Absolutely unnecessary and unneeded caliber. Doesn't have anything to offer, in my opinon. Of course, I hate Glocks, but I still think it's just a ploy to sell more guns that only a Glock can shoot. I just can't see any other manufacturer coming up with this stupid caliber in their guns. Why would they? :roll:
Shot a Glock 37 in 45 GAP Tonight
Not exactly what they promised...
Frame is 17/22 sized, will fit in Fobus for the 20/21.
Shot the 200 FMJ. Recoil is subjective, but seemed sharper and snappier than the hot 40 loads like the 165/40 GD at 1150 fps, or the 155/40 GD at 1200 fps. YMMV.
No chrono, no measured groups, but it was reliable for 100 rnds, seemed as accurate as any Glock 9/40/45 at 7/15/25 yds.
The chamber walls are as thin, and it's as radically throated as a Glock 45 ACP. Hope it's a stroooong case, or it will be as kB prone as the 45s are? We can argue how much that is, but I'm pretty sure it'll be more than the 9 minimeter is.
Frame is 17/22 sized, will fit in Fobus for the 20/21.
Shot the 200 FMJ. Recoil is subjective, but seemed sharper and snappier than the hot 40 loads like the 165/40 GD at 1150 fps, or the 155/40 GD at 1200 fps. YMMV.
No chrono, no measured groups, but it was reliable for 100 rnds, seemed as accurate as any Glock 9/40/45 at 7/15/25 yds.
The chamber walls are as thin, and it's as radically throated as a Glock 45 ACP. Hope it's a stroooong case, or it will be as kB prone as the 45s are? We can argue how much that is, but I'm pretty sure it'll be more than the 9 minimeter is.
1 - 20 of 85 Posts
The G37 was supposed to be a G17/22 sized frame and _slide_. That did not work. Glock ended up putting a G21 slide on a G17/22 frame. I bet if they knew that was where they were gonna end up, there would be no GAP, just that same thinner mag in a thinner framed G21? Bet few could feel the difference between the two either. But by then it was too late to admit they goofed and
dump the GAP and/or Gaston is too stubborn?
OTOH, it is easier for anybody else to get a 10 shot .45 by putting a
ACP slide w modified to GAP ACP bbl on a .40 frame, and then putting a modified to GAP .40 mag in it than coming up w a new higher cap 45 frame? Will anybody want to?
IOW, SIG could put a 220 slide w a GAP bbl/mag on a 226 frame a lot easier and cheaper than they could come up w a new hicap 220 frame.
OTOF(foot), I don't think there would be much difference in some guns (USP40/45s, Beretta Cougars) to make it worth it.
Winchester was able to get 230g bullets in their GAP ammo. They have 6 new loads for it, so they think it has a future. Jumped on the GAP a lot quicker than they did the 357SIG.
I've shot about 1000 rounds of GAP amo so far. I can shoot it more than good enough, but I can still shoot the Glocks in 9/40/45/357 better. As can just about everybody else around here who has tried it no matter what their hand size, gender, and experience.
Time will tell?
dump the GAP and/or Gaston is too stubborn?
OTOH, it is easier for anybody else to get a 10 shot .45 by putting a
ACP slide w modified to GAP ACP bbl on a .40 frame, and then putting a modified to GAP .40 mag in it than coming up w a new higher cap 45 frame? Will anybody want to?
IOW, SIG could put a 220 slide w a GAP bbl/mag on a 226 frame a lot easier and cheaper than they could come up w a new hicap 220 frame.
OTOF(foot), I don't think there would be much difference in some guns (USP40/45s, Beretta Cougars) to make it worth it.
Winchester was able to get 230g bullets in their GAP ammo. They have 6 new loads for it, so they think it has a future. Jumped on the GAP a lot quicker than they did the 357SIG.
I've shot about 1000 rounds of GAP amo so far. I can shoot it more than good enough, but I can still shoot the Glocks in 9/40/45/357 better. As can just about everybody else around here who has tried it no matter what their hand size, gender, and experience.
Time will tell?
Somebody asked about case dimensions and I finally got them
max. case length 0.760"
max. cartridge 1.137
max. case length 0.760"
max. cartridge 1.137
Thanks. I really appreciate it.Charlie Petty said:Somebody asked about case dimensions and I finally got them
max. case length 0.760"
max. cartridge 1.137
CeePee is definitely our Go-To-Guy on all things SAAMI...pete jordan said:Thanks. I really appreciate it.
Good to see ya, Pete.
Dean, on-the-road-and-winging-it in Victoria...
Is it as bad as a H&K P7M10?MikeO said:The G37 was supposed to be a G17/22 sized frame and _slide_. That did not work. Glock ended up putting a G21 slide on a G17/22 frame.
Ha!Catalina said:Is it as bad as a H&K P7M10?
That was the other "big-headed child" from a place where First Cousins are still allowed to inter-marry!
But no, it's not near as f'ugly as the P7M10!
I guess there's not accounting for taste, then. I happen to like the P7M10. I didn't say it was pretty though.
:2guns: Easy on the Glock bashing. I owe my life (on 2 occasions)
to my G17. In Desert Storm it was only one that DID work. The
Baretta 92F is a great pistol when things are clean but in that
desert sand , all they did was stovepipe. The sloppy issue .45's
worked but you couldn't hit a barn from the inside. The SIG's and
HK-USP's were ok but they had their probs too. The Glocks ALWAYS
worked!
Here's a little test for ya:
Take a 5 gal pail full of pudding thick mud.
Submerge the auto of your choice in the mud and put 5 holes in
the bottom of the pail.
Then remove your pistol and try to empty the rest of the clip.
My G17 does it every time.
Like I said, I owe my life to my G17!
P.S. I don't see much in the "New slimmed down" stuff but the
basic Glock line is tops!!! Totally reliable!!!
P.S.S. Don't get me wrong! I LOVE my 1911's. I own 3 of them
and will probably accuire more of them. But when my ass is on the line in the worst possible positions I WILL be grabbing my Glocks!!
to my G17. In Desert Storm it was only one that DID work. The
Baretta 92F is a great pistol when things are clean but in that
desert sand , all they did was stovepipe. The sloppy issue .45's
worked but you couldn't hit a barn from the inside. The SIG's and
HK-USP's were ok but they had their probs too. The Glocks ALWAYS
worked!
Here's a little test for ya:
Take a 5 gal pail full of pudding thick mud.
Submerge the auto of your choice in the mud and put 5 holes in
the bottom of the pail.
Then remove your pistol and try to empty the rest of the clip.
My G17 does it every time.
Like I said, I owe my life to my G17!
P.S. I don't see much in the "New slimmed down" stuff but the
basic Glock line is tops!!! Totally reliable!!!
P.S.S. Don't get me wrong! I LOVE my 1911's. I own 3 of them
and will probably accuire more of them. But when my ass is on the line in the worst possible positions I WILL be grabbing my Glocks!!
O, sweet honey mustard…
…another true believer!
[/*]
…another true believer!
Easy on the Glock bashing.
The Baretta 92F is a great pistol when things are clean but in that
desert sand , all they did was stovepipe.
The sloppy issue .45's worked but you couldn't hit a barn from the inside.
- No one's "Glock bashing.
[/*:m:2a456izd] - The M9 Beretta (preferred spelling) 92 SB/F is an extremely reliable pistol… except, it seems, when exposed to the extremely fine sands of SWA. At the point when the double-stack magazine (in this Forum "clips" are what girls wear in their hair) tapers down to the single column, the 9 X 19mm rounds need to "roll" in an alternate feed sequence… that ultra-fine sand thwarted that requirement. (Makes me wonder where the Army's XM9 sand test protocols were held 20+ years ago… 50 years ago the Army's Amphibious Warfare Program did all their sand-testing in Yuma, Arizona… on a hot day, the stuff was like talcum, 'ceptin' it was gritty!)
[/*:m:2a456izd] - Upon information and believe, the M1911s which were issued during DS/DS, were, unless you were part of a Guard unit, rebuilt in Quantico, and were as accurate as thems what carried them… and those guys were pretty hot shooters. [/*:m:2a456izd]
[/*]
Dean, I put in a request chit to the CO to have my G17 sent over
from home. That's how I ended up using it over there. A lot of guys did that.
Matt F.
"yote"
NAVSPECWARGRU-2
Team four
Little Creek VA.
1979-94
(Finnishing out my 20 yr Ret time in the Reserves)
Got tired of being shot at!
from home. That's how I ended up using it over there. A lot of guys did that.
Matt F.
"yote"
NAVSPECWARGRU-2
Team four
Little Creek VA.
1979-94
(Finnishing out my 20 yr Ret time in the Reserves)
Got tired of being shot at!
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh! My cousin (EW) who was your XO back then, never told me about that… he was an M9 kinda guy who didn't much care for the P226 Dick Brown ordered up for the Teams when the Beretta's started smacking operators in the squash. (I think the first guy that happened to was Koenig, yes?)
What was your gripe with the SIGs? What sort of problems did they have?
And which H&Ks were in-service at that point outside of the MP5SKDs?
Re: O, sweet honey mustard…
Although the magazine problem is apparently well known, neither of the fellows I talked with were aware of the pistols failing to feed in combat or on the range. One Ranger believes there was sufficient recoil to dislodge the sand during firing. However, neither he nor anyone else would feel comfortable relying on the magazines under similar conditions.
I've talked to a couple of recent veterans of SWA who reported similar Beretta magazine problems. They discovered the problems when manually unloading the magazine. Only the first two or three rounds would be pushed up to the top, the rest would be stuck and they would have to use something to push down on the remaining cartridges to unstick them.DeanSpeir said:The M9 Beretta (preferred spelling) 92 SB/F is an extremely reliable pistol… except, it seems, when exposed to the extremely fine sands of SWA. At the point when the double-stack magazine (in this Forum "clips" are what girls wear in their hair) tapers down to the single column, the 9 X 19mm rounds need to "roll" in an alternate feed sequence… that ultra-fine sand thwarted that requirement.
Although the magazine problem is apparently well known, neither of the fellows I talked with were aware of the pistols failing to feed in combat or on the range. One Ranger believes there was sufficient recoil to dislodge the sand during firing. However, neither he nor anyone else would feel comfortable relying on the magazines under similar conditions.
Re: O, sweet honey mustard…
I'm trying to imagine how the "recoil" could dislodge the sand from the magazine… for one thing it's so fine that it's omnipresent.
Precisely… those are the top round and the one(s) immediately beneath it in the single column portion of the magazine body. They are forced by spring tension straight up. The problem comes with the "alternate merge" section, as the grit doesn't allow for the necessary rolling action of the rounds.JRWnTN said:Only the first two or three rounds would be pushed up to the top….
I'm trying to imagine how the "recoil" could dislodge the sand from the magazine… for one thing it's so fine that it's omnipresent.
That's absolute truth!! I have a pair of shoes from liberty in Dubai in '99 that still have a dusting of that white powdery sand on 'em...and NOTHING has gotten it off yet!for one thing it's so fine that it's omnipresent.
Dave
Were there any HK USPs available for DS/DS in 90/91? Or did I read that wrong?
Other than prototypes I mean. I know the HK SOCOM pistol and USP sorta evolved together, borrowed from each other, but that seems a bit early for both to me. IIRC, the SOCOM project originated in 91 w a development contract, and the pistol wasn't actually issued until 96? The USP didn't show up commercially until 93?
Other than prototypes I mean. I know the HK SOCOM pistol and USP sorta evolved together, borrowed from each other, but that seems a bit early for both to me. IIRC, the SOCOM project originated in 91 w a development contract, and the pistol wasn't actually issued until 96? The USP didn't show up commercially until 93?
Right, the USP's were introduced to the American Public at the 93 SHOT show.MikeO said:Were there any HK USPs available for DS/DS in 90/91? Or did I read that wrong?
Other than prototypes I mean. I know the HK SOCOM pistol and USP sorta evolved together, borrowed from each other, but that seems a bit early for both to me. IIRC, the SOCOM project originated in 91 w a development contract, and the pistol wasn't actually issued until 96? The USP didn't show up commercially until 93?
Ed
The original USSOCCOM peculiar was let in late '89, and H&K opted in simply because they had the USP in development, and saw how it could be engineered to satisfy the RFP.MikeO said:I know the HK SOCOM pistol and USP sorta evolved together, borrowed from each other, but that seems a bit early for both to me. IIRC, the SOCOM project originated in 91 w a development contract, and the pistol wasn't actually issued until 96? The USP didn't show up commercially until 93?
The crap was EVERYWHERE. Up your a$$, under your toenails etc...
I don't think there was anything really wrong with the SIG's,
everybody was just bitching about them being a little sticky from the sand. I think the HK's I saw ( only saw 2 ) were test models
or proto's of the USP SOCOM 45's. ( should have bought one a
few years ago when I had the chance). :2guns:
I don't think there was anything really wrong with the SIG's,
everybody was just bitching about them being a little sticky from the sand. I think the HK's I saw ( only saw 2 ) were test models
or proto's of the USP SOCOM 45's. ( should have bought one a
few years ago when I had the chance). :2guns:
1 - 20 of 85 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Gun Hub Forums
A forum community dedicated to all firearm owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about optics, hunting, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Recommended Communities
