The following was written shortly after I purchased a Glock 37, in late April last year. Enjoy. I have also posted it on Calguns.net.
“It doesn’t do anything the ACP doesn’t do…”
“I can’t buy a box at Wal-Mart…”
“It’s a solution in search of a problem…”
There are probably a good number of excuses out there of why people don’t like the .45 GAP. But many people go one step further, and lambast those of us who own, or even wish to experience shooting a gun chambered in .45 GAP. Yes, one thread I read (on which forum, I don’t recall) had somebody gleefully hoping that a day will come when all Glock 37 owners will have to sell their GAPs at severely discounted prices because nobody will want them. So, why the .45 GAP hate?
The purpose of the GAP is clearly stated: a .45 caliber round that duplicates .45 ACP ballistics that can be shot out of a 9mm frame design.
Compare that to the purpose of the ACP: a .45 caliber round that duplicates .45 LC ballistics that can be shot out of a semi-auto design.
So their intended purposes are quite similar. The first major difference is that the ACP is older. This means it operated at lower pressures and has had the opportunity to prove itself in war. By corollary, the .45 ACP has been able to accumulate many shooters, followers, and outright fanatics. The last in this group, the fanatics, are truly that. We all like the .45 ACP, but we also all know somebody that thinks that if you aren’t shooting .45 ACP, than you might as well be throwing jellybeans at an attacker. For a very good perspective on this, I suggest watching Mr. Colion Noir’s entertaining and astute YouTube video, “.45 acp Guns and The People Who Carry Them (Full Video).”
The second major difference is in the ability to meet their design parameters. The GAP usually comes in a very close second to the ACP in head-to-head ballistic matches, but still holds its ground well. The .45 Long Colt, though, is far superior to the ACP in terms of energy. The Long Colt can often push heavier bullets at faster velocities than the ACP. Thus, the GAP actually wins that bout.
Now let’s take a look at capacity. I have heard how ridiculous the Glock 37’s capacity is, considering the Glock 21 has a 13 round standard capacity. Now, as far as I go, I live in Kalifornistan, so it is a moot point for me. But for the ACP die-hards, does the 7-round 1911 seem neutered compared to the Glock 37 for having three less rounds?
I wish that there was a gentle way to put this, but there isn’t. I think that the hate for the .45 GAP comes mostly from .45 ACP fanatics, and is rooted in the fact that no argument against the normal ACP competitors (9mm, .357 Sig, .40 S&W, and even 10mm), can really be levelled against the GAP. The only real arguments they have against it are the ones 9mm carriers have against the ACP: capacity and price.
I will, however, concede on the issue of availability. For starters, finding ammo is pretty hard. But then again, so was finding .45 ACP (or anything else) about a year and a half ago. But part of that is supply and demand. If ACP carriers were to all switch to GAP, then by next month Wal-Mart would be carrying GAP, and most manufacturers would be producing it. Economies of scale would kick in, and prices on GAP would fall, likely to around the same as the .45 ACP.
All this being said, I decided to buy a Glock 37. To those who are about to whine and ask why I didn’t just buy a Glock 21… I didn’t buy one because I already own one. Other reasons for buying the 37 is that I can get aftermarket slides and barrels to convert it to .30 Luger, 9mm, .357 Sig, and .40 S&W (I currently can run .38 Super, 10mm, .400 Corbon, .40 Super, .45 ACP, .460 Rowland and .50 GI off of my 21 frame). A few stores in town had GAP ammo, but most of it was defense ammo, and priced accordingly. When buying from a local store, I asked for some .45 GAP, and they asked “You got suckered in to buying one of those?” So, the GAP hate pervades at many levels. The ammo certainly is harder to find and more expensive. But to a guy who shoots .50 GI (manufactured and sold exclusively by Guncrafter Industries), it is nice to have a somewhat exotic caliber that can still be bought locally.
The one exterior difference that distinguishes the Glock 37 from the 17, 22 and the 31 is the flared slide release. The slide is obviously going to be a little wider to accommodate the wider barrel, and it must be thicker to handle the heavier recoil. However, this poses a problem for Glock’s K.I. S.S. design philosophy in that it would make accessing the normal style slide release quite difficult. This flared slide release is actually kind of a plus for me, as I have never been a fan of the Glock slide release. It is also nice for anybody that may, like me, want to convert to another caliber. The slightly widened catch button will facilitate the operation of the gun in any caliber. For some, this sounds stupid, but you should keep in mind that many people, such as me, have fairly small hands, and twisting one’s wrist to allow sufficient leverage on a slide release can be awkward, but necessary.
The round I was going to be using for the day was Speer Lawman 200 grain hardball (the box looked like it had been on the shelf for quite some time). The GAP tends to have a flat nose bullet, similar to the truncated cone design often found in .357 Sig (or the defunct .356 TSW) or .40 S&W (or the 10mm Auto). I personally am fond of the flat-nose, it makes me feel as though the bullet would simulate JHP rounds better, and perform on targets more effectively, for those jurisdictions that prohibit hollow points (yes, places like that do exist here in the People’s Republic of California).
When I went to the range the first time, I was expecting the gentle push of the .45 ACP. I was a little surprised when I got the rocketing kick of something closer to a 10mm. I grinned with delight. Because I am no stranger to handguns, I decided to shoot a tad faster than normal, still refraining from breaking the range’s 1-shot-per-second policy. Groups probably suffered, but I have no prior experience with this exact handgun, so I can’t really say. The bullets all went in the general direction that I was intending them to go. I did notice that I seemed less likely to jerk, shake or drop the muzzle. I attribute this to the smaller grips that are far more comfortable for my embarrassingly petite hands. Whatever the reason, I shot groups that were an average size of 2.7” at 10 yards. The groups were measured outside to outside of the holes farthest away from each other. Each group consisted of 10 rounds.
I normally buy extra magazines for my guns, but extras for the 37 had to be ordered, and so were unavailable for this pistol’s debut. The magazines don’t cost any more than you would expect to pay over the counter for a normal Glock magazine, i.e., the $25-$30 range. The only problem I experienced in the fifty rounds that I shot was a failure to feed in the second magazine. This actually happened the first time I shot my Glock 21, and I put it down to magazine break-in time. I will watch for issues in the future, though. After all, the .45 GAP is a short, fat little guy, and correct orientation may end up being a more difficult affair than in other thinner or longer rounds. Something else I noticed is that there is a slight rightwards impact on this particular gun. Just a tad, but consistent enough on all groups to justify adding it into the review.
Picking up the cases, I immediately noticed the signs of high-pressure. A minor stamping of the firing pin channel opening was clearly visible, and there was certainly some cratering. Well, that .45 bullet is a heavy thing to push, and there isn’t much powder to do it, so higher pressures are just one of the costs of upgrading from the lower calibers. As far as distance, ejection was rather modest; most cases simply popped back a couple of feet when they were ejected. They certainly did not have an expressed propensity to go on trips to Jamaica, like I experienced when I first shot the .40 Super out of my Glock 21.
Of course, being a Glock, this range trip was nothing spectacular, but it did have me 50 rounds deeper into the dark and pleasant abysses of gun-nut-topia. When asked by the rangemaster how the new Glock was working out, I could summarize briefly: “Big holes, small gun…” With 10 round magazines, in California, what more could I want?
So, what do I think? Any post I put up hints at (usually in a blatant statement) the fact that I am a caliber whore. In the end, so long as it goes boom, I will be more than willing to shoot it. Yes, it gets expensive, but the point of having a hobby is to make sure that you are having fun while stimulating the economy. And If I wasn’t spending it here, I would be spending it somewhere else. But the question persists… do I recommend it?
For those who are not averse to fairly stout recoil, but do not have big enough mitts to wrap around ye olde 21, then I would recommend this. If you are a 103-year old guy who associates the .45 ACP round with all that is good, just, righteous, and American, then you are probably not going to care whether or not I recommend this round (which I do, but mostly because it chaps your *** that I do). Also, if you are that kind of person, you are probably going to stick with the ACP. All in all, I think that the round has a definitive stamp of “O.K.;” nothing mind-blowing, but far from the spawn of Satan that it is usually made out to be.
Updates since I wrote the above review:
When I was purchasing my Glock 37, there was a firearms instructor hanging around the sparsely populated gun store, chatting with the workers. When he noticed that I was buying a Glock 37, he told me that it was an excellent caliber. Something I don’t usually hear out of guys with thinning, grey hair.
When I took my CCW course recently, I used my .45 GAP as my qualifying weapon. There were about a dozen people in the class, most had very little experience with handguns. Some of them had only purchased their handguns recently, meaning that (given the CCW application processing time) these people had been handgun owners for less than 2 months. Of the dozen or so students in my class, the instructor ( a different one than I met at the store the day I bought the gun) only asked to shoot one of the student’s guns; my .45 GAP. He got a few rounds out of it, and told me how much he enjoys the GAP round.
Since then, I have bumped into two other instructors, and both have mentioned that the .45 GAP is a good caliber, on par with any of the popular or semi-popular semi-auto rounds. It seems that firearms instructors are pretty much the only people I have bumped into that didn’t rip the GAP for being stupid, unnecessary, or whatever the derogatory catchphrase of the day was.
I have also shot a few more boxes of ammo, and I am pleased to report that the firearm has functioned flawlessly since I first wrote this review.
Finally, I managed to borrow a Glock 22 upper assembly. I tried it out on my GAP frame, and it executed its functions without any failures. The ejectors are slightly different, with the GAP having a bent ejector, and the .40 S&W having a straight one. So if you happen to be able to purchase a Glock 37, at least you can do so with the comfort that you will be able to convert it to a .40 S&W (or .357 Sig) with your spare change.
“It doesn’t do anything the ACP doesn’t do…”
“I can’t buy a box at Wal-Mart…”
“It’s a solution in search of a problem…”
There are probably a good number of excuses out there of why people don’t like the .45 GAP. But many people go one step further, and lambast those of us who own, or even wish to experience shooting a gun chambered in .45 GAP. Yes, one thread I read (on which forum, I don’t recall) had somebody gleefully hoping that a day will come when all Glock 37 owners will have to sell their GAPs at severely discounted prices because nobody will want them. So, why the .45 GAP hate?
The purpose of the GAP is clearly stated: a .45 caliber round that duplicates .45 ACP ballistics that can be shot out of a 9mm frame design.
Compare that to the purpose of the ACP: a .45 caliber round that duplicates .45 LC ballistics that can be shot out of a semi-auto design.
So their intended purposes are quite similar. The first major difference is that the ACP is older. This means it operated at lower pressures and has had the opportunity to prove itself in war. By corollary, the .45 ACP has been able to accumulate many shooters, followers, and outright fanatics. The last in this group, the fanatics, are truly that. We all like the .45 ACP, but we also all know somebody that thinks that if you aren’t shooting .45 ACP, than you might as well be throwing jellybeans at an attacker. For a very good perspective on this, I suggest watching Mr. Colion Noir’s entertaining and astute YouTube video, “.45 acp Guns and The People Who Carry Them (Full Video).”
The second major difference is in the ability to meet their design parameters. The GAP usually comes in a very close second to the ACP in head-to-head ballistic matches, but still holds its ground well. The .45 Long Colt, though, is far superior to the ACP in terms of energy. The Long Colt can often push heavier bullets at faster velocities than the ACP. Thus, the GAP actually wins that bout.
Now let’s take a look at capacity. I have heard how ridiculous the Glock 37’s capacity is, considering the Glock 21 has a 13 round standard capacity. Now, as far as I go, I live in Kalifornistan, so it is a moot point for me. But for the ACP die-hards, does the 7-round 1911 seem neutered compared to the Glock 37 for having three less rounds?
I wish that there was a gentle way to put this, but there isn’t. I think that the hate for the .45 GAP comes mostly from .45 ACP fanatics, and is rooted in the fact that no argument against the normal ACP competitors (9mm, .357 Sig, .40 S&W, and even 10mm), can really be levelled against the GAP. The only real arguments they have against it are the ones 9mm carriers have against the ACP: capacity and price.
I will, however, concede on the issue of availability. For starters, finding ammo is pretty hard. But then again, so was finding .45 ACP (or anything else) about a year and a half ago. But part of that is supply and demand. If ACP carriers were to all switch to GAP, then by next month Wal-Mart would be carrying GAP, and most manufacturers would be producing it. Economies of scale would kick in, and prices on GAP would fall, likely to around the same as the .45 ACP.
All this being said, I decided to buy a Glock 37. To those who are about to whine and ask why I didn’t just buy a Glock 21… I didn’t buy one because I already own one. Other reasons for buying the 37 is that I can get aftermarket slides and barrels to convert it to .30 Luger, 9mm, .357 Sig, and .40 S&W (I currently can run .38 Super, 10mm, .400 Corbon, .40 Super, .45 ACP, .460 Rowland and .50 GI off of my 21 frame). A few stores in town had GAP ammo, but most of it was defense ammo, and priced accordingly. When buying from a local store, I asked for some .45 GAP, and they asked “You got suckered in to buying one of those?” So, the GAP hate pervades at many levels. The ammo certainly is harder to find and more expensive. But to a guy who shoots .50 GI (manufactured and sold exclusively by Guncrafter Industries), it is nice to have a somewhat exotic caliber that can still be bought locally.
The one exterior difference that distinguishes the Glock 37 from the 17, 22 and the 31 is the flared slide release. The slide is obviously going to be a little wider to accommodate the wider barrel, and it must be thicker to handle the heavier recoil. However, this poses a problem for Glock’s K.I. S.S. design philosophy in that it would make accessing the normal style slide release quite difficult. This flared slide release is actually kind of a plus for me, as I have never been a fan of the Glock slide release. It is also nice for anybody that may, like me, want to convert to another caliber. The slightly widened catch button will facilitate the operation of the gun in any caliber. For some, this sounds stupid, but you should keep in mind that many people, such as me, have fairly small hands, and twisting one’s wrist to allow sufficient leverage on a slide release can be awkward, but necessary.
The round I was going to be using for the day was Speer Lawman 200 grain hardball (the box looked like it had been on the shelf for quite some time). The GAP tends to have a flat nose bullet, similar to the truncated cone design often found in .357 Sig (or the defunct .356 TSW) or .40 S&W (or the 10mm Auto). I personally am fond of the flat-nose, it makes me feel as though the bullet would simulate JHP rounds better, and perform on targets more effectively, for those jurisdictions that prohibit hollow points (yes, places like that do exist here in the People’s Republic of California).
When I went to the range the first time, I was expecting the gentle push of the .45 ACP. I was a little surprised when I got the rocketing kick of something closer to a 10mm. I grinned with delight. Because I am no stranger to handguns, I decided to shoot a tad faster than normal, still refraining from breaking the range’s 1-shot-per-second policy. Groups probably suffered, but I have no prior experience with this exact handgun, so I can’t really say. The bullets all went in the general direction that I was intending them to go. I did notice that I seemed less likely to jerk, shake or drop the muzzle. I attribute this to the smaller grips that are far more comfortable for my embarrassingly petite hands. Whatever the reason, I shot groups that were an average size of 2.7” at 10 yards. The groups were measured outside to outside of the holes farthest away from each other. Each group consisted of 10 rounds.
I normally buy extra magazines for my guns, but extras for the 37 had to be ordered, and so were unavailable for this pistol’s debut. The magazines don’t cost any more than you would expect to pay over the counter for a normal Glock magazine, i.e., the $25-$30 range. The only problem I experienced in the fifty rounds that I shot was a failure to feed in the second magazine. This actually happened the first time I shot my Glock 21, and I put it down to magazine break-in time. I will watch for issues in the future, though. After all, the .45 GAP is a short, fat little guy, and correct orientation may end up being a more difficult affair than in other thinner or longer rounds. Something else I noticed is that there is a slight rightwards impact on this particular gun. Just a tad, but consistent enough on all groups to justify adding it into the review.
Picking up the cases, I immediately noticed the signs of high-pressure. A minor stamping of the firing pin channel opening was clearly visible, and there was certainly some cratering. Well, that .45 bullet is a heavy thing to push, and there isn’t much powder to do it, so higher pressures are just one of the costs of upgrading from the lower calibers. As far as distance, ejection was rather modest; most cases simply popped back a couple of feet when they were ejected. They certainly did not have an expressed propensity to go on trips to Jamaica, like I experienced when I first shot the .40 Super out of my Glock 21.
Of course, being a Glock, this range trip was nothing spectacular, but it did have me 50 rounds deeper into the dark and pleasant abysses of gun-nut-topia. When asked by the rangemaster how the new Glock was working out, I could summarize briefly: “Big holes, small gun…” With 10 round magazines, in California, what more could I want?
So, what do I think? Any post I put up hints at (usually in a blatant statement) the fact that I am a caliber whore. In the end, so long as it goes boom, I will be more than willing to shoot it. Yes, it gets expensive, but the point of having a hobby is to make sure that you are having fun while stimulating the economy. And If I wasn’t spending it here, I would be spending it somewhere else. But the question persists… do I recommend it?
For those who are not averse to fairly stout recoil, but do not have big enough mitts to wrap around ye olde 21, then I would recommend this. If you are a 103-year old guy who associates the .45 ACP round with all that is good, just, righteous, and American, then you are probably not going to care whether or not I recommend this round (which I do, but mostly because it chaps your *** that I do). Also, if you are that kind of person, you are probably going to stick with the ACP. All in all, I think that the round has a definitive stamp of “O.K.;” nothing mind-blowing, but far from the spawn of Satan that it is usually made out to be.
Updates since I wrote the above review:
When I was purchasing my Glock 37, there was a firearms instructor hanging around the sparsely populated gun store, chatting with the workers. When he noticed that I was buying a Glock 37, he told me that it was an excellent caliber. Something I don’t usually hear out of guys with thinning, grey hair.
When I took my CCW course recently, I used my .45 GAP as my qualifying weapon. There were about a dozen people in the class, most had very little experience with handguns. Some of them had only purchased their handguns recently, meaning that (given the CCW application processing time) these people had been handgun owners for less than 2 months. Of the dozen or so students in my class, the instructor ( a different one than I met at the store the day I bought the gun) only asked to shoot one of the student’s guns; my .45 GAP. He got a few rounds out of it, and told me how much he enjoys the GAP round.
Since then, I have bumped into two other instructors, and both have mentioned that the .45 GAP is a good caliber, on par with any of the popular or semi-popular semi-auto rounds. It seems that firearms instructors are pretty much the only people I have bumped into that didn’t rip the GAP for being stupid, unnecessary, or whatever the derogatory catchphrase of the day was.
I have also shot a few more boxes of ammo, and I am pleased to report that the firearm has functioned flawlessly since I first wrote this review.
Finally, I managed to borrow a Glock 22 upper assembly. I tried it out on my GAP frame, and it executed its functions without any failures. The ejectors are slightly different, with the GAP having a bent ejector, and the .40 S&W having a straight one. So if you happen to be able to purchase a Glock 37, at least you can do so with the comfort that you will be able to convert it to a .40 S&W (or .357 Sig) with your spare change.
