.45 GAP vs .45 ACP

G

GunMaverick

New member
There is no bullet thread (as far as I can see) so I'm just gonna put this in the semi auto forum.

Now the actual question... Is there any real difference between .45 ACP and .45 GAP? Is it an actual engineering improvement, or a stunt by Glock? Just wondering, looking into a new handgun and .45 GAP vs .45 ACP came up. Thanks.

GunMaverick
 
Last edited:
.45 GAP is basically .45 ACP in a slightly shortened case loaded to ACP+P pressure. It's intended to duplicate the ballistics of .45 ACP rather than purporting to offer any improvement. Its basic mission is to allow a .45 caliber bullet to be fired from a G17/19/26 size pistol – nothing more, nothing less. The intent was to sell pistols to LE agencies who wanted a .45 but were concerned about the large grip circumference of the double-stack .45 ACP Glock models, and/or were already Glock customers and didn't want to buy new holsters and mag pouches for all of their officers. Only a handful of agencies have actually adopted it.

The GAP incidentally uses a small pistol primer rather than the large primer used in most .45 ACP ammunition, and bullet selection is more limited, both by the smaller-volume case and by the limited selection of commercial loaded ammunition and published reloading data.

The GAP's virtues from an accuracy, reliability, and shootability standpoint are fundamentally a question of your opinion of the G37/38/39, as other pistols in the caliber are near-nonexistent. The GAP cartridge will physically work in a M1911-type pistol but gunmakers are understandably uninterested in building them.

The cartridge has basically turned out to be an answer to a question that very few shooters and LE agencies are asking. :)
 
Last edited:
The biggest difference is:

.45 ACP will be around for another 100 years.

.45 GAP is already obsolete.
 
Last edited:
As I understand it, the .45 GAP came into being to give Glock a .45 pistol with a stronger case but without going to the bigger frame of the G21. I think Glock considered the .45 GAP (Glock Automatic Pistol) as ultimately replacing the .45 ACP in the Glock line, but that didn't happen.

The .45 GAP was developed as a response to the desire for a .45 Glock but with a stronger head than the .45 ACP. Very likely the original idea was to replace the .45 ACP entirely in the Glock line, but that has not happened and is not likely to. At the moment, the .45 Glock is in limbo; three Glock models are still made, but no other maker (AFAIK) makes any. Whether or how long the .45 GAP pistols remain in the Glock lineup I don't know, but (in spite of some diehard .45 GAP fans) I suspect the caliber will not survive too much longer.

The fact is that the .45 GAP filled a gap (there is a pun in there someplace) that never should have existed; the insufficiently supported case head of early Glocks. Many folks believe that the .45 GAP was intended to give Glock a .45 caliber pistol without going to the larger frame, but in fact the Glock .45 ACP pistols were already on the market when the .45 GAP was developed.

Jim
 
I like "odd" cartridges. My favorite semi-autos are chambered in 10MM. There is a good chance that a .40 Super or .45 Super are in my future.

The difference between the .45 GAP and .45 ACP is simple in my opinion:

One is a common cartridge in use nearly the entire world over and readily available that is not going to be obsolete as long as firearms are produced.

One is not.
 
"...ultimately replacing the .45 ACP in the Glock line..." Not a chance in Hades anywhere Stateside.
"...solution looking for a problem..." Lotta that in Firearm Land. Stuff invented that answers unasked questions. Magnums, of any flavour, do the same thing.
Oh and GAP ammo starts at roughly $30 per 50. ACP at roughly $20. According to Midway.
 
Last edited:
James K said:
The .45 GAP was developed as a response to the desire for a .45 Glock but with a stronger head than the .45 ACP... Many folks believe that the .45 GAP was intended to give Glock a .45 caliber pistol without going to the larger frame, but in fact the Glock .45 ACP pistols were already on the market when the .45 GAP was developed.
Click to expand...
You're right about the latter point; IIRC the .45 ACP G21 predates the GAP cartridge by over a decade. However, almost everything I've read about the GAP cartridge indicates that Glock very specifically created the GAP cartridge in response to a perception that their LE customers found the G21 too big but the G17/19/26 "just right", and that the only thing holding those customers back from ordering a boatload of .45-caliber Glocks was the grip/holster size issue.

I could understand that Glock would not wish to publicly disclose a case-support problem with earlier models, but at the same time, I think this factor was secondary.
T. O'Heir said:
"...ultimately replacing the .45 ACP in the Glock line..." Not a chance in Hades anywhere Stateside.
Click to expand...
I think it's speculation that this was Glock's intent, but I wouldn't put it past them either.
 
Last edited:
If cartridge head strength was the major factor, Glock would have been better to just say so. I don't recall anything to that effect at the time; mostly it was just "look at our great new idea". Most comments in the gunzines centered around the short case being able to fit the older platform, where the G21 required a longer frame. That might have been a valid concern had the .45 GAP been offered instead of the .45 ACP, but passing up the huge (in the US) .45 ACP market would have been disastrous.

Jim
 
James K said:
The .45 GAP was developed as a response to the desire for a .45 Glock but with a stronger head than the .45 ACP.
Click to expand...
No, carguychris had it right. LE agencies weren't buying Glocks in .45 Auto because the large grip was too large for most female and some male officers to grasp securely when shooting. The intent of the .45 GAP was to match the ballistic performance of the .45 ACP in a cartridge the same length as a 9mm or .40 S&W so they could sell a smaller pistol chambered in .45 caliber.

To accomplish that, Glock had to load the smaller case to the equivalent of +P pressures -- which is why you don't see anyone selling .45 GAP +P ammo.
 
Is it an actual engineering improvement, or a stunt by Glock? Just wondering, looking into a new handgun and .45 GAP vs .45 ACP cam up. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Stunt by Glock.

.45 GAP vs .45 ACP came up.
Click to expand...

Trust me, you want .45 ACP.

The cartridge has basically turned out to be an answer to a question that very few shooters and LE agencies are asking.
Click to expand...

What he said. If you want a smaller frame gun, a 9 or .40 will do just fine.
 
The cartridge has basically turned out to be an answer to a question that very few shooters and LE agencies are asking.
Click to expand...

But the question WAS asked a lot -- just not answered as effectively as some might like.

It's only in the last several years (long after the .45 GAP was introduced) that double-stack .45 semi-autos with reasonable grip sizes have become available.

I would note, too, that despite the acknowledged effectiveness of the .45 ACP round, weapons firing that round are still not widely used in military or LEO applications. I'd argue that is partly because many folks can't manage the larger grips of most .45s semi-autos; I don't like the Glock 21, despite generally liking other Glock models -- it feels like a 2"x4" in my hand..

I have a Glock 38. I shoot it well, and I have no trouble finding ammo that is cost-competitive with .45 ACP. (I use Georgia Arms' .45 GAP ammo as range fodder.) I also have a Springfield XDm Competition 5.5" .45 ACP. I like it a lot, too. They both run well for me, but the Glock 38 is a better choice for concealed carry -- which I do from time to time.

I've had other .45s -- including a bunch of SIG P220s (including a Match, and a Super Match), a GSR, several otherwell-tuned 1911's, a Witness Sport Long Slide, and a CZ-97B. My current .45s (GAP and ACP) work better for me than any of the other .45s I've owned.

My Glock 38 is the softest shooting .45 I've shot, and while that wasn't WHY I picked it, it is a nice "extra."

The "answer for a question not asked" claim, while true for many shooters, isn't true for all shooters... The icing on my cake: I picked up my Glock 38, ANIB, unfired, for $350. I don't regret buying it.

If it ever happens that I can't get .45 GAP ammo -- I'd bet that's about as likely as others being unable to get .38 Super, 10 mm or .357 SIG ammo in the future -- I can always make a few inexpensive mods to the Glock 38 frame and run a Glock 19 or Glock 23 slide.
 
Last edited:
The 45 ACP in the standard Glock is a very large pistol. Too large for the linking of most folks that don't have large or X Large hands.
Glock responded with the 45 GAP because it gives 45 ACP ballistics in a 9MM size frame.
Not an idea without merit, but it didn't catch on. I believe it is because the 45ACP is a VERY AMERICAN idea with a near cult-like following. The Glock 45GAP is a good gun and works as advertised, but the market competition was far too formidable.

I have fired a few of them and I have no complaints at all, but I don't own one. I have a 2 1911s, a KAHR, a SIG-250, and a Springfeld XD all in 45 ACP. The GAP showed me nothing that would cause me to add another caliber to my list of cartridges I load for. I think is has merit, but not enough to interest me.

I bet I am in a LOT of good company in the USA. That's why it's a failing cartridge at this point.

If someone was to bring out a 45 GAP is a REALLY small gun it may get a 2nd chance.
My KAHR PM is the smallest 45 ACP I know of. So for the GAP to get a new run at the market in the USA I think someone would have to bring one out that was about 15% to 20% smaller than the Kahr.
 
Not an idea without merit, but it didn't catch on.
Click to expand...

I think the problem we run into is that between 380 and 10MM there are actually a fairly decent number of capable cartridges if you count all the boutique ones. The differences (contrary to the caliber wars) between this array of cartridges are so small that trying to sneak in another one and gain market share is an untenable task. The really successful ones (9MM, .40, and .45) occupy an even smaller area of difference.
 
Walt Sherrill said:
The "answer for a question not asked" claim, while true for many shooters, isn't true for all shooters... The icing on my cake: I picked up my Glock 38, ANIB, unfired, for $350. I don't regret buying it.
Click to expand...
Absolutely agreed. One attraction of the G37/38/39 is their low resale value. :) I've come seriously close to buying a G38, but I handload, so the scant availability of factory ammo is not a big concern.
 
I have a Glock 38 (45 GAP) and like it.
Unlike the 30 / 30 SF the 38 grip doesn't require an oversize magazine base to accommodate my pinky, same grip as a 19/23/32.

45 GAP velocity is good from a 4'' barrel.
5 shot averages, in ascending KE
Glock 38:
Winchester 230 Ranger T @ 837 fps/ 358# KE
Speer Gold Dot 200 @ 949 fps / 400# KE
Speer Gold Dot 185 @ 1,062 fps / 463# KE

Glock 30SF
Federal Hydra-Shok 230 gr. @ 811 fps / 336# KE
Federal Hydra-Shok 185 +P @ 1,005 fps / 415# KE
Remington Golden Saber 185 +P @ 1,008 fps / 418# KE

GAP is easy to hand load, like 45 acp.
45 GAP Hand load Barnes 160 Tac-XP @ 1,046 fps / 389# KE

The 45 GAP is an answer / solution to the question / problem of a Glock 19/23/32 size pistol offered in 45 caliber. ;)

I also have 357 Sig and 10mm Glocks, apparently a sucker for niche calibers. :rolleyes:
 
that despite the acknowledged effectiveness of the .45 ACP round, weapons firing that round are still not widely used in military or LEO applications.
Click to expand...

TODAY.

And while true, this fact is somewhat misleading, if you think it supports the idea that the cartridge performance is the reason. The last handgun cartridge the military chose due to its effectiveness was the .45ACP. (actually the military stated what they wanted for effectiveness, and the .45ACP was created to meet those standards).

The military "choice" of the 9mm Luger was a POLITICAL decision. LEO use of the 9mm began, I believe the same way. When the FBI adopted it, their prestige as the US's premier law enforcement agency (and their assumed expertise) went a long way to giving the green light to other police agencies adopting the 9mm.

Unfortunately, the FBI found the 9mm to be somewhat lacking in the Miami shootout (not that it was, but that's what they "found"), tried the 10mm, not happy with that, either, and then the .40S&W came along, and was "just right". For a while....I believe the FBI is back to 9mms, now??

Glock got the LEO market over its competition, because of their business model, not the innate superiority of their product or the 9mm Luger round.

What are the "advantages" offered by the .45GAP, if its NOT in a GLock pistol?? I see none. Because there are none. ;)

If it ever happens that I can't get .45 GAP ammo -- I'd bet that's about as likely as others being unable to get .38 Super, 10 mm or .357 SIG ammo in the future...
Click to expand...

I believe it is more likely that .45GAP will be dropped than the other rounds, primarily because the .38 Super has a long established history, with many models of guns made for it, and both the 10mm and the .357Sig are also much more well established and widespread than the .45 GAP.

When the GAP was introduced, a couple (I think) of other gun makers did chamber some of their guns for it. For a year, or two. Then they dropped it. I don't think anyone but GLock has produced any GAP pistols for quite some time, and it appears no one but Glock will.

if YOU aren't a GLock user, and aren't someone that needs the smaller grip size, the .45GAP has no utility. Its not an answer to a question no one asked, the question was asked. Its just an answer to that question that no one but GLock got excited about. :D

Thanks mostly to Cowboy action shooting bringing back interest in old obsolete cartridges, the ammo makers have realized that as long as there is money to be made, formerly "dead" rounds are now sort of alive. The GAP will, if not already, fit into this group, a boutique round, made in small amounts, for a niche market. Cost will be what the market will bear.

For collector interest (if that's what you collect) its a fine choice. For anything else, not so much...

Good Luck!
 
Walt Sherrill said:
It's only in the last several years (long after the .45 GAP was introduced) that double-stack .45 semi-autos with reasonable grip sizes have become available.
Click to expand...
I have to disagree with this statement. I've been carrying and shooting double stack para-Ordnance 1911s for almost 20 years, since long before the invention of the .45 GAP. The grip circumference of a para double stack is only a little larger than that of a single stack 1911, and FAR smaller than the Glocks in .45 ACP.
 
44_AMP said:
What are the "advantages" offered by the .45GAP, if its NOT in a GLock pistol?? I see none. Because there are none.
Click to expand...
I think the marketplace bears this out.

Not many people seem to remember that the Springfield Armory EMP was originally created and introduced around the .45 GAP cartridge. Many gun writers at the time opined that it was a nice package that was better suited to the 9mm or .40 S&W cartridges -- and that's what Springfield is selling it in today. I don't think they ever sold any EMPs in .45 GAP, even though that's what the entire pistol was created for.

At about the same time the EMP was first introduced, Para-Ordnance introduced a subcompact model in their LDA series, chambered in .45 GAP. I saw it in their factory in Canada and I later had a test pistol for evaluation. It was a nice pistol, but it didn't serve any purpose their other models didn't serve. I think the .45 GAP Para only lasted for one or two years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top