TexasCHLforum.com

Gentlemen,
I am looking for some opinions on the .45 GAP cartridge. I am looking for a smaller CC piece and am considering a glock 39. I have never owned a glock but their reputation is obviously very strong. I was originally thinking about a glock 33 in .357sig, but I am really trying to get the hardest hitting round in the smallest frame possible, and from what I have researched, it looks like the 39 is the winner. I have also looked at the glock 29 in 10mm, but I think that might be a little too much mustard in a small frame like that. Is the .45 GAP a cartridge worth my consideration? This is going to be a "working" gun only, so I just want the best round and I don't have much personal experience with any of the 3 calibers mentioned here. Thanks in advance.

Have you looked for .45 GAP ammo? It will be on the shelf right above Hen's Teeth.

I'd suggest that you look into something with a more available ammo; e.g., .40 S&W or 9mm parabellum.

That's my 2¢ worth.

In the Houston area, at least, .45 GAP is available at the shows and gun shops. I haven't noticed it in WalMart or Academy, but then I wasn't really looking.

But will it be available in 10 years? 20 years?

The GAP is an example of "an ingenious solution to a non-existant problem". Have you considered the G30 single stack in .45 ACP?

Mike1951 wrote:Have you considered the G30 single stack in .45 ACP?

Maybe you are thinking of the G36? G30 is the double stack .45ACP

yeah, I am a bit concerned about ammo availability. I am probably over thinking it and should be looking at 9mm. I even was thinking about a para-ord warthog, but I have heard that the reliability can be pretty bad on those. Don't know if it is true, but that is what I heard. I probably should take a look at the Glock 36 or the 26 and just keep it simple.

Obviously, I was confusing the G30 and G36. I was thinking the single stack would give you the grip reduction you must have wanted with the GAP.

I'm not a Glock person: never owned one, never shot one.

But I do like my 1911's, Hi-Powers, and my snubbie revolvers!

FWIW, I did not find the reduction in grip width enough on the G36 to justify it (and the hit to ammo capacity). As I recall, the slide width is still the same as is the grip length. If you want single stack .45 ACP, might as well get a 1911.

FWIW, I did not find the reduction in grip width enough on the G36 to justify it (and the hit to ammo capacity). As I recall, the slide width is still the same as is the grip length. If you want single stack .45 ACP, might as well get a 1911.

To each his own, but I have a 36 and love it. With a +1 mag extension it is about the same as a 19 in the grip. 7 rounds. The slide is about the same width as the 9mm 19 but a good bit less than a 21 or 30.

The huge difference between my 36 and my Kimber is weight. Feels less than half-maybe 1/3rd. 8 +1 in the Kimber, 7 +1 in the 36. The 36 is easier to carry and more concealable (because of the grip size) than the Kimber. I have the TLE RL II Kimber so others might be smaller/lighter but then mine is a full-size 1911.

Just my observations.
ETA: Several LE Departments have adopted the GAP. Ammo To Go has training ammo and Gold Dots for defense. Personally I like the size of the GAP - I just wish it wasn't such an odd duck.

Bingo with Oldgringo - Get an odd cartridge and availability is limited, and what about the future...may be even harder to find.

If the market doesn't bear up for this cartridge, you may eventually not find it all.

.45 ACP can and will be available for many years.

Ditto on 9mm too.

Just looking at Speer specs http://www.speer-ammo.com/ballistics/ammo.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
the 45 GAP knocks an inch off the barrel compared to a traditional five-inch 45 ACP, is smaller framed, holds more rounds and offers better ballistics. Especially the 230 grain load @ 935fps/447 ft-lbs ME. Ouch!. What's not to like? Myself, I would probably prefer the 357 SIG over the GAP, but the 45 GAP beats the 45 ACP over the head in terms of firepower.

I had hoped to discuss this with you, but following your link, I find no 230gr GAP loading. Still, accepting your figures, and on the premise that someone would be willing to use .45acp+P, Hornady's .45acp+P load shows 950fps / 461fpe. The acp is loaded to lower pressures in deference to the old 1911's and revolvers in circulation. Glock did not need to consider this, so they could use the full potential of the load.

As I remember, the 230gr GAP loading was a latecomer. GAP premiered with 185 and 200 grain loadings. GAP was not setting the world on fire and there was demand for a load that would duplicate .45acp ballistics, so it was added.

Any modern 1911 in good condition should tolerate a reasonable amount of .45acp+P, so it appears they are equal.

Mike1951,

You're right. I must have taken the 230 round data off another site, like Wikipedia under 45 GAP.

The 200 grain in 45 GAP doing 970 fps and 418 ME from a four inch barrel looks like the best of that breed. Just a little slower,a little heavier and a considerably wider than the 10mm 180 grain FBI load at 980 fps. That's got to be the huckleberry round in 45 caliber for anti personnel use. Bet it would bring down a horse, too.

I don't understand peoples' reluctance to accept newly engineered handgun rounds of 45 GAP, 357 SIG and 327 MAG. In all cases they seem to offer desirable improvements in firepower and size.

Mike1951 wrote:The GAP is an example of "an ingenious solution to a non-existant problem".

That old saw again? I get so tired of hearing people unthinkingly parrot that every single time somebody comes up with something new in the firearms world.

The .45 GAP is an ingenious solution to a very real problem: How to build a large capacity .45 caliber pistol that someone with small hands can actually shoot.

It is still a Glock on a Glock frame. I have small hands and I still can't reach the trigger. This is a Glock only caliber that was made so a 45 caliber round could be used in the smaller 9 and 40 caliber Glock frames. Anyone that has issues with reaching a Glock trigger will still have issues with the 45 GAP (Glock Automatic Pistol).

casingpoint wrote:I don't understand peoples' reluctance to accept newly engineered handgun rounds of 45 GAP, 357 SIG and 327 MAG. In all cases they seem to offer desirable improvements in firepower and size.

For me, it's about the longevity of the round, support by the manufacturer, and the availability of bullets, ammunition, loading dies, etc. Another example of a good, but relatively unpopular cartridge is the .41 Magnum. On the other hand, if I had bought a couple guns in that caliber, they would have been more popular.