Why 45GAP doesn't interest me
(That's *me* *me* *me*!
)
There are jillions of calibers out there, and all of them were created for some reason -- that is, "it seemed like a good idea at the time."
.45GAP's "good idea" isn't a hard one to comprehend, and everyone knows it -- ballistics of a .45ACP in a case short enough to make feasible smaller grips than those found on (up to then) .45 pistols. ("Good idea" #2 of course, is the thought on the part of Glock and Speer that they'd benefit if the cartridge caught on.)
So, I find nothing wrong with the cartridge conceptually -- and I'd be content with it as my main one, in fact, if not for two things:
a) Common ammo is good. It's a bit like why I have an iPod despite some objections (proprietary battery, opaque file organization*); the network effects are tremendous. Similarly with ammo; Yes, you can reload (most) cartridges, but by sticking with an ammo type that's 102 years old and still well-liked, I think that I've upped my odds I'll have ready, affordable access to that same ammo in 20 or 50 years. That way I don't need to pass on to my (hypothetical) grandchildren "This 20th century gun and this chest full of reloading equipment and hoarded ingredients."
Also, though I intend to start soon, I don't yet do *any* reloading -- just saving brass, so far! Even with the idea of keeping to commonly available ammo types, it's still easy to fall into collecting quite a few kinds; so far, I'm holding at .22, 9mm, 12ga and .45, but that's already 4, and a .223 is sounding good. (And one day a 50BMG?) But each of these is distinct enough from the others, and at least slightly cheaper than the next-nearest-most-similar cousin, that I'm not tempted to expand into 9mm Makarov, or .357sig, or 17HMR, or or or ... guns are an expensive hobby, so I have to budget according to money I can rationalize "doesn't get spent on beer or cigarettes" -- not that it would anyhow, in my case.
(Vicissitudes of fortune:If 45GAP of today had been named 45ACP in 1905, and one metric planetful of guns had been designed around it, then great, it would probably be my pick. When the more flexible but longer 45EXT (Extended -- looks and tastes just like today's 45ACP
) was introduced in this alternate reality, I'd most likely shun it on the basis that the differences aren't enough to give up a smaller grip and easy ammo availability.)
b) Though my hands are small for an adult man's (genetic curse), .45 pistols I've handled just haven't been that bad. A Desert Eagle in 50AE, *that's* too big
. It says something about the XD45 that everyone's naming it as the reason that .45GAP suddenly seems like less of a breakthrough than advertised, because 14 rounds fit into a very handleable package. I'll chime in with another vote on that idea right now! (However, it's a bit slippery, since the GAP's size means that makers can just create an even *smaller* pistol equivalent; Springfield themselves have done this with the EMP, smaller than the .45ACP chambered Micro 1911, and, since they're supporting the GAP cartridge in one line, I'd be surprised if they didn't soon come out with an XD45GAP.) Upshot is that I agree with the refrain that the .45GAP is a "solution for a problem that doesn't exist" -- for me
For folks with even smaller hands than me, though, I get it, and applaud. Just don't want it for myself.
EDIT: As XDKingslayer points out, there *is* an XD in .45GAP, which I had wiped from my gloriously wrinkle-free brain. Somewhere, I have the poster that shows it, too. D'oh! Maybe I'd forgotten it because I haven't seen one for sale in the past 18 months
timothy
* It's off topic in this forum except as a passing mention, so I don't get deeply into it, but here's how I resolved one of my objections to the iPod:
http://tinyurl.com/ybo5bw
).