I had to go out and read the article after reading this thread ...
I seldom buy these magazines anymore ... not unless they offer some objective, factual information that I can't easily obtain elsewhere, or, have some articles about SA revolvers with nicely done photography ...
However, the margin of performance is not significant - we're talking 50-80 fps in velocity, or less sometimes.
You can get a variation on 8% between lots of the same ammo, or between individual rounds in the same box of the same ammo.
Anyway, as I thumbed through the article, I was stuck by the same thoughts expressed by both Preacherman & BrokenArrow, quoted above ...
Also, I noticed a distinct lack of +P .45 ACP ammunition in the comparison.
Now, while I'm NOT a big advocate of +P .45 ACP ammunition, it would seem that it would be reasonable to compare some similarly higher pressure .45 ACP rounds against the 45GAP. Of course, the +P .45 ACP offers the "disadvantage" of only being offered in .45 ACP-size platforms ... and it may cancel any "velocity advantage" of the 45GAP. (Muzzle energy comparisons aren't something that really interests me anymore).
I haven't shot a 45GAP yet ... apparently nobody's been interested in buying one around here and bringing it to our range
... so I can't speak from any personal experience about how I may perceive the recoil controllability of the new round compared against either standard pressure or a +P .45 ACP. That MAY affect my thoughts on this new caliber/cartridge. I'll have to wait and see ...
It seems it remains to be seen whether this new round will appear to fill some "niche" in the handgun world of "defensive pistols".
Arguably "similar" performance compared to standard pressure .45 ACP, and generally less performance compared to +P .45 ACP ... but at pressures closer to +P than standard pressure .45 ACP.
The real popularity ... and success ... of this round may well turn out to be determined by the "advantages" of any "new" models or platforms in which it's offered. As someone already mentioned, it might attract a following if it were chambered in something actually small, like a Kahr ... or where the platform really didn't easily lend itself to the slightly longer .45 ACP round.
Will this new round revolutionize the very concept of the .45 ACP? Will it cause the .45 ACP to become relegated to the same niche occupied by the 10mm?
Dunno ... anything's possible ...
But there's just SO many folks that CAN handle a full size .45 ACP pistol, and so many quality .45 ACP pistols to choose from ...
If this new round didn't have "Glock" in its name, would we even be having these discussions? Would everyone be waxing enthusiastic if AMT had been involved in releasing this new round? Iver Johnson? Harrington & Richardson? Astra?
Can it really stand upon its own merits? Without any glaringly obvious, overwhelming superiority exhibited by the 45GAP ... which didn't appear "proven" by the article ... I'd have to see some overwhelming advantage offered by the platform itelf, before I'd be interested in considering it. Is there such a large group of folks out there who fall into that hoped-for-demographic of absolutely NOT being able to hold a G21 in their hands, but CAN easily accomodate a G37, with it's only slightly different sized grip frame? If there is ... there you go ... the caliber will offer a distinct advantage which will ensure its market success.
We'll see, I suppose ...