Well, ok, sounds like you're seriously asking....
In a nutshell, here's my take on it.
1. People loved and love the .45, believing it to be, as I do, an excellent or even the best, balance of incapacitating power, low pressure, reasonable capacity, etc. Extremely popular.
2. People love 2-stack guns, because they love capacity. They want their .45s to hold more than 7 or 8 rounds.
3. Ahhh, but alas, the 2-stack guns in .45 are thick in the grip area - fine for a lot of people, but a real negative to those who prefer the more solid hold/feel to having a thinner grip - not feel like hanging onto a 2x4. Big part of the market is not being reached there.
4. So, companies essentially take two competing approaches to solve this problem. Two competing ideas in the marketplace.....
5. Camp #1 is Glock. They take the approach of "build a new cartridge which is shorter but has in essence the same performance. If the cartridge is shorter front to back, the hangun's grip front to back can also accordingly be reduced, thereby reducing the overall girth without having to innovate and change the existing *width* of the grip and/or magazines. Even though just as wide, it feels better in the hand because shorter front to back. Plus, we get to name the new round after ourself as a bonus."
6. Camp #2 takes the engineering innovation approach, and decides to build a better gun with the same existing cartridge. This camp was led by Taurus, with the Millenium/Millenium Pro/ 24-7 series of pistols. Wilson's polymer-framed 2-stack 1911, though not a big player in the market, was also an example of this innovation. What they did is simply re-design the grip and magazine with modern strong materials not even available in the early 80s when Glock created its first model 17 (improved polymers in the frame, and metals & polymers in the mags), as well as adjusting '2-stack stacking angle' a bit, making them a wee bit thinner on all four sides, significantly reducing the girth, such that the grip feels essentially just like the vast majority of 9mm and .40 cal guns out there. The Tauri in these series did and do feel great.
7. These ideas competed in the marketplace. A few makers jumped on the Glock approach, offering pistols in GAP. A few other makers followed Taurus's lead - went back to the drawing board, re-designed from scratch, and made nice, ergo .45 acp guns - these include SW with M&P, Walther, and some others. Some makers did both.
8. Ultimately, Glock sorely lost this war of competing approaches, as well it should have, because its approach was a much poorer one, and reflected its continuing typical habit of failure to innovate/ laziness if you will. New round, new dies, higher cost of shelf ammo, higher pressure, slightly less performance, and WHY? Only one reason - to get a smaller grip. Taurus and then others eliminated this reason altogether. No reason left to go GAP (other than koolaid poisoning.
). To me, it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out that you're not gonna overcome inertia since 1906 or thereabouts in a round as fantastic as .45 acp, without having a really really good reason for change. Their reason was completely eliminated by Taurus, and Glock should have seen it coming 10 miles away.
9. Thus, the world is as it should be. The better idea won the day in the free marketplace. YMMV.
There's nothing wrong with the GAP round, or selecting it, if it suits your fancy, in the grand scheme of things, and since it had the backing and inertia of Glock's initial offering behind it, it will remain a cult caliber, and thus have brass & dies available, probably for another few decades if not couple hundred years. Heck, people still reload .38 S&W, .30 Tok, 9mm largo, .44-40, and any number of other obsure, or semi-obscure cartridges. So the GAP is here to stay in that sense. But it's dead in the water as far as a popular caliber goes. It's deader than .357 sig by a good margin, isn't it?
In a nutshell, here's my take on it.
1. People loved and love the .45, believing it to be, as I do, an excellent or even the best, balance of incapacitating power, low pressure, reasonable capacity, etc. Extremely popular.
2. People love 2-stack guns, because they love capacity. They want their .45s to hold more than 7 or 8 rounds.
3. Ahhh, but alas, the 2-stack guns in .45 are thick in the grip area - fine for a lot of people, but a real negative to those who prefer the more solid hold/feel to having a thinner grip - not feel like hanging onto a 2x4. Big part of the market is not being reached there.
4. So, companies essentially take two competing approaches to solve this problem. Two competing ideas in the marketplace.....
5. Camp #1 is Glock. They take the approach of "build a new cartridge which is shorter but has in essence the same performance. If the cartridge is shorter front to back, the hangun's grip front to back can also accordingly be reduced, thereby reducing the overall girth without having to innovate and change the existing *width* of the grip and/or magazines. Even though just as wide, it feels better in the hand because shorter front to back. Plus, we get to name the new round after ourself as a bonus."
6. Camp #2 takes the engineering innovation approach, and decides to build a better gun with the same existing cartridge. This camp was led by Taurus, with the Millenium/Millenium Pro/ 24-7 series of pistols. Wilson's polymer-framed 2-stack 1911, though not a big player in the market, was also an example of this innovation. What they did is simply re-design the grip and magazine with modern strong materials not even available in the early 80s when Glock created its first model 17 (improved polymers in the frame, and metals & polymers in the mags), as well as adjusting '2-stack stacking angle' a bit, making them a wee bit thinner on all four sides, significantly reducing the girth, such that the grip feels essentially just like the vast majority of 9mm and .40 cal guns out there. The Tauri in these series did and do feel great.
7. These ideas competed in the marketplace. A few makers jumped on the Glock approach, offering pistols in GAP. A few other makers followed Taurus's lead - went back to the drawing board, re-designed from scratch, and made nice, ergo .45 acp guns - these include SW with M&P, Walther, and some others. Some makers did both.
8. Ultimately, Glock sorely lost this war of competing approaches, as well it should have, because its approach was a much poorer one, and reflected its continuing typical habit of failure to innovate/ laziness if you will. New round, new dies, higher cost of shelf ammo, higher pressure, slightly less performance, and WHY? Only one reason - to get a smaller grip. Taurus and then others eliminated this reason altogether. No reason left to go GAP (other than koolaid poisoning.
). To me, it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out that you're not gonna overcome inertia since 1906 or thereabouts in a round as fantastic as .45 acp, without having a really really good reason for change. Their reason was completely eliminated by Taurus, and Glock should have seen it coming 10 miles away.9. Thus, the world is as it should be. The better idea won the day in the free marketplace. YMMV.
There's nothing wrong with the GAP round, or selecting it, if it suits your fancy, in the grand scheme of things, and since it had the backing and inertia of Glock's initial offering behind it, it will remain a cult caliber, and thus have brass & dies available, probably for another few decades if not couple hundred years. Heck, people still reload .38 S&W, .30 Tok, 9mm largo, .44-40, and any number of other obsure, or semi-obscure cartridges. So the GAP is here to stay in that sense. But it's dead in the water as far as a popular caliber goes. It's deader than .357 sig by a good margin, isn't it?
Rather, I'm talking those that are for some reason REALLY distressed by the caliber. This subject always brings some good haters for some reason.
GED, I won't lie, Buds has them for $379 so I thought about it.
You should probably ask them about it.
I thought the discontinued ones are just the O. D. (Olive Drab) frame, not that they are discontinuing the G 37/38/39. Bud's had a note about Glock dropping O.D. frames completely.
So, who here is an operator and qualified to give me their opinion?
*snicker*
The .45GAP, regardless of its inadequacies, perceived or not, is a good thing. One could say we have all the handgun calibers we need, I say nay. Without the 10mm, you wouldnt have the .40s&w. Who knows what the .45GAP could lead to.
Like a scrotum, here it is in a nutshell, People hate the .45GAP for 2 reasons that I can think of...
1.) they hate Glocks and anything associated
2.) Haters just gotta hate.
As my cousing LeRondo says, "Hate the shooter, not the caliber."
*snicker*
The .45GAP, regardless of its inadequacies, perceived or not, is a good thing. One could say we have all the handgun calibers we need, I say nay. Without the 10mm, you wouldnt have the .40s&w. Who knows what the .45GAP could lead to.
Like a scrotum, here it is in a nutshell, People hate the .45GAP for 2 reasons that I can think of...
1.) they hate Glocks and anything associated
2.) Haters just gotta hate.
As my cousing LeRondo says, "Hate the shooter, not the caliber."
Well since you asked, up untill very recently I was a "special operator"......for AT&T...Special long distance operator, and I try to stay out of "the real world" when possible. Would you like that charged to your card?
Well since you asked, up untill very recently I was a "special operator"......for AT&T...Special long distance operator, and I try to stay out of "the real world" when possible. Would you like that charged to your card?
Black Ops Switchboarding? Or is switchboarding outlawed under geneva?
Me too and I almost detest Glocks. Give me an M&P any day. But for that price you'd be a fool not to think about it. I did. And when I figured out that a whole new upper would be required to turn it into a G17 I stopped thinking about it.
You are correct. They are not discontinuing the .45GAP, they are discontinuing all OD framed glocks.
