The new ".45 Glock" round


PDA






Tall Man
July 1, 2003, 12:48 PM
A pretender to the throne?

I discovered the pending* existance of this round in an article that discussed the new Glock 37 pistol. It is a full-sized autoloader designed to chamber the new .45 Glock round. The new caliber is essentially a .45 with a shortened case. The intent is to obtain .40 S&W velocity whilst retaining the generally large holes offered by a traditional .45 ACP round. The shorter case will allegedly allow for a more efficient powder burn. The shorter case also allows a decreased distance between the grip and the trigger on the G37; some of you may no doubt have difficulty holding a Glock pistol due to its rather fat grip.

The Tall Man's initial reaction to news of another boutique caliber was that he was reading about a solution in search of a problem. Agree/disagree? I'll entertain all feedback here.

*I say "pending" because the article went on to say that the G37 will have a magazine designed to hold 11 rounds, which of course limits this frame to Law Enforcement agencies only. Introductions of compact and sub-compact frames should remedy this matter for those enamored of the new caliber.

Respectfully,
Tall Man

If you enjoyed reading about "The new ".45 Glock" round" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
dude
July 1, 2003, 12:55 PM
Well I'd be intrested in a compact one!!!


.....if it was a few $100 less than a Glock 30 and the ammo was cheap and plentiful.

ElToro
July 1, 2003, 12:55 PM
I'm not impressed. sposed to be a .45 acp cut down by .07 inch.. but autos dont work the way a .38 / .357mag or .44 spec / .44mag revo works...

answer for a problem that doesnt exist. way for glock to sell the new new new thing

may have a logistical 1870's style .45 colt .45 schofield field mix up

Sox
July 1, 2003, 01:19 PM
If he wanted this new round to be successful he should've brought it out in a full size single stack frame that everyone wanted! The current 37 is a major disappointment. Why do I want a 37 sized gun that ballistically is a .40SW, but with less rounds. Should've just brought out the .45ACP we wanted. I think there will be enough novel interest, but the question wasn't really asked in the first place unlike the .40S&W. I wonder though how many rounds a subcompact version could hold?

Andrew Wyatt
July 1, 2003, 01:35 PM
The small handed should be able to have .45 caliber glocks that fit them, too. yes, i know a single stack .45 ACP glock would have been better, but this is about as thin as the enginers at glock would have made that (what with their obsession with magazines that have half inch sidewalls and all) and has more capacity.

Sean Smith
July 1, 2003, 01:40 PM
Gee, look, another Glock 37 thread... is this number 10,000,000? :rolleyes:

*I say "pending" because the article went on to say that the G37 will have a magazine designed to hold 11 rounds, which of course limits this frame to Law Enforcement agencies only. Introductions of compact and sub-compact frames should remedy this matter for those enamored of the new caliber

Wrong. Only the 11 round magazines themselves would be restricted, not the frame.

Tall Man
July 1, 2003, 03:33 PM
-Here's a nice discussion about the ballistic properties of the new .45 GAP (Glock Auto Pistol) round: http://www.speer-bullets.com/default.asp?s1=2&s2=23

-The article referenced in my opening post did, IIRC, state that the G37 will initially be accompanied by 11 round magazines only. If true, this would effectively limit the pistol's availability to LE agenices only. This presumes an absence of any compatible 10 round magazines, of course, which I expect to be the case here.

-An admittedly cursory review of the THR forums did not yield any existing Glock 37 threads. Thus, I chose to initiate this particular thread. I will endeavor to be more circumspect in the future.

Tall Man

Happy that no one pissed in my cereal this morning.

krept
July 1, 2003, 04:23 PM
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27900 this is one where I had some comments.

I don't see this cartridge being accepted by a military (no big deal, really).

But I also don't see it as catching on well with LE circles either. My reasoning is that the .45 already has mid-low sectional density as it is... and if you take away the 230gr bullet and have a max weight of 200gr, unless I am mistaken this cartridge will not penetrate light cover or concealment very well. Something I belive that LE wants.

Further, in LE circles, the .45 ACP has been available for those who are issued platforms chambered for it or for those who choose to carry it... and it gets the job done. With the introduction of the .40/357SIG I think that LE has found the proverbial cat's meow... making it even harder to switch. The entities that have 9mm will probably stay with it, as will those with .45.

Now, military or LE acceptance doesn't (or shouldn't) hold that much weight with weapon afficionados. But it might mean a lot to the generic consumer. My point here is that I just really don't see it catching on more so than say, 10mm.

To me it seems only to fill the niche for the "I have small hands, want 10 rounds/magazine and HAVE to have a .45" crowd.

Personally, I love innovation. OTOH, I'd rather see more innovations platform-wise (glockish w/safety lever, 1911 w/paddle mag release, striker fired HK or SIG that you can grip high, etc. etc.) than cartridge-wise.

We'll see how it does. I can guarantee you there will be a media blitz, the rags will write glowing reviews about it, some will think it's the greatest. I think it'll sell like a turd, but that's just me.

cheers

Spackler
July 1, 2003, 08:02 PM
It's not a big deal. Glock will manufacture the thing, and if the market supports it, it was a good move on Glock's part. More choice for the consumer is a good thing.

I have to laugh at some of the arguments over this sort of thing. Hey, nobody is forcing anybody to buy the thing.

dude
July 1, 2003, 08:44 PM
egg-zacl-ly

I will not be supporting the new Glock but I was ALL OVER the new .17HMR when it came out

JohnKSa
July 1, 2003, 10:30 PM
I have to laugh at these threads.

I can't quite understand why the introduction of a new 45 cartridge should cause such consternation.

It's just another caliber choice for pete's sake. If you don't like it, don't buy it. It's not like someone's trying to sleep with your wife!

seeker_two
July 2, 2003, 12:34 AM
Gaston Glock just can't stand the fact that John Moses Browning got it right before him...

dsk
July 2, 2003, 02:09 AM
I think the biggest news with the .45 Glock round will be how much it annoys .45ACP users. From now on reloaders will have to inspect their scavenged brass very carefully.

9x19
July 2, 2003, 09:20 AM
All I can say is: I want one I want one I want one! :D

You'll never know 'til you try....

Fed168
July 2, 2003, 11:11 AM
I see it selling more in Europe than here- I believe military calibres are restricted, but in this case folks can have a .45, kinda sorta.

Ky Larry
July 2, 2003, 01:21 PM
Glock is just trying to find something the public will buy. They are in business to sell weapons and they need to find something the shooting world will want. It's the same thing Remington and Winchester are doing with their 'Ultra-Fat-Short-Mag-Super-Duper-Wonder-Zap' rifle calibers. I think they are great. I've snapped up a Winchester Model 70 Feather Weight (.270 Win), a Browning A-Bolt (.300 Win Mag) and a Remington 700 ADL (7mm Rem Mag) for peanuts because their owners just had to have the 'Latest & Greatest'. Hopefully some 1911's will get traded in for the new fad in hand guns. Buy what you want and shoot what you want.

Scoob
July 3, 2003, 12:45 AM
I am pretty indifferent so far. It may be a good idea, maybe not, wait and see I guess. I'm not going to get upset about it like some do (unless they force me to buy one).

I'm sure 45acp fans will trash it( as is already happening) just like 10mm fans make sure everyone knows they hate .40's:p

I think the (predictable) reaction to it is kinda funny:p

Grump
July 3, 2003, 02:12 AM
Great idea 30 years too late. Shoulda hit at the beginning of the WonderNine craze.

Then Glock wouldn't have had to make their seriously overfat .45 ACP gun.

It will probably sell as well as the .45 ACP Glocks have, but at the same time completely kill the ACP Glock sales. It will be worth their investment (barely) but won't be a gold mine, either.

Pat S
July 3, 2003, 02:24 AM
I find all the controversy humorous. I have to agree with these guys!

JohnKSa
"It's just another caliber choice for pete's sake. If you don't like it, don't buy it. It's not like someone's trying to sleep with your wife!"

Spackler
"I have to laugh at some of the arguments over this sort of thing. Hey, nobody is forcing anybody to buy the thing."

I'm looking forward to trying one out. A .45 200 gr. bullet that duplicates the performance of the 45 ACP, in a frame that fits the majority of those that pick it up. Sounds good to me. I predict it will be just as popular as the 357 Sig.. Perhaps moreso over time.

As for a single stack full-sized Glock, I would just as soon have a 1911-----much better trigger!


Stay Safe, Pat S



:cool:

krept
July 9, 2003, 06:05 PM
I've been thinking about this as well..

The 10mm --> 40SW resulted in a shorter, more efficient cartridge. I think they eliminated the heaviest 10mm loading (200gr?) but keep the others.

The .45 ACP --> 45 Glock will result in a shorter, more efficient cartridge. It looks like they are going to eliminate the heaviest (230gr) loading but will retain 200, 185 and prob 165? as well.

If they can find a way to make it penetrate with the lower sectional density I think it will be interesting.

I also wonder who will be the first to neck it down to .40, like a shorter .40 Super?



cheers:scrutiny:

CWL
July 9, 2003, 06:28 PM
The 10mm --> 40SW resulted in a shorter, more efficient cartridge

Nope, not more efficient cartridge (and what do you mean by efficient anyways?). 10mm-lite & .40S&W came abouts because female agents (and egghead recruits) couldn't comfortably handle the 10mm load. Lack of training led to inability of agents in handling 10mm load. 10mm is as good a manstopper as a pistol round will ever get.

.45Glock is another solution in search of a problem.

10-Ring
July 9, 2003, 06:32 PM
I was wondering, could it be considered the 45 kurz? :evil:

Zeke Menuar
July 9, 2003, 07:31 PM
Just the thought of this new wonder-round has me already comtemplating my next nap.


ZM

Sven
July 9, 2003, 07:45 PM
Yawn. Now, if they were making it BIGGER than a .45, that would be cool - to me. The whole thing just seems silly... it's 0.07 inches shorter, the mags hold 11 rounds for LEO (1 more than can be manufactured for citizens)... don't the LEOs want a double-stack with all that extra ammo in there? Frankly, I'm just PUZZLED about what they are thinking, is all.

I won't support this move by Glock. Soon I will start a thread for a 'pool' to bet what the cost of 50 rounds of this ammo will cost (average MSRP, commercial ball) in 1, 2, and 5 years.

9x19
July 9, 2003, 09:06 PM
...it's 0.07 inches shorter...

Man, I need some better eyes... this looks like more than 70 thousandths to me.

Sven
July 10, 2003, 01:48 AM
Sorry for mis-quoting the wrong dimensions.

frettedfive
July 10, 2003, 12:04 PM
*I say "pending" because the article went on to say that the G37 will have a magazine designed to hold 11 rounds, which of course limits this frame to Law Enforcement agencies only.

Tall Man, I think maybe you're not understanding the law as it relates to magazine capacities.
My Glock 23 is designed to hold 13 rounds... Because of the stupid "Assault Weapon Ban", however, I'm legally limited to buying either 10-round magazines,
or GROSSLY overpriced pre-ban "normal" (not HIGH... they're only called "high-capacity" to make them sound more "evil" and "dangerous") capacity 13-round mags for my gun.

Your statement about the G37 "frame" being LEO because of the 11-round magazine capacity is incorrect. The 11-round, normal capacity mags for the gun would be restricted as LEO.

Mickey

Pat S
July 10, 2003, 12:53 PM
Case length according to SPEER is .775", OAL 1.070". Slighty shorter then a 9X19 round all with the performance of the 45 ACP with a similar bullet weight! Sounds good to me.




:cool: Stay Safe, Pat S

krept
July 10, 2003, 02:44 PM
CWL by 'efficient' I mean that 'common' loadings of the .40 are near max pressure and 'common' loadings for the 10mm are lower. Much like how you can take a 'generic' 10mm and make it hotter, you can do the same with a .45 ACP.

I guess I could sum it up by saying if you take the average 10mm and .45 ACP they do not utilize the case capacity to the fullest extent. Yes there are benefits to doing this.

What do I base this on? The .45 ACP has +P loadings for personal defense but this is not common. People speaking of 10mm say buy Georgia arms (or whatever) because they load them like the 10mm "should be" and not to .40 SW levels... or for them to roll their own to get the maximum benefit of the 10mm.

But I do not see the .40 being hotrodded that much. Why? I'd say that the case capacity is close to being fully utilized in 'common' loadings. This is what I call 'efficient' as in there is not much unused (notice I didn't say 'wasted') case space.

The 45 Glock from what I read will similarly have 'common' loadings that maximize the volume within the case.

I do realize that 10mm is a great versatile cartridge but to say it is as good as a manstopper as you can get, I'm not so sure. I think the numbers from the .40 do pretty darn good and if you have a 155gr bullet that expands to .6 (or whatever) that still fully penetrates through the target, I'm not sure how much better you can get? Maybe expanding to .75 and fully penetrating? Maybe load a 135gr in there and get fragmentation? I mean if you can tailor even a 9mm to fully penetrate or create an racquetball sized crater on the surface I would argue much more of the importance of bullet construction than "this cartridge is as good a manstopper as you can get." What if it's 200gr FMJ?

But even then, to tie this into the 45 Glock. Say 10mm IS the best manstopper by a significant margin (I disagree, with the right bullet I'd say 9mm and up are dead even when you factor in shot recovery time) is it still good if the platform doesn't fit you? I guess that is the point with the 45 Glock... to make a 10 round .45" bulletspittin platform fit.



Now, my only pistol is a .45 right now. I absolutely love the fact that I can shoot 450 SMC out if it should I choose to. I also love the slow roll of the detonation and I think that the 45 Glock will be snappier (no free lunch).

IF they can make the 45 Glock penetrate 14" and expand to .72" don't you think that will be pretty darn good, especially if people want it in a G22/23 sized frame but want something that starts out .45"?

I guess that the worst that could happen is that the 45 Glock equals the .45 ACPs 'common' loadings. This is exactly what happened with the current 10mm loadings (originals were hotter, correct?) and the .40 SW. Then everyone will really be screwed up.

I'm honestly not trying to step on anyone's toes, I'm going to stick with the .45 ACP but what I'm saying is that there might be some decent selling points for this new cartridge. My point is that it isn't necessarily going to be versatile, but as a manstopper it might work as good as one could expect.

I come here to learn, so if anything I said is false, I apologize and would like to hear different so I can get it right next time. It's too easy for me not to say a thing and carry on with false assumptions and that is why this place is an awesome resource.

cheers

Boats
July 10, 2003, 05:37 PM
http://thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=369745

Well, I'll be. . . .The .45 For The Short & Weak makes its appearance next to the Big Dog.:D

Slighty shorter then a 9X19 round all with the performance of the 45 ACP with a similar bullet weight! Sounds good to me.

All the performance? Similar weight? Spin baby SPIN!!!!

Sean Smith
July 10, 2003, 06:20 PM
By most measures, .40 S&W is alot LESS efficient than 10mm. That doesn't make it a bad cartridge, however. Read on... :D

Max .40 S&W loads are at something like 35,000 cup. That is a true max, which is why hot-rodding .40 S&W is a famously stupid proposition. Full-power factory 10mm loads (Cor-Bon, Pro Load, Triton, Winchester, Georgia Arms, TAC, etc.) are more like 37,000-38,000 cup. Note that the performance difference is NOT proportional to the pressure difference... 180gr @ 950 ft/sec vs. 1,150-1,320 ft/sec from equal barrels, for instance. More internal volume lets you use a larger charge of slower powder to get more speed with less pressure in proportion to the performance gain, or the same speed for less pressure. A 35,000 cup 10mm load can easily give you more (sometimes alot more) performance than a 35,000 cup .40 S&W load, simply because the internal volume of the 10mm case lets you do things and use powders that you can't reproduce with the smaller, weaker .40 S&W case. The 10mm case is much stronger to boot (designed for something on the order of 50,000+ cup, with a true max for loading purposes somewhere north of 40,000 depending on the gun/load combo involved), which gives you a much larger margin of safety than a .40 S&W does.

In short, 10mm is more powerful, more versatile and more efficient than .40 S&W in every way except overall length. Less pressure to hit a given performance level, greater case strength to allow even greater operating pressures safely (or vastly greater margin of safety at equivalent loads), and ability to load for bullets up to 220gr (vs. 180 for .40 S&W).

None of which makes .40 S&W a "bad" cartridge. .40 S&W reproduces low-end 10mm loads in smaller handguns (especially smaller gripped), which is a very handy combination. It is not versatile, or particularly powerful, or objectively very efficient in how it does it... unless you consider max loads and a slim margain of safety synonomous with "versatile." But calibers don't exist in the abstract; you have to shoot them out of a gun. With that in mind, .40 S&W has the considerable advantage of letting you make the gun smaller than you could with a 10mm or a .45. With a few exceptions, it has shown that it does so safely.

All of which seems off topic, but really isn't, because .45 Glock does exactly the same things compared to .45 ACP that .40 S&W did compared to 10mm. It has less performance at the high end than .45 ACP, and needs more pressure to hit a given performance level compared to .45 ACP. Those are natural effects of reducing the case capacity. It has the same problem .40 S&W had with heavier bullets that work fine in 10mm (can't really load with them because they take up too much internal volume). By any measure it is inefficient and not versatile. However, it also has the same advantage of being adaptable to a smaller platform, which as .40 S&W sales showed is NOT a small advantage... if it was a small advantage, than 10mm would be available in $12 bulk packs at Wal-Mart, not .40 S&W.

What's the bottom line? If you don't mind a full sized gun, .45 Glock will be inferior in every way to .45 ACP and do nothing for you whatsoever. If you want the biggest bullet in the smallest package, however, .45 Glock looks like it will deliver the goods. And if .40 S&W is any indication, there is a demand for that sort of thing, at least in the U.S. of A.

(Random side note: it might also sell in countries that don't alow "military" calibers like .45 ACP and 9x19 to be owned by civilians).

krept
July 10, 2003, 06:59 PM
Awesome info, thanks!

I guess I was wrong about efficiency... the point I was trying to make you summed up very well with All of which seems off topic, but really isn't, because .45 Glock does exactly the same things compared to .45 ACP that .40 S&W did compared to 10mm.

The .40 caught on for many reasons and I wonder if the 45 Glock will as well... provided the lower sectional density doesn't hinder it. 10mm has sectional density to spare and then some. IMO 230gr .45 is about optimal. Can't wait for the ballistics.

PowerSlave
July 11, 2003, 02:26 AM
I have to say whats the point of this round ? Just seems like a silly move on Glocks part IMHO.:banghead:
If they want to impress me they need to figure out how to give the glock a decent trigger :D
I am not bashing glock , I like them for what they are I just hate the trigger feel of them.:eek:

only1asterisk
July 11, 2003, 02:43 AM
Krept,

You weren't "wrong", just using a different measure of efficiency. What kind of .45 do have?

David

45auto
July 11, 2003, 10:17 AM
For us non-glockers,

Reading the Glock website, the 'width' of the model 36(small 45ACP) is less than the 9/40 series Glocks. I assume that's the width of the grip, but the distance is greater between the grip and trigger between the two models because of the length of the 45ACP?

Assuming that's correct, is it more difficult to handle the 36, increased trigger to grip length, but less width, than the 9/40 series guns?

If not, then one major point of difference is having 10 rounds of a 45 caliber compared to, perhaps, an 8 round of the ACP.
For non LEO's, do you think the full 10 rounds can be the major selling point?

We may be over thinking this, simply make an easy conversion of a popular format with another caliber to increase sales. But, it seems to me that in the long run, their sales increases may come out of their own 40 sales.
Limited to 10 rounds, I'd probably opt for the larger caliber in the same Glock format as the 40, unless it's a game gun.

If the caliber becomes popular it may be best in the smaller 40 sized guns, Kahr, etc.

GSB
July 11, 2003, 10:33 AM
If the .45 Glock is such a great cartridge, John Moses Browning would have chambered the 1911 for it. Clearly, therefore, it's inferior. :D

krept
July 11, 2003, 01:52 PM
:D ... that's the thing a LOT has changed in powders and bullet construction since JMB.

only1asterisk, my only pistol is a USP .45. I guess I was using a different measure of efficiency.

45auto, I had a G27 (sold) and have fondled a G36. IMO the .40 frame felt 'fuller' to me while the G36 was a little flatter. Didn't really notice the distance to trigger but I have med/thick hands. I do notice it on my USP, however, because I have to manipulate the safety and get a good trigger purchase.

I didn't think the .40 would have caught on as much as it has, so that's why I hold reservations about calling the 45 Glock a stinker.

cheers

moxie
July 11, 2003, 02:58 PM
Krept said, "The .45 ACP has +P loadings for personal defense but this is not common."

The .45ACP +P is actually quite common in both 185 and 230 loadings as self defense ammo. And there are some 200 grainers too. The 185 +P really comes into its own in this role as a load for shorter barrel compact pistols. They run at ~1125-1150 fps out of 5" barrels and keep the speed up enough out of the shorter barrels to effectively open the JHP bullets. Especially noteworthy here are the Remington and Cor-Bon offerings. The 230 loads are less common but Cor-Bon, for example, offers a loading in the ~930fps range. All of these and more are readily available at a lot of gun shops or on line through good shops like Ammo Bank at http://www.ammobank.com/

M58
July 11, 2003, 07:44 PM
1. Gaston wants his name on a caliber.
2. Civilians are not on his radar.
3. Ask him...

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