Gaston's Ego?

[Langenator]

I just got my November issue of American Rifleman (must remember to get address changed). On the back inside cover is a Glock ad, advertising their new (?) pistols-31/32/33 IIRC- in the new ".357 Auto." On the side of the pistol in the picture is the number 357. The bullets in the picture look like 357SIG to me.

Is it just Gaston Glock's ego that won't put his competitor's name with the round?

[4v50 Gary]

Ruger does the same w/S&W. It's one company refusing to acknowledge the other. Remington did it when Winchester came out with their Short Action .300 mag. They developed their own instead.

[Mike Irwin]

That's been around for as long as firearms have been around.

Colt refused to chamber their guns for the .38 S&W, so they renamed it the .38 Colt New Police round.

Same with the .38 S&W Special or the .357 S&W Magnum.

Marlin & Winchester had similar tiffs...

[spacemanspiff]

glocks really been pushing the advertising for their 357sigs. seems every gunrag has a full page ad for it. maybe its just me, but it seems like they are on the line of false advertising.
they say that this brings 'magnum power ina semi-auto'.
ballistically, how does the 357sig compare to a 357 magnum?
can i ditch the .357 mag revolver and just go for the 357sig from glock/sig/steyr/any other firearm manufacturer?

[Archer]

I imagine it is similar to how other manufacturers are not putting .45 Glock on their pistols chambered for that round.

Oh, wait, there are no other manufacturers making pistols chambered for .45 Glock... never mind. :evil:

[RepublicanMan]

Yup you're right Archer......and there probably won't be since most companies can see the inherent stupidity in cramming an 11.43mm bullet into a case that's been time and again said to be too small to provide enough stopping power (19mm) by all the 9mm Para haters out there.

I personally feel that the ACP is the only truly useful .45, although I reckon the .45LC wasn't half bad either.

Glock can keep their plastic and their halfassed attempt to jump on the bandwagon with a cartridge named after themselves. :D

[Mike Irwin]

"into a case that's been time and again said to be too small to provide enough stopping power (19mm) by all the 9mm Para haters out there."

(Scratches head, perplexed...)

Uhm...

I don't think I've ever come across anyone complaining that the CASE is to blame for the 9x19s supposed lack of stopping power...

Stopping power is normally the function of the bullet...

But, what the hell do I know...

[Lone_Gunman]

Langenator,

Before you started bashing Gaston Glock, maybe you should have thought your complaint through a little better.

I bet if you think real hard you can figure out why some companies call the 45 Automatic Colt Pistol round the 45 Auto...

[Langenator]

L_G-

I'm not really bashing Herr Glock, it's just that the first thing that popped into my head when I saw the add was all the discussion (most of it on this very board) about the ego factor when the .45 Glock was introduced.

Also, I've never seen the 357Sig refered to as the 357 Auto in any publication, forum or manufacturer's site. (the Steyr M-357 says 357Sig quite clearly on the slide.)

UPDATE-snooping around on Gunbroker (the filter at work blocks most gunmaker sites) I found this Glock 32 http://www.gunbroker.com/auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=13120009
which clearly says 357 Sig on the slide. And yet the ones in the ad say 357 Auto.

So why the change?

[Lone_Gunman]

So why the change?

Cuz Gaston don't want to advertise for the competition.

[RepublicanMan]

Mike,

you are of course right....the point I was attempting to make is simply that the .40 S&W and the .357Sig filled a niche in a market that needed it, the .45Gap doesn't. If you want a .45 and it has to be plastic, buy a 21 or a 30 or one of the others out there. I know some people will start ranting about being able to fit more in a magazine but I mean c'mon, how many more than 10 + 1 in a 21 do you really think you'll need before you have to reload?
Now if said cartridge proved to be more effective and a drastic improvement then I'd kindly ask you to pass the salt for the foot I'd be chewing on, doubt that's going to be the case however.

[TheeBadOne]

I've been told that the .45 GAP was made to appeal to people who want a .45 but don't like its large grip. The .45 GAP shortens the length of the grip. Time will tell if becomes a collectors curiosity or a mainstay with some group.

[BamBam]

Can you Glock haters go back to your usual whining about how Glocks shoot busloads of nuns while sitting unloaded in a safe....right before they blow up?
I'm just not up for a new attack on a world class weapon.

Thank you for your consideration.

[Lone_Gunman]

RepublicanMan,

The niche is in the eye of the beholder, and it could easily be argued that the 357 sig and 40 S&W dont fill any real niches either.

I don't own a 357 sig , 40 S&W, or a 45 GAP because they don't fill any of my perceived niches. I don't resent any of them for existing however.

[Aces]

Calling this thread lame would be to insult lameness.
Are Ruger, Smith, Taurus, etc. being egotistical by not putting .44 REMINGTON magnum on their revos?

[RepublicanMan]

Gunman....I don't resent them either......in fact I would like to grab a nice Sig in .357 just to have one.
I've owned a G23 in .40S&W and I was less than impressed not only with the pistol but with the cartridge as well........I'll stick to .45 and 9mm for my carry and the .357 for range fun.

[M58]

Except for me, I think Gaston makes more money than anyone here.
So he gets his way.:neener:

[SnWnMe]

Well, wouldn't it be cute if everybody else chambered the 45GAP in their products and called it the 45 SHORT? Heh!

[Tamara]

Funny, my Beretta 96D just says "Cal. .40" instead of ".40 S&W". Does Beretta have a titanic ego, too? :uhoh:

[Nightcrawler]

My S&W 25-5 says "45 COLT CTG" on the barrel. :D

[Zeke Menuar]

Is there a point to this excerise?

ZM

[CWL]

Let's not forget 9mm Luger. or is it now just 9mm or 9mmx19?

[cookhj]

spacemanspiff, the .357sig and .357mag are very similar in power. some loads in one will surpass that same load in the other, and vice versa. so the ad is correct. it IS magnum power in a smaller package.

[10-Ring]

I see nothing wrong w/ anyone w/ enough $$ feeding his own ego & on the off off, off, off off off chance Gaston's 45 GAP is a success that would be pure luck, right? :scrutiny: ;) :evil:

[C.R.Sam]

although I reckon the .45LC wasn't half bad either. Isn't

Sam

[Mike Irwin]

"Can you Glock haters go back to your usual whining about how Glocks shoot busloads of nuns while sitting unloaded in a safe....right before they blow up?
I'm just not up for a new attack on a world class weapon."

Uhm...

(scratching head, perplexed once again...)

So which do you want people to do, Bam?

Bash Glocks?

Or not bash Glocks because you're not up to it?

If it's Gaston that's being bashed, instead of the guns, are you OK with that?

Or not?

Just trying to make you happy... :evil:


Seriously, and quite frankly, I think this is an interesting question, and it does come up from time to time.

There's really no set way that any company has approached it over the years.

Some years they make guns with the name of the cartridge developed by the competitor emblazoned on it, and other years they simply rename the cartridge in their catalogs to get around the issue totally.

As for the .45 Colt being stamped on the side of an S&W, what other cartridge name could be stamped there and still convey the cartridge that's to be used?

You've sort of got to use the Colt name in that case.

In the case of many of the S&W developed rounds, you got several naming elements...

.38 S&W Special, which is easily shortened to .38 Spl., and etc.

[Tamara]

FWIW, .40 Glocks used to say ".40 S&W" on them, and the original .357SIG Glocks said ".357SIG" (I had a G33 that did.)

I know the "S&W" disappeared off the 22/23 after the Sigma snafu with S&W, but I'm not sure about the "SIG"...

[treeprof]

I think the 9mm, .40 and .45 have colloquial meanings that make "Parabellum", "S&W" and "ACP" largely superfluous in cartridge designations. Is Glock's decision to (at least no longer) put those designations on their firearms in deference to that? Probably not. In the case of "357" the colloquial reference is to .357 Mag, and not 357 SIG. But, the use of "357" in 357 SIG was itself a marketing ploy to make the 125 gr .357 Mag = 125 gr 357 SIG link, so that's partly SIG/Federal's cross to bear.

Everyone's going to posture and market in order to position their product most favorably, and the fact that we typically don't use formal cartridge designations in reference to 9 mm, .40 and .45 is testament to their unquestioned success in the marketplace. The .45 GAP will never replace the .45 ACP when referring to the ".45", and in that sense it will always occupy a 3rd tier position (behind even the .45 Colt) in the minds of most. If Gaston gets his jollies from seeing it in print and the odd dusty box of ammo, s'ok w/me, because I seriously doubt he's going to see it on a lot of pistols.

[Detritus]

ummm, just a point.. since i don't care one way or the other about Glocks in general, and the .45Gap cartridge is to me nothing more than "another raindrop in the pond".

BUT,

We (the US) are NOT who this round was designed for! MOSTLY the ".45Glock" was/is meant for sales in counties where a private citizen can not own a .45ACP b/c that is a "military round" (same places are the main market place of the .380 chambered Glocks as well). in such locales a "standard" .45 cal pistol that is available to the public is a GREAT marketing step.

so No i don't think the .45Gap has a niche here in the states, but then again neither did/do the glocks in .380, b/c we have acess to better rounds. but where access to the likes of 9mm PARABELLUM (i beleive the "luger" appellation was a post WW1 comercial thing) and .45ACP is limited or non-existant, the glock round will get a foothold.