I've given up on Glocks aka "The 45 GAP isn't the solut

Jay-SUS! Where to begin?!?

QF said:

I have given up on Glock. (I've owned at least 10 of them) I've had way too many failures to go into battery resulting in misfires, bullet nose dives into the feed ramp, brass ejecting onto my forehead. Plus the bulge on my G21 brass from lack of chamber support was enough for me to sell it.

Click to expand...

1. Maintain your pistols better.[/*:2z4ba51o]
   
2. Stop limp-wristing.[/*:2z4ba51o]
   
3. Stop standing there, or have your ejector "tuned."[/*:2z4ba51o]
   
4. Legitimate observation and concern.[/*:2z4ba51o]

I am constantly hearing people having to use solid guide rods, changing magazine springs, recoil springs, changing mag followers etc just to get some sort of reliability out of the pistol. Sure there are those people who get 1000's of rounds of shooting without any malfunction, but those people are rare compared to the people having problems. I seemed to have drifted off topic

..I still don't see a need for the .45 GAP

Why did Glock need a big slide for the 45 GAP? The Glock 36 sure doesn't have one.. By going with a big slide, Glock is virtually admitting the smaller slide (ala Glock 36) doesn't work very well..

Click to expand...

• "People" don't have to use solid guide rods, they chose to because it's an easy add-on and gun persons love to add those custom touches that make a gun "cooler" and more personal. Hell, 45-50 years ago, if someone would have offered aftermarket Oversized Seat Covers and Three-Quarter Race Speed Wax for the '49-'51 Ford or the '55-'57 Chevy, guys would've bought it.[/*:2z4ba51o]
  
• If one shoots "factory-new ammo", there's no need to change magazine springs, recoil springs or mag followers.[/*:2z4ba51o]
  
• Rare? Hardly… they are overwhelming the norm.[/*:2z4ba51o]
  
• There is no "need" for the .45 G.A.P. other than Gaston's considerable ego, and "naming equity" with SIG, S&W and Colt's.[/*:2z4ba51o]
  
• It's well-established that the Models 37 required the larger-than-originally-announced slide to control the slide velocities of the .45 G.A.P.[/*:2z4ba51o]
  
• The Models 36 are chambered in .45 ACP, so your attempt at a comparison is immaterial.[/*:2z4ba51o]
  
• Your characterization of what you consider an admission wouldn't hold up in a court of law, much less the court of public opinion, especially with that small but intrepid band of Model 36 owners.[/*:2z4ba51o]

Glock needs to quit dicking around with minutia, and do a major redesign of their product. Everyone knows Glock magazines suck. Glock should go with an all steel magazine, use a more vertical grip angle, thereby allowing Glock to use a fully supported chamber. Instead, Glock is still using unsupported chambers and is relying on the thick web of the .45 GAP case to prevent rupture. Why else would he use the thick web but to prevent an ongoing problem? Most Glockers blame KaBooms on bad reloads and shooting lead bullets, when the problem is the freaking bullet is slamming into the feedramp, jamming the bullet down into the case, resulting in a mini-pipe bomb. Combine that with a thin brittle chamber and the results are apparent. There is no doubt in my mind there will be KaBooms with factory ammo in the G37. A thick case will do alot to prevent case rupture, but only to a certain degree. Again, Glock needs chamber support.. but does Glock listen?

..nope

Click to expand...

1. Yes, Glock should do some redesigning, but they are unlikely to as long as it remains as extraordinarily popular as it is, and has been since its introduction 18+ years ago.[/*:2z4ba51o]
   
2. "Everyone knows" dick! That's the silliest part of your entire rant.[/*:2z4ba51o]
   
3. The design of the .45 G.A.P. cartridge case was done from the ground up, so to speak, by a savvy young ATK engineer who knew exactly for whom and what he was designing the round. He did an excellent job, but some reloaders are careless, and other jus' love to "push the envelope," and when that happens, there will be kB!s, in Colt's, H&Ks, SIGs, Berettas and S&Ws as well as in Glocks.[/*:2z4ba51o]
   
4. The "slamming" assessment is an interesting one, but in light of your prior assertions, should be approached with a healthy amount of dubiety.[/*:2z4ba51o]
   
5. The same may be said of the "thin brittle chamber" charge… your source on this, or your credentials, please![/*:2z4ba51o]
   
6. You're right, Glock doesn't listen… nor should then if this is representative of what they are forced to listen to![/*:2z4ba51o]

"All yer base are belong to us." -- Me

Click to expand...

You? Imagine my astonishment!

But thanks for the soft one over the middle of the plate…

Maintain my pistol better? I keep all my guns spotless.

You said that I should stop Limpwristing in order for the brass to keep away from my forehead? I disagre. I believe that limpwristing causes stove-pipes, the brass hitting my forehead was from a chipped extractor, which seems to happen all to frequently to my G21, until I sent it to Glock whereby they cut an angle on the breechface and installed a newer extractor. It would have been nice of Glock to let people be aware on their web-site of "upgrades" or changes that have been implemented to the design of their products. I hate having to hear it through the grape-vine that something has been altered.

You said: "People" don't have to use solid guide rods, they chose to because it's an easy add-on and gun persons love to add those custom touches that make a gun "cooler" and more personal."

I agree, but there are people who will install them to make the Glock more reliable after experiencing malfunctions. Personally I don't think they make any difference at all.

You said: "If one shoots "factory-new ammo", there's no need to change magazine springs , recoil springs or mag followers . "

I agree, but aren't some people doing this in hopes of resolving a reliability issue?

You said: "Rare? Hardly… they are overwhelming the norm. "

I disagree, primarily based on my personal experience; I don't see the Glock as a reliable weapon. I used to be an ardent Glock supporter, but the light strikes at the 12 o'clock position on the primer with my G17, 19, and 33 were enough for me to stop shooting a Glock. When researched, I was told the problem was possibly a dirty striker channel (it wasn't dirty) then I was told to apply Tetra grease to the barrel lugs (didn't stop the problem). I was also told the problem was a week recoil spring (nope). I also owned a new Glock 27 that had severe nose-dive malfunctions. Glock couldn't fix the pistol and replaced the gun with a G33.

You said: "There is no “need " for the .45 G.A.P. other than Gaston's considerable ego, and "naming equity" with SIG, S&W and Colt's.

I agree, there isn't a need for the .45 G.A.P.

You said: " It's well-established that the Models 37 required the larger-than-originally-announced slide to control the slide velocities of the .45 G.A.P.

I agree that a heavy bullet needs slide mass to offset the bullets inertia/momentum/velocity. Again, if this is well established then why didn't Glock have to use a heavy slide with the G36?

You said: "The Models 36 are chambered in .45 ACP, so your attempt at a comparison is immaterial. "

I disagree. The G21 is also a 45 ACP. I think my comparison definitely is material since the the G37 G.A.P. is essentially using the same G21 45 ACP slide.

You said: "Your characterization of what you consider an admission wouldn't hold up in a court of law, much less the court of public opinion, especially with that small but intrepid band of Model 36 owners."

I'm confused on this one. Why is it ok to use a small slide with the ACP but a heavy slide with the G.A.P.? The bullet weight and velocity are basically the same. Wasn't one of the G.A.P.s selling points the ability to use the 9mm platform? So Glock finally discovered they needed to use mass...

I do remember the long wait for the G36 to arrive. Glock was having issues with the magazines (no surprise) there are a lot of posts on Glock talk, by certain G36 owners who complain about the reliability of the gun. If they are unreliable with the small slide of the G36, then it makes perfect sense for Glock to use a heavier slide on the G37. I will assume that if the G36 was the flagship of reliability, then Glock would have used the original prototype "skinny" G37 slide.. I really don't see how the engineering of the G36 would be immaterial with regards to the development of the G37.

You said: "Glock should do some redesigning, but they are unlikely to as long as it remains as extraordinarily popular as it is, and has been since its introduction 18+ years ago. "


Agree. Is an all metal magazine and a fully supported chamber too much to ask for?

You said that my "Everyone knows” was part of a silly rant. Ok, not everyone knows that Glock magazines suck. But if they were perfect then Glock wouldn't be changing them so often. Hell I wouldn't even complain if they would simply explain on their website why they make the changes.

You said: "The design of the .45 G.A.P. cartridge case was done from the ground up, so to speak, by a savvy young ATK engineer who knew exactly for whom and what he was designing the round. He did an excellent job, but some reloaders are careless and other jus' love to "push the envelope," and when that happens, there will be kB! s, in Colt's, H&Ks, SIGs, Berettas and S&Ws as well as in Glocks.

It will also be a bitch to pick up your 45ACP. From now on, at the gun range, I will have to visually inspect each round to verify it is ACP instead of GAP.. Thanks Gaston!

You said that my “slamming “assessment is an interesting one, but in light of your prior assertions, should be approached with a healthy amount of dubiety.

Dubiety? I only seek the truth. What then may I ask would cause bullet setback if it wasn't "slamming" into the feed ramp?

You said that the same may be said of the “thin brittle chamber “charge… your source on this, or your credentials, please!

Hard steel = Brittle steel. Tenifer is hard, so logic would lead me to conclude that a Tenifer barrel is a hard brittle barrel, at least on the surface. Look at the thinnest part of the Glock chamber. I believe this would be the weak part that separates during the rare KaBoom..

On a different note, I do not own a Glock. I was going to buy a new Glock 19 but since Glock screwed-em up, I won’t be getting one. Here is a picture of the changes to the newest Glock 19. This is Glocks answer to the phase 3 malfunction. Some of these newer Glocks are having problems feeding gold dots because the barrel doesn’t drop down as far and they are hitting the bottom of the feed ramp.

Credentials? I have a Bachelor degree in Biology. However I am an amateur (arm-chair) engineer who has a passion for reliable pistols.

there isn't a need for the .45 G.A.P.

Click to expand...

Based upon your logic, there was no need to create the .40 S&W because one could just load a mild 10mm. Nonetheless, the .40 S&W is a resounding success, probably because it gave shooters a larger-diameter cartridge using the 9mm platform.

Well, that's exactly what the .45 GAP does. Now we can get an even larger bullet in a 9mm platform. Will it replace the .45 ACP? I doubt it. The .45 ACP does just fine. But it will give shooters another option to choose from and some of the possibilities for the 9mm/.40 S&W CCW pistols are interesting. I'm personally intrigued by the new .45 GAP XD.

If you don't like Glocks, that's hardly something that needs to be justified. I have a friend who doesn't like polymer pistols of any sort. They just don't work for him. I happen to prefer polymer to metal. Different strokes.

I agree with you that Glock could do more to improve the design of it's large-caliber pistols and should be more forthcoming about improvements. Any company that markets its products as "perfection" deserves to be held to a high standard. But maybe the reason Glock threw a big, clunky slide on the 37 frame was a case of once bitten, twice shy. Glock engineers had a chance to modify an existing design for an as yet untested caliber. Given the reluctance of Glock's senior management to admit to a mistake and the prestige of having their first proprietary catridge, they probably took the conservative approach. I can't blame them.

TBeck said:

Based upon your logic, there was no need to create the .40 S&W because one could just load a mild 10mm. Nonetheless, the .40 S&W is a resounding success, probably because it gave shooters a larger-diameter cartridge using the 9mm platform.

Click to expand...

True, but Glock didn't put a Glock 20 slide on the Glock 17 receiver when they created the Glock 22.

TBeck said:

Well, that's exactly what the .45 GAP does. Now we can get an even larger bullet in a 9mm platform.

Click to expand...

The 9mm platform doesn't use a big-assed slide. If manufacturers have to use a big slide just to double stack 10 rounds into a thinner frame, it seems it would be a lot easier to simply make an even narrower gripped single stack 45 ACP 9 round pistol. The Glock 37 has a bigger grip and only holds 1 more bullet than a single stacked Smith and Wesson P99 .45acp

TBeck said:

Will it replace the .45 ACP? I doubt it. The .45 ACP does just fine. But it will give shooters another option to choose from and some of the possibilities for the 9mm/.40 S&W CCW pistols are interesting. I'm personally intrigued by the new .45 GAP XD.

Click to expand...

I don't see any advantage of a 10 round double stack 45gap, vs a 9 round single stack 45acp other than the extra round.

TBeck said:

If you don't like Glocks, that's hardly something that needs to be justified. I have a friend who doesn't like polymer pistols of any sort. They just don't work for him. I happen to prefer polymer to metal. Different strokes.

Click to expand...

I don't hate Glocks, I just wish Glock wouldn't be so sanctimonious.

TBeck said:

I agree with you that Glock could do more to improve the design of it's large-caliber pistols and should be more forthcoming about improvements. Any company that markets its products as "perfection" deserves to be held to a high standard. But maybe the reason Glock threw a big, clunky slide on the 37 frame was a case of once bitten, twice shy. Glock engineers had a chance to modify an existing design for an as yet untested caliber. Given the reluctance of Glock's senior management to admit to a mistake and the prestige of having their first proprietary catridge, they probably took the conservative approach. I can't blame them.

Click to expand...

I really don't see the advantage of the 45G.A.P over the 45acp. What good is it if you have to use the same slide if the only advantage over a single stack 45acp is to increase capacity by a measley 1 round? This is hardly enough reason to get excited about this cartridge. If the 45GAP becomes popular then it will be a big hassle to pick out the acp brass from the gap brass at the gun-range.

Quail,

I gotta agree with you, the Glock 37 and the .45 Gaffe are an answer to a question that was never asked! I continually have salesmen from the distributors try to get me to take one, and I have REFUSED. If Gaston wants a cartridge named after him, fine -- but that doesn't me everyone is going to like or support it. As a gun nut, I thnk the thing that most gets under my skin about Glock is their marketing slogan "GLOCK PERFECTION". I have local cops who are died in the wool Kool Aid Drinkers who can't believe that I would buy and sell any other make of gun except GLOCK.
I do not hate Glock, in fact I own at least one of every model except the 18, 25 and now the 37. I only shoot factory ammo through them and have never had any problems at all --- but that DANG slogan just gets under my skin!!!

Mike

And-- Travis, if another company comes out with a gun in the .45 Gaffe that is not a bastardized slapped together piece of dung, I would consider it. Is the XD coming out only in full sized model or the Compact?? In the compact it would fit the bill (.45 gun in a 9/40 platform) but if it is simply the full sized gun re-calibered --- I say, WHATS THE POINT!

Charlie Petty said:

But the vast majority never have any problems and probably think you and I are out to get them...

Click to expand...

That very well describes alot of the Kool Aid Drinkers. They have closed minds and think that what they believe is the ONLY/RIGHT way. CP, I know you are like me and love guns but not only ONE brand or type. I wish I had a dollar for every time a customer came in and asked me "What is the best gun?" I usually tell them that it is a matter of personal taste and preference and generally boils down to what THEY think feels best. I use the analogy of why they make so many brands and models of golf clubs. I have even let people try out a gun to make sure that is what they want. One that readily comes to mind was a older gentleman who had read a review in a magazine on the Kel Tec P11 9mm semi auto. He was sure that this was his "Holy Grail" --- He had very large hands and absolutly HATED it when he fired it He also did not like the felt recoil that was acerberated by the fact that with large hands he could only get two fingers on the grip. He ended up buying a Glock 23 with a Pearce Grip Extension. Even though it was a .40 S&W he was better able to control it.

Mike

I'd much rather have a S&W P99 9+1 .45acp any day of the year.
They have a fully supported chamber, all steel magazines, and a narrower grip than the Glock 37. I picked one up at the gun store and it felt nice and pointed naturally. I used to own a Walther P99 in .40sw and it was accurate and reliable. I should have kept it.

The Glock perfection does get on my nerves when there are nicer other guns out there. I bought my first Glock back in 1986, serial number AA223. I have owned 3 seventeen's, 2 nineteen's, 1 twenty, 2 twenty-one's, 1 twenty-three, 1 twenty-seven, 1 thirty-two and 2 thirty three's. Like a moth to light, I'm constantly drawn to Glock; however I have abandoned all hope after Glock fiddled around with the Glock 19. It was 3 weeks ago I was scoping out a new 19 with the 3 pinned receiver, and beveled chamber. For some strange reason, like my first Glock had back in 86, this particular specimen had a flat black finish on the slide. It had the Glock factory night sites and I almost bought it. I knew the Glock 19 had a nice thick chamber, they are tough as nails, and with the 3rd pin, there is no way in hell this gun would ever die from excessive usage. Then I came upon this post on Glock talk.

http://www.glocktalk.com/showthread.php ... king+block

Combine that with the gun zones article on the phase 3 malfunction was enough to stop me from getting a new G19. Heck I'm probably over reacting, but that is my nature.

This month's issue of American Rifleman had an article on the Glock 37. I could have puked. Like others I had hopes of Glock making a full size single stack 45acp but instead they had to come up with a new cartridge which, for now, put the final stake in the coffin. If in the future Glock makes significant improvements in their product line, I may get another one but for now, I'll stick with Springfield Armory's XD series.

The CZ-75 P01 sure looks promissing as does the Smith & Wesson model 457.

:roll: There are quite a few themes and topics for discussion in the thread. Not to be redundant; but I, also, don't know where to begin. Let's see:

QF: 'I am constantly hearing people having to use solid guide rods, changing magazine springs, recoil springs, changing mag followers etc just to get some sort of reliability out of the pistol. Sure there are those people who get 1000's of rounds of shooting without any malfunction, but those people are rare compared to the people having problems.'

Click to expand...

Yes, and, apparently, I am one of them; however, reliability in my Glock Model G-21's came, 'at a price' and after a lot of personal frustration. After going through months of failure to feed problems I, finally, developed a number of, 'solutions' that seem to work! Solid, steel, guide rods were installed in order to smooth out spring travel during recoil and prevent the front end of the rod from breaking the way too many of them do at GSSF events. (However, the big question in my mind is, 'Why' doesn't the Glock factory, simply, leave the end of their standard plastic guide rod open and, 'un:captured'?)

I honestly believe that a simple, open-ended, plastic guide rod that is able to flex with the frame during firing would be better than the rigid, steel, Wolff guide rod that I'm using now. (Besides the disc end is, always, getting dented and dinged up during assembly and disassembly of the pistol(s). Every now and then I have to take a piece of very fine emery paper with a little oil on it to smooth these discs out.) There may be another advantage to a rigid, steel, guide rod, though: It is perfectly smooth and relatively friction-free; in my opinion, this adds to reliable functioning.

When my Glock Model 21's were new, the magazine springs, definitely, needed to be changed; however, I did not have any problems with the standard Glock follower(s). Before the steel guide rod and magazine spring changes I had numerous: nosedives, straight-up jams, and failures-to-feed as well as a few stove pipes. (By numerous I mean between 2 and 4 failures per 100 rounds fired. IMO, this is completely unacceptable for a primary carry gun. Yes, I was using reloads. My reloads! The same ammunition that has been feeding flawlessly through all of my: Detonics and Colt Series 70 pistols for the past 30 years.)

The following changes were made to my Glock magazines with very satisfactory results: The factory standard 13 round springs were taken out of my factory high capacity (standard) magazines and replaced with, 'extra-power', 13 round, Wolff springs. The stock factory springs in my 10 round (Klintonista) magazines were replaced with the (factory standard) 13 round springs that I had previously removed from the high capacity mags. The original, factory standard, 10 round springs were thrown away. (I felt they were too long and too; 'spongy' so I got rid of them.)

These changes left me with, only, one problem in, only, one 10 round magazine: One of the last 3 rounds in this magazine would consistently jam. The problem appears to have been a rough spot inside this magazine near the retention-slot. I used a little emery paper wrapped over the end of a screwdriver blade in order to smooth this spot out and the problem seems to have disappeared. Over the past 18 months, ALL, of my Glock magazines have been working, just, fine!

The last Glock spring change was done out of vital necessity and reflects a common problem with ALL Glock pistols with which I am familiar: The firing pins on my Model 21's definitely did NOT strike the primer(s) hard enough - every time - to absolutely guarantee 100% ignition. After I installed Wolff's, 'extra-power', 6#, striker springs my occasional ignition problems finally disappeared for good. (Except an occasional, 'high primer' - OK.)

Usually I run between 300 and 500 rounds through my Model 21's every week. My usual ammo is, either, Aluminum-cased Blazer ball ammo, or my own reloads. (Which I don't always have the time to manufacturer - hence the Blazer.) My reloads are, 'sensible'. I load +P cases with FMJ 230 grain ball on top of 5.0 grains of Red Dot. I'm getting around 800 f.p.s. and this is, certainly, 'strong enough medicine' for any serious combat shooting I may walk into. (I'm able to hold the sight picture, the muzzle doesn't rise between shots, and these rounds punch nice deep holes in rail road ties - sometimes going all the way through.)

Which brings up the next subject:

QF: 'I still don't see a need for the .45 GAP!'

Click to expand...

This is sure to ruffle some feathers; but, in all honesty, I have to agree. Over the past several years I have found myself questioning, both, the ethics as well as the practicality of marketing modern high pressure cartridges in the same venue with plastic pistols. The two, just, don't seem to belong together. I have never owned a 40 caliber anything. The reason is that it's too easy for mistakes to occur; and I cringe when I think that a 40 round is able to fall to the front of a 45acp chamber and, just, sit there. Sure, maybe nothing will happen; and the pistol wouldn't go into battery; but, having once had a 12 gauge shotgun blow up on me, I'm understandably a little skittish. (I, also, keep all of my 12 and 20 gauge shells strictly separated; and, I love the color-coding that the manufacturers are doing today.)

As far as I'm concerned, I love the 45acp cartridge; I trust the 45acp cartridge; and, whenever I see photos of the terrific damage that all those slow-moving, large caliber miniballs did during the Civil War, I am reassured that my: nice, slow moving, easy-to-shoot, easy-on-the-pistol, large caliber 230 grain bullets are going to get the job done. (Yes, I understand that the 357 magnum works very well in, 'instant stop' combat situations; but I can, also, fire 2 or 3 rounds from my 45acp pistol (accurately) in the same amount of time it takes to just, 'fire and reacquire' with a 357 magnum.)

It would, also, please me if Glock would redesign their basic pistol configuration; and I'd be, even, happier if the new 45 GAP would, simply, go away. Just because NATO has adopted the 9mm Luger cartridge for world-wide service does not mean that the 9mm parabellum is, correspondingly, the finest combat round in the world; and, just because American law enforcement has embraced the 40 S & W with open arms, also, doesn't mean that it's any better than the 45acp it seeks to replace. Politics - not performance - seems to have done that.

QF: 'What then may I ask would cause bullet setback if it wasn't "slamming" into the feed ramp?'

Click to expand...

Well, how about: the simple act of loading the magazine with loosely crimped bullets, general vibration from recoil, the round hitting the TOP of the chamber while feeding, and (Here's one we, seldom, think of.) the slide, itself, smacking a weakly crimped round - home.

Dialogue is important. Keep up the good work! :wink:

The 9mm platform doesn't use a big-assed slide.

Click to expand...

:lol:

The XD 45LE in this month's AMERICAN RIFLEMAN was the 5" extended slide version. It's external dimensions were the same as the 5" XD 9. Total holster compatibility. The interior of the slide was a little thicker, probably for slide mass, and consequently it weighs a little more. The only advantage of the .45 GAP over the ACP is the ability to squeeze into the smaller XD frame, which happens to fit my hand like a glove. I'm not spouting some G&A "The .45 ACP is dead, long live the GAP!" dog squeeze. I just like the idea of getting a 230-grain bullet in an XD frame.

The article didn't mention whether or not the duty and compact versions would be forthcoming, but I can only hope. An XD subcompact in .45 would be very tempting!

I agree that the G37 can at best be considered a work in progress and is very different from the promised .45 in a G17-size package. But the GAP has potential and I think it will do well if other manufacturers like Kahr, SIG, S&W, and Beretta get in on the act.

What good is it if you have to use the same slide if the only advantage over a single stack 45acp is to increase capacity by a measley 1 round?

Click to expand...

Glock had to use a slide with bigger external dimensions. Springfield did without compromising the overall size of the pistol. The result was a pistol with a larger power-to-weight ratio. Kinda cool.

If the 45GAP becomes popular then it will be a big hassle to pick out the acp brass from the gap brass at the gun-range.

Click to expand...

That won't be a problem from my end. It will be coming home with me.

Wow, you folks on this board sure convinced me. I can hardly wait to pick up a new compact G38 .45 GAP when they hit the market in a couple months. woo hoo!
:twisted:

Glock had to use a slide with bigger external dimensions. Springfield did without compromising the overall size of the pistol. The result was a pistol with a larger power-to-weight ratio. Kinda cool.

Not the full picture.! The XD40 is already .05 inches wider than the XD9. That's why they didn't have to make the slide wider for the .45 GAP. On the other hand, Glock made the G17 and G22 with the same size slide, and had to take a hit to create the .45 GAP G37. Big deal. How much longer are we going to beat a dead horse by talking about a prototype Glock from early 2003 that was announced too soon -- Boring, old news. :evil: At least come up with something new to entertain me, for Pete's sake.

Frankly, since the .45 GAP brass is so strong, I'd like to see Glock make barrels that have even more exposed brass in the magic 6 o'clock position of the chamber opening so the cartridge can almost feed sideways. Bow down to the holy unsupported chamber. Don't be so closed minded. Awaken before it's too late, you Glockless horde of heathens :twisted:

dedicated hobbyist Pete Jordan said:

I can hardly wait to pick up a new compact G38 .45 GAP when they hit the market in a couple months.

Click to expand...

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmn, is this speculation, or special information?

As you have, single-handedly, became the Numero Uno drum-beater for the ".451 Gaston," your fealty to all things GAP has probably been noted by the gnomes of Deutsch-Wagram, and it not without the bounds of conceive-ability that you have now been afforded singular access.

Drummer Pete said:

Glock had to use a slide with bigger external dimensions. Springfield did without compromising the overall size of the pistol. The result was a pistol with a larger power-to-weight ratio. Kinda cool.

Click to expand...

Not the full picture.! The XD40 is already .05 inches wider than the XD9. That's why they didn't have to make the slide wider for the .45 GAP. On the other hand, Glock made the G17 and G22 with the same size slide, and had to take a hit to create the .45 GAP G37. Big deal. How much longer are we going to beat a dead horse by talking about a prototype Glock from early 2003 that was announced too soon -- Boring, old news. :evil: At least come up with something new to entertain me, for Pete's sake.

Click to expand...

Well, my young(er) enthusiast, we ain't here to entertain you… go find someone with the works of Ethel Merman for that!

You're always welcomed to attempt to create your own reality, but if you do it within earshot of me, I'm gonna gird up and do battle on this issue:

• The Glock Flock had long been clamoring for either a 1911-pattern polymer pistol or a pistol-caliber carbine which would accept existing Glock magazines. (At a rarely-granted personal audience for one of the faithful back in 2000-2001, Gaston actually hinted that his company would not be allowing Ruger to have that market unchallenged.)
  [/*:m:h7g7ofqx]
• After two (2!, count'em, 2!) successive SHOT Show-introductions of the Model 36, in 2003 Glock introduced the Model 37 in the new shorter .45 caliber chambering.
  [/*:m:h7g7ofqx]
• Part and parcel of the Models 37 puffery was, borrowing from the S&W/Olin language of 1990 with the introduction of the .40 S&W, that it allowed for a true .45 caliber cartridge in a 9 X 19mm/.40 platform. and that the Model 37 could be adopted by agencies currently carrying Models 17 and 22 and allow them to use their existing leather! This was Glock's language, not some gunwriter rationale.
  [/*:m:h7g7ofqx]
• Glock's planned marketing strategy was to offer those particular agencies a straight-up swap to get the Models 37 and the .45 G.A.P. (née 45 Glock) cartridge launched.
  [/*:m:h7g7ofqx]
• As with the initial introduction of the Models 36, there was a short-fall between the announced product and prototypes. and what was untimately delivered as a market-ready product. Revisions had to be hastily made, and re-engineering performed.[/*:m:h7g7ofqx]

Glock did this to themselves, Pete so they've gotta bite the GAP bullet as many times as it's tossed in their institutional lap. If you wanna parade around the Internet as a Glock apologist with your Wake up and taste the Tenifer message, you're welcome to do so, but I thought that you valued your credibility a greater degree than that!

GAP Champion Jordan said:

Frankly, since the .45 GAP brass is so strong, I'd like to see Glock make barrels that have even more exposed brass in the magic 6 o'clock position of the chamber opening so the cartridge can almost feed sideways. Bow down to the holy unsupported chamber. Don't be so closed minded. Awaken before it's too late, you Glockless horde of heathens

Click to expand...

Okay, so, like the late Akim Tamiroff, you mekka beeg joka, eh?

O, well…

Never mind the treacly stuff, Pete, jus' answer the damn'd question.

Do you have some sort of what you believe is "special Smyrna access" or have you now taken a page from the Michael Orick Manual of Gun Fora Gadfly-ism, and are making guerrilla-esque sorties onto GT, THR, TGZ et al, dropping seeming in-the-know speculations from your strategic position as the Go-To-GAP-Guy?

For months now you've been parading around the 'Net like some Glock Gap Groupie… having cleverly (and I am genuinely impressed with the vigor with which you have accomplished this) established your hobbyist self as the leading proponent of the new round. But the question of your credibility is of some concern at this point, and you need to stand up and announce yourself.

If you wanna be the GAP Guy, I'm absolutely delighted to cede this to you… and I think Charlie has larger fish to fry, so he won't be a hindrance to your goals, neither will Bane (although he may tap you for a segment on his TV show sometime so better work on that waistline and your photogenic quotient)… but you can't do this without credibility.

So answer the damn'd question!

OK Dean, I'll tell you what I know because I like you. Hope you're not too disappointed.

Glock reps have been announcing at recent GSSF events, which some of the faithful "Bull Dawg GAP Forum" folks have attended, that a compact G38 will be out within a couple months. This verbal advertisement may be necessary to combat the unruly Springfield Armory who has already announced 4" and 5" GAP pistols. After all, we all remember how Glock beat S&W off the line with the .40 S&W, right. Even some Glock fans have said they will buy the Springfield XD45 compact if it comes out before the compact Glock 38.

I have not seen anything in writing and Glock proper has never had any formal communications with me. While Glock might like some of what I say, I do tend to stress the .45 GAP and not the pistol. In fact, I'm very interested in other pistol brands. I'm just one of those wacko's that actually enjoys a Glock pistol. I've only been shooting Glocks for twelve years and no doubt have much more to learn about them.

I am no expert as you know. I am truly a hobbyist with no backing from anybody. My speciality is testing the caliber of my interest to see how it holds together and placing my results and what I think of those results on my humble page. I did the same thing with the 357 SIG and thoroughly enjoyed it. Who knows what caliber I will test next, maybe the 9mm?

I hope this answers your question. By the way, on my page in the 'pistols chambered for .45 GAP' section, I have not listed the G38 yet.

Other GSSF interest points: Each GSSF match has a special drawing only for those that have Glock 37's, in order to win a new pistol. This is in addition to the folks actually winning in the various categories. Also, apparently if you return your Glock 37 registration card, Glock will send you a Glock 37 magazine.

That's all the skinny I have right now. Got to get back to work now.

Never mind the treacly stuff

Now that's kinda harsh Dean, although I didn't know you insulted me until I looked up treacly and cloying. :roll: