Lol!! The brass they picked up then realized they couldn't use!
Lol!! The brass they picked up then realized they couldn't use!
Ah, this the G37 was my first handgun. The biggest problem with it was the cost of the ammo. It was difficult to buy it off the street for cheaper than a $1.20/bullet. Online, $1/bullet was the norm unless you wanted to spend several hundred in bulk for reloads.
I remember too well the infamous FBI shootout in Florida that eventually spawned the .40 S (short) & W (weak). To begin with the 10mm was looked at for agents to replace 9mms, .38spls and .357mags until far too many people turned out to be allergic to the 10mm. I'm one of them: I bought a Delta Elite and no matter how hard I worked I could never be comfortable with it in stress situations. They ended up shortening the 10mm to the .40S&W for operator issues. I carried a .40 on duty and after retiring until I "discovered" the .357Sig. The.45 GAP always just seemed to be an answer for a question that didn't exist until after the answer was given.
As I've been saying for years, the main touted "advantage" of it ain't actually an advantage - at least not anymore. The primary touted advantage is ".45 in a smaller grip size." That was true for about 6 months to a year after it came out, until a gun company that has actually innovated since the 1980s (Taurus) came out with the Mil Pro and then the 24/7 in .45 acp with a grip just as good and small as the Glocks in GAP, if not better, and then several other makers eventually followed suit over the last 5-10 years. Strong polymer and other materials and design innovation allowed reduced grip size on ACPs, and then the GAP immediately became a pointless exercise. Have you HELD a Taurus 24/7 in .45 acp? If you have small-medium hands, as do I, it feels a damn sight better than a Glock in 9mm/40/GAP, even before taking into account the grip angle. Even if you're a Taurus-hater, there are others now. Even Wilson makes a slim 2-stack polymer 1911 in ACP that feels every bit as ergo as a Glock in 9/40/GAP. I mean, this issue is one of great interest to me, being a semi-auto guy (mainly), and having small-medium hands that don't fit right with giant .45s/10mms, so I followed it closely and was quite excited about the GAP when it first came out, as well I should have been - and I was even already "off of glocks" by then. But it didn't take long for the competition to make it a bit of a futile exercise.
So, the touted advantage is indeed an advantage, but *if and only if, for some reason, you feel like you MUST buy guns from the industry dead-last laggers in innovation* - Glock. If you are willing to buy from an innovator (many other makers) who went into the R&D labs and slimmed up their ACPs, then of course no reason to not choose the a 100+ year old proven round with lower pressures. And why wouldn't you, given the many other ways Glock has failed to keep up with innovation in features and quality of the other poly pistol companies - particularly S&W, Ruger, FN, Magnum Research, and even Taurus -- but others too.
Having said all that - hell, nothing wrong with it - if GAP humps your camel, then by all means shoot it and enjoy it. My buddy makes fun of me all the time for messing with 'oddball' rounds (in his worldview) like .260 Rem, .218 Bee, .280 Rem, 6.5x55, .45 Colt, 28 ga, etc. And he may have a point on some of them, with cost/hassle of brass, loaded ammo, etc. But it floats my boat, so why the heck not?
I don't care for .40 S&W anymore either, because it's got little to no wiggle room for reloading errors, particularly with partially unsupported 6 oclocks, but I'll admit it's a heck of a good goldilocks-compromise round between the legends - 9mm and .45, if you're willing to stick to quality-controlled factory loads so that you know pressures are always the same.
Be sure to read up on the theory of "Burn Superiority" and the GAP:
http://www.realguns.com/Commentary/comar81.htm
So, the touted advantage is indeed an advantage, but *if and only if, for some reason, you feel like you MUST buy guns from the industry dead-last laggers in innovation* - Glock. If you are willing to buy from an innovator (many other makers) who went into the R&D labs and slimmed up their ACPs, then of course no reason to not choose the a 100+ year old proven round with lower pressures. And why wouldn't you, given the many other ways Glock has failed to keep up with innovation in features and quality of the other poly pistol companies - particularly S&W, Ruger, FN, Magnum Research, and even Taurus -- but others too.
Having said all that - hell, nothing wrong with it - if GAP humps your camel, then by all means shoot it and enjoy it. My buddy makes fun of me all the time for messing with 'oddball' rounds (in his worldview) like .260 Rem, .218 Bee, .280 Rem, 6.5x55, .45 Colt, 28 ga, etc. And he may have a point on some of them, with cost/hassle of brass, loaded ammo, etc. But it floats my boat, so why the heck not?
I don't care for .40 S&W anymore either, because it's got little to no wiggle room for reloading errors, particularly with partially unsupported 6 oclocks, but I'll admit it's a heck of a good goldilocks-compromise round between the legends - 9mm and .45, if you're willing to stick to quality-controlled factory loads so that you know pressures are always the same.
Be sure to read up on the theory of "Burn Superiority" and the GAP:
http://www.realguns.com/Commentary/comar81.htm
