which the FBI had already passed on because it didn't meet their requirements.

[44 AMP]

Funny thing is they point very much like a Glock,

This statement bothers me...because of its subject order. Not because those two pistols point very much the same in your hands, but because of the way you describe it.

Its just a grammar thing no big deal but the established use is to compare the newer to the older, not the older to the newer.

as they had already determined that .45 ACP didn't meet their needs because it didn't penetrate barriers as well as they wanted it to, hence why it wasn't adopted in the first place.

that's what it looked like, but that's not entirely accurate. The FBI had already "adopted" the .45 ACP decades before. Also the .357 /.38Spl +p (FBI load).

Now, these were replaced as the service pistol standard with the 9mm, but in the time between when the oceans drank Atlantis (9mm "failure) and the rise of the sons of Aryas (10mmLite/.40S&W) the FBI DID reauthorize agents to use both the .357 and the .45acp if they chose to.

The .45acp was authorized, it just didn't get chosen to be the new standard. I think this was a bureaucratic matter more than a cartridge performance matter. Going "backwards" to the .45acp as the standard round would have given the impression that those in charge had made another mistake, and they couldn't have that.

[JohnKSa]

Suffice to say, most people do not like the grip on Glock pistols...

I hear people complaining, but I’ve never seen any proof that "most people" don’t like the grip angle. The fact that they sell so well would seem to suggest that there are lots of people who do like the grip—there are certainly many other guns with different grip options out there but in spite of that, Glock sales remain very strong.

I think that it’s gotten to the point that people have heard so many afficionados of other guns complaining about the Glock grip angle that some have come believe that it’s really true that there are huge numbers of people buying Glocks even though they hate the grip angle— and even though they have lots of other options available.

I guess it's possible though it seems very unlikely. My take is that there is a minority who is very vocal and who don’t like the Glock grip angle and rarely miss a chance to say so. So while it is common to see people complaining about it, it’s mostly the SAME people complaining about it over and over, not a lot of different people (or a majority of people) complaining.

The fact that even you admit that you didn't like it at first illustrates that the grip is most often an acquired taste at best that most folks simply learn to live with because they like the rest of the gun so much.

That's not what I said at all.

“When I first picked one up, many years ago, I was disgusted with how it felt in my hand—light and plasticky--and how the trigger sounded when I dryfired. But it pointed very well for me right from the start and fit my hand well.”

It was the first plastic gun I had held and I didn’t like the light/plastic feeling and the feeling/sound of the trigger when it dryfired. But the grip angle and grip fit was good.

[Forte S+W]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

I hear people complaining, but I’ve never seen any proof that "most people" don’t like the grip angle. The fact that they sell so well would seem to suggest that there are lots of people who do like the grip—there are certainly many other guns with different grip options out there but in spite of that, Glock sales remain very strong.

I think that it’s gotten to the point that people have heard so many afficionados of other guns complaining about the Glock grip angle that some have come believe that it’s really true that there are huge numbers of people buying Glocks even though they hate the grip angle— and even though they have lots of other options available.

I guess it's possible though it seems very unlikely. My take is that there is a minority who is very vocal and who don’t like the Glock grip angle and rarely miss a chance to say so. So while it is common to see people complaining about it, it’s mostly the SAME people complaining about it over and over, not a lot of different people (or a majority of people) complaining.

Glocks have a well-deserved reputation for ruggedness and reliability, is it really so hard to believe that folks would be willing to live with or otherwise work around a less-than-perfect grip in exchange for a firearm which is considered to be practically infallible?

Consider the booming success of the peripheral that is 80% Glock Lowers, and note that the one major difference the majority of them have in common is that the grip angle/geometry has been modified from the standard design. You say that the success of Glock firearms suggests that there are lots of people who do in fact like the Glock's grip, and that those who complain about it are a vocal minority who perpetually repeats their disapproval, but I say that the success of Polymer 80% Glock Lowers suggests otherwise. Also note that there aren't very many Polymer 80% Lowers on the market for other popular competitors to Glock Pistols, including those with no shortage of other aftermarket peripherals for them. Why do you suppose that is?

[JohnKSa]

... is it really so hard to believe that folks would be willing to live with or otherwise work around a less-than-perfect grip in exchange for a firearm which is considered to be practically infallible?

No, I can see that accounting for some of the sales. I have a few guns I really like even though they don't point well for me. But I have a hard time believing that the majority of Glock owners don't like the grip angle but bought them anyway.

That said, I'm williing to be convinced if there's some study/survey out there with conclusive evidence on the topic.

Consider the booming success of the peripheral that is 80% Glock Lowers, and note that the one major difference the majority of them have in common is that the grip angle/geometry has been modified from the standard design.

Booming success is probably an overstatement. But yes, there are a lot of them sold. Of course it makes sense that they would differ from the standard Glock lower in some way or there would be no point in buying them. I'm not claiming that everyone likes the Glock grip angle--I think we know that's obviously not the case. What I'm interested in is the idea that the majority of people don't like it.

Also note that there aren't very many Polymer 80% Lowers on the market for other popular competitors to Glock Pistols, including those with no shortage of other aftermarket peripherals for them. Why do you suppose that is?

I would say the lack of aftermarket or a sufficient supply of reasonably priced factory parts to complete the kits plays a huge part in that.

Another point to consider is that there are other guns out there that point very much like Glocks. The Kahr pistols, for example, point for me exactly like Glocks do. Kahr didn't start making their pistols until well after Glock was established. It seems odd that they would pick a grip angle for their guns that most people didn't like. Again, this points to the idea that while grip angle preference certainly differs, there are people who like the Glock grip angle--enough so that Kahr was able to establish a working business model based on guns that mimic the Glock grip angle.

I have no idea how I could prove which camp (those who like it vs. those who don't) is the largest in the absence of a study. Nor how anyone else could either.

What is certain is this:

There are guns out there with grip angles that are less raked than the Glock pistols. And there are a lot of people who like pistols with those grip angles. The 1911, for example is well liked.

There are also pistols out there with grip angles more raked than the Glock pistols--there are a lot people who like them too. The .22LR Ruger MK series is an example, as is the Luger--both of which have been praised, at one time or another, as natural pointers. As I recall, Elmer Keith liked the Luger as a pointer and disliked the 1911, just as one example.

And there are Glocks and other pistols that have the same grip angle as Glocks. It seems perfectly reasonable to assume that there are a lot of people who like them as well.