.45 Glock Cart?


PDA






Kjay
April 20, 2003, 10:24 AM
I saw an ad for the Glock 37 chamberiing a new .45 round - the .45 Glock. Supposedly shorter than the .45 ACP and usable in the smaller framed Glocks. Any one have any info?

If you enjoyed reading about ".45 Glock Cart?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
George Hill
April 20, 2003, 11:14 AM
I think it's all together silly.

Lone_Gunman
April 20, 2003, 12:53 PM
Yea, I agree this is probably a silly concept.

I also think the timing of its introduction will not be helpful either, considering its only a little over a year before the AWB sunsets (hopefully).

Kjay
April 20, 2003, 02:15 PM
I think we're all dreaming if we think the AWB is ever going to be lifted. I should have done a search first - saw a thread - thanks!

Lone_Gunman
April 20, 2003, 02:44 PM
Kjay, I think there is about a 51% chance the AWB will die.

So I am not betting the farm ...

Greybeard
April 20, 2003, 02:50 PM
To me, it appears that Gaston's throwing some big bucks out for a new round with his name on it. A solution of a non-problem. Glad he got around to doing the Model 36 - his .45ACP works fine here - and ammo is always gonna be easier to find.

Old Fuff
April 20, 2003, 05:04 PM
The “Old Fuff” is curious: Why is his friend Gaston out of line for shorting the venerable .45 ACP when Smith & Wesson doing the same thing to the 10mm Auto to make the .40 S&W is seen by some to be the best thing since sliced bread?

Many pistol and most revolver cartridges have more capacity then they need when modern powers are used. Consequently what one is giving up is superfluous air space. The abbreviated hull is less likely to get caught during ejection and many 9mm/.40 frames might be altered to use this new round in compact and ultra-compact pistols.

It is not the length of the case/cartridge that is important, it is terminal ballistics. If the .45 Glock is not completely equal to the old .45 it is close. Those who know Gaston Glock (and I do) are well aware that the gentleman doesn’t have the kind of ego that requires he have his name on a particular cartridge. His pistols themselves are enough. That said, I don’t see anyone getting their noses out of joint when “S&W” “Colt” “Browning” “Ruger” and even “SIG” appear as part of a cartridge’s title.

It is way to early to judge what impact this new offering will have. Maybe its detractors are right, but then again maybe they’re not. All of this remains too be seen. As for myself, I’m going to wait and see.

petej88
April 20, 2003, 05:40 PM
some info:

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/petej/#Introduction

Greybeard
April 20, 2003, 10:41 PM
Old Fluff - Ya could be right. The man has obviously done more things right than wrong in the biz. Like beating S&W into the market after they introduced the .40.

I got a Model 23 shortly after they became available in 1990. ' Shot up all the ammo that I had brought with me and went back into a major local range office/showroom to buy some more. They told me that they had none in stock, and "That's what happens when you buy an ODDBALL caliber." :rolleyes:

Time will tell.

denfoote
April 21, 2003, 02:03 AM
Another solution in a desperate search for a problem!! :rolleyes:

Quack
April 21, 2003, 08:52 AM
i'm with Old Fuff, the .45 Glock seems like a funny thing, but only time will tell if the .45 Glock will catch on like the .40 S&W. and the way Glock markets themselves, i see the round catching on at PD's that want a in-expensive hi-cap .45 that isn't too large for smaller officers hands.
on the positive side, using a 3 pin glock frame will now get you a .45, .40, .357, 9mm :)

10-Ring
April 21, 2003, 02:28 PM
The Glock 37, the perfect gift for someone that's already bought beach front property in Arizona, the Brooklyn Bridge, & property on the moon! :D:neener:

pale horse
April 21, 2003, 02:31 PM
I was wondering if the .45G could be shot out of a regular .45acp. It does not look that much different. The only problem is the lenth of the case. Maybe Gaston is coming up with a .22lr, .22l, and .22s for the .45 caliber.

larryw
April 21, 2003, 02:48 PM
Reason for the 40 was many couldn't handle the 10MM's recoil. From what little I've read, the 45G is close to the 45ACP in performance, so that line of logic doesn't follow.

A subcompact 45 is would be nice, but my wife and her little hands has no problems with her compact USP or my 1911s. I'll stick with a proven, widely available cartridge with a wide range of launching platforms.

IMO, 45G is an answer in search of a question.

cslinger
April 21, 2003, 04:08 PM
Simple answer....marketing.

Most guns if taken care of will life more than one lifetime. Because of this it is relatively hard to market new guns and therefore sell more product.

In the gun industry it is easier to sell a new pistol/rifle or whatever when it is chambered for some new whizbang cartridge.

How many gun owners or gun nuts will say I don't need a Glock 21 because I have 5 .45s but that new Glock 37 might be worth trying out....just because. I would bet quite of few of these will be sold simply because it is something new to try.

I am not making any calls on whether or not it will be a good cartridge because I don't know. Do I think it is a needed cartridge? Nope. I really don't think .40 was needed, but I own one and like it.

Personally I think you can pretty much cover any possible handgun need with 9mm, .45 ACP and .357 magnum but hey I like toys and variety too, we all do. :D

I'm not exactly jonesing for this new cartridge but I certainly can't fault somebody for buying one just to get a new toy to play with. Most of us have enough guns that we are well past the this gun has a specific function other than for my enjoyment point.

cratz2
April 21, 2003, 04:14 PM
I guess I'll be the dissenter here... I don't think it's a bad idea. I'm a 1911 guy, and I don't have a big problem with Glocks. I own one and previously owned another. If I had a job that issued me a Glock in 9mm, 10mm or 45ACP, I probably wouldn't complain.

I like the idea of the 45 Glock. They've had so much feedback from people and agencies that say they would like a Glock that shoots 45ACP but the G21 grip is too blocky and big around. This solves that. The main thing it does. It doesn't really up the velocity too much, just a bit over +P loadings. But if it allows more good guys to carry the 45, that want to carry the 45, I'm all for it.

45auto
April 21, 2003, 05:30 PM
As mentioned, it's not needed, but any caliber in the popular Glock format will sell some. I'd bet it will outsell their 10mm the first year- easily.

It may be a natural progression for many that "grew" up on Glock's 9mm, went to the 40, etc.

For the die-hard 45ACP shooters, like myself, I don't know.
But I would lean towards the 45 Glock over their 40, in the same size platform, given lower pressures. If the pressures are as high as the 40 and they are not offering the popular 230 grain, then there is no point in even experimenting-for me!

I don't own a Glock. Could this model have been produced with an 8 shot mag of 45ACP and have been the same size? Or is the ACP too long for this size frame?

Hand_Rifle_Guy
April 21, 2003, 06:20 PM
Here's my take, that I wrote over on the G&A forum.

Look at it this way.


When the 10mm came out, it bombed. It was made to solve a problem that didn't exist, to wit: something better than a .45 on a .45-sized platform.

The .40 S&W took off because it solved a problem that DID exist, to wit: something better than a 9mm on a 9mm-sized platform. It REALLY took off because it fit into most 9mm-sized guns with little more than a barrel and recoil-spring change. No re-tooling, or very little, and you get to re-issue a given gun in a larger diameter caliber, something that really appeals to American sensibilities. We love Magnums, and calibers that start with ".4" And for a darn good reason: they work better.

Look at the 45 Glock the same way: something better than a .40 S&W, that fits into a .40-sized platform without a whole lot of modification.

How many 9mm/.40-sized guns exist in the market right now? How many really compact non-1911-based designs exist right now that run .45 caliber ammo? See the possibilities? (Comment edited. People on this board are NOT idiots, and should not be treated as such. 'Swhy I hang out here. ;) )

As for ballistics, a 200-grain bullet cooking along at 900 fps exceeds John Browning's original loading for the .45 ACP. What's not to like?

The real question for me is not whether or not the Glock 37 takes off. It now becomes how many other makers are going to modify and chamber their existing compact autos to be able to run fat .45 caliber bullets. If they can squeak it throught existing slide dimensions, it's a no-brainer except for single-stack magazines. As for full-size autos, how many people have wished for a .45 caliber High Power or CZ-75, for instance. The big factor has alway been cartridge overall length

I can see a LOT of exciting possibilities for this round. The inability to run heavy-bullet loads didn't slow the 357 Sig down much. I don't see it stopping this new 45 Short either. LOTS of people like to run 185's, and they certainly hit plenty hard. What'd happen if you stuffed those 165-grain Hydra-shoks in this round, hmmm?

Unfortunately, the ENTIRE REST OF THE COUNTRY is playing dense, if what I read on two or three other forums I looked at about this means anything. Universally, almost NO-ONE can stretch their brains around the potential of this round. I would say something like 1-2% of postings.

For that reason, I see this round to be doomed to being a commercial failure. No-one's got any imagination. If that winds up as the case, I will be unsurprised, but equally unimpressed.

THINK about it for a second. What neat little gun have you always thought would be THAT MUCH BETTER IF IT COULD JUST BE A .45? Never tried thinking like that? Why don't you try it NOW? Is that too much to ask?

Forgive my cynicism, please. It's making me a bit over-the-top with the acid tone. Price I pay for being able to think outside the box. I oughta give up hoping for the rest of the world to do that, but what the hey, hope is cheap. I sell a lot of it.

Wholesale.

Hard to regard that as an achievement, really. Optimism only goes so far. :rolleyes:


H_R_G, alias L_H_R, alias Target Guy, alias Colin, well-known loon and expert craftsman. A proud TFL survivor, now riding The High Road.

Pendragon
April 21, 2003, 09:26 PM
I have no idea if it will take off - I am not really interested in it, but I have nothing against Glock.

I think you are right - it could have some potential.

Personally, I think most short 1911s (3") are just too short to trust with .45ACP

Maybe a little 1911 in this round could be made to be more reliable?

I would buy one of those :)

Stickjockey
April 21, 2003, 09:28 PM
Hey all-

This may have been brought up before, but could this maybe be a result of various European laws concerning "Military" ammunition? Since .45 acp was at one point used as a military caliber, it may be illegal in certain areas over there. So, Mr. GLock takes a casing, shaves off a Millimetre or two, and calls it ".45 Glock" Similar dimensions, but not a "military" caliber. Just a thought...

JohnKSa
April 21, 2003, 09:39 PM
Why seems pretty straightforward.

To put 10+1 rounds of .45ACP performance into a 9mm sized package.

Whether or not it will catch on is more complicated.

Grayrider
April 22, 2003, 10:02 AM
I think Hand_Rifle_Guy nailed it when he said a .45 HP or CZ would make some people happy. This round has the potential to bring .45 into some platforms where it did not go comfortably before. Will I give up my 1911 for a Glock? NEVER! Would I buy a 75SA or BHP in this caliber? You bet!

GR

Landric
April 22, 2003, 12:36 PM
Howdy,

I can see some advantages to the .45 Glock and some disadvantages. I'm going to wait and see whether the advantages outweigh the disadvantages or vice versa.

I would love to have a Glock 26/27/33 sized gun that shoots .45 bullets. However, I don't want something that is going to recoil more than a .40S&W in that size platform. If the .45 Glock really is a lower pressue round, similar to the .45ACP, then I expect that its recoil will be less sharp than that of the .40S&W.

So, if ammo is reasonably priced, if Glock puts the .45 Glock into its subcompact frame, if it really is a low pressue round, if there is a good selection of ammunition, and if it catches on like the .40S&W (or at least the 357SIG), then I might consider it. I don't think that we really need the .45 Glock, but it might not be a bad move.

I'll have to wait and see. I like the .45ACP plenty, and I don't see any reason to change right now. However, time will tell.

Sean Smith
April 22, 2003, 01:14 PM
When the 10mm came out, it bombed. It was made to solve a problem that didn't exist, to wit: something better than a .45 on a .45-sized platform.

10mm IS better than a .45 in a .45 sized platform. Ballistics don't lie. Problem is, most people are scared of the .45 ACP. So offering "more" than that is a niche market product by its very nature.

If you enjoyed reading about ".45 Glock Cart?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!