Sven
Senior Member
Sorry for mis-quoting the wrong dimensions.
The new ".45 Glock" round
- Thread starter Tall Man
- Start date
- Status
frettedfive
Member
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
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
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
Sean Smith
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 4,925
By most measures, .40 S&W is alot LESS efficient than 10mm. That doesn't make it a bad cartridge, however. Read on... 
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).
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).
Awesome info, thanks!
I guess I was wrong about efficiency... the point I was trying to make you summed up very well with
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.
I guess I was wrong about efficiency... the point I was trying to make you summed up very well with
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
Member
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
I am not bashing glock , I like them for what they are I just hate the trigger feel of them.
If they want to impress me they need to figure out how to give the glock a decent trigger
I am not bashing glock , I like them for what they are I just hate the trigger feel of them.
only1asterisk
member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 2,412
Krept,
You weren't "wrong", just using a different measure of efficiency. What kind of .45 do have?
David
You weren't "wrong", just using a different measure of efficiency. What kind of .45 do have?
David
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.
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.
... 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
Member
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/
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/
- Status