XD45 GAP

[Guest Big Mike]

Anybody out there have any experience with this gun/caliber?

[molonlabetn]

I had one for a year or so... what do you want to know?

It handled and performed like any XD, superbly. I replaced it with a .357sig XD, obviously not for cheaper ammo, but I have more faith in the cartridge to perform. I think the main reason that I got rid of it was because it was the 5"bbl version, and felt unbalanced. I would probably have kept it if it was a 4". I might buy another one if I found one cheap, I've still got some ammo left...

Let me know if you have a specific question, but overall, the gun was no different than any other XD. The .45GAP cartridge itself is a whole 'nother matter...

[Guest bazookazilla]

I'm curious about the .45 GAP. How would one go about digging into the 'nother matter?

[molonlabetn]

I'm curious about the .45 GAP. How would one go about digging into the 'nother matter?

Well, the .45GAP was a creation of ol' Gaston Glock and Speer to fit a .45 cartridge into short action (9mm, 40s&w, etc) size frames... An excellent intent, to be sure.

The .45GAP exceeds the performance of standard pressure .45acp, but falls short of the +p loadings. It does better, comparatively, than .40s&w does to mimic 10mm as a shortened relative. The .45GAP would have survived if Springfield had not introduced the XD-45acp, that gun simply captured the full intent of the .45GAP, without having to design a new cartridge.

Glock should have simply worked on the Glock 21SF earlier...

But, with that said, the .45GAP is now on the market... and it does perform very well. It will never be popular... but there will always be a niche market for a .45 which will fit in the frame of a 9mm or .40 pistol. Wouldn't a .45gap Beretta 92FS be interesting?

[Guest Mugster]

I've never shot one, but it looks pretty close to a .45acp on paper in the lighter .451 bullets. Its going to be more expensive to shoot than an acp, i'll say that. Here's an article on it.

http://www.gunsandammomag.com/reloads/gar0506/

[Marswolf]

I don't really see anything wrong with the 45GAP round. It's just sort-of unneeded.

[DaveTN]

I'm curious about the .45 GAP. How would one go about digging into the 'nother matter?

Glock wanted to be on this list....

.45 automatic Colt Pistol

.308 Winchester

.40 Smith & Wesson

.357 SIG

.376 STEYER

30-06 SPRINGFIELD

.300 H & H

.250 SAVAGE

.204 Ruger

.416 WEATHERBY

.444 MARLIN

.450 BUSHMASTER

9mm Luger

Just kiddin’ Glocksters… just kiddin’.

[Guest Big Mike]

Thanks to everyone who posted! Guess I'll buy one.

[molonlabetn]

Thanks to everyone who posted! Guess I'll buy one.

Thinking about an XD or a Glock 37/38/39?

The XD is the better executed chambering, since they actually kept the gun the same size as the 9mm, .40, and .357 versions... the Glocks still use different holsters because the slide has the same profile as the larger .45acp guns. No real benefit except for the size of the grip frame (which, being a Glock, isn't exactly petite in the first place). The G39 is probably the most useable model, since it actually uses the cartridge as it was intended... in a subcompact. I think that is one more reason the XD version was not well received because of the fact that they did not produce a Sub Compact in that caliber. I would still have mine if they had, for sure.

[The Rabbi]

I don't really see anything wrong with the 45GAP round. It's just sort-of unneeded.

+1.

I don't see it doing anything that current round choices don't already do in some form or another.

There is a graveyard out there somewhere for experimental pistol calibres, always touted as the latest and greatest by gun mags, that never caught on but hang on somehow. In that category you'll find .400 Cor-Bon, .41 Magnum, .41AE, .50AE, .445 SuperMag. .357Maximum, with .357Sig on the short list.

[molonlabetn]

...with .357Sig on the short list.

That's not what I hear... More agencies are adopting it every year, and you can hardly go to a forum or a public range without running into at least a handful of folks who not only shoot it, but also carry it.

Even .45GAP is an issued caliber for the Glock 37s for PA and NY state police.

The rest on your list I agree with, very few people carry them, and fewer are in use by any agency.

[Marswolf]

Yeah, the jury is still out on the .357 SIG. It's somewhat specialized and everyone doesn't need it, but it does a good job in the right application.

[The Rabbi]

The issue always seems to be: does it do something that isnt being done by existing calibers. In the case of the .40S&W the answer seems to be yes, splitting the difference between .45acp and 9mm, heavier bullet than 9 going faster than .45. But the .357 is merely a 9mm magnum (in fact they entertained calling it a 9mm something) and its performance is little different than a hot 9mm, but with more expensive ammo, less ammo choice, and lower mag capacity. The fact that depts are adopting it means little in the short term. Lots of depts looked at the 10mm. But the jury is still out.

[Guest Big Mike]

Leaning towards the XD45Gap, heard a lot of good things about the Springfield XD, and the 45Gap is one of there models and considerable less expensive than the Glock. If anyone has a used XD45Gap for sale give me a post. Thanks

[molonlabetn]

The issue always seems to be: does it do something that isnt being done by existing calibers. In the case of the .40S&W the answer seems to be yes, splitting the difference between .45acp and 9mm, heavier bullet than 9 going faster than .45. But the .357 is merely a 9mm magnum (in fact they entertained calling it a 9mm something) and its performance is little different than a hot 9mm, but with more expensive ammo, less ammo choice, and lower mag capacity. The fact that depts are adopting it means little in the short term. Lots of depts looked at the 10mm. But the jury is still out.

The same argument could be made between .357magnum and .38special.

Why carry a .357magnum if a .38special +p+ comes close enough? The magnum is little more than a hot .38...

[The Rabbi]

The same argument could be made between .357magnum and .38special.

Why carry a .357magnum if a .38special +p+ comes close enough? The magnum is little more than a hot .38...

In the personal protection application you are exactly right. In fact, the Buffalo Bore .38 +P+ kicks harder than the 158gr .357s I've shot.

It's different in hunting type apps. In the .357 you can get up to 180gr bullets going pretty fast. I've never seen 38s loaded like that. Of course in the old days (WW2) the British loaded 200gr bullets in .38spc and .38S&W.

[molonlabetn]

In the personal protection application you are exactly right. In fact, the Buffalo Bore .38 +P+ kicks harder than the 158gr .357s I've shot.

It's different in hunting type apps. In the .357 you can get up to 180gr bullets going pretty fast. I've never seen 38s loaded like that. Of course in the old days (WW2) the British loaded 200gr bullets in .38spc and .38S&W.

I agree with you that .357sig isn't cut out for the heavier bullets, due to the case-length (even though I'd be interested in the results, if any bullet manufacturer would make a heavier .355" bullet)... but within the accepted range of bullet-weights for .355" projectiles, I've never seen a 9mm Parabellum which could come close to pushing a 140gr projectile at 1350fps, few are barely supersonic.

If the practicality of a caliber is that it do something not done by existing calibers, the .357sig does indeed bridge the gap between 9mm and .357magnum, admittedly with some overlap on both ends of the spectrum... but certainly a combination of power and useability (in an autoloader of reasonable size) not attainable by either one individually.

[The Rabbi]

You've picked an oddball as representative of the calibre. In fact the typical loading for the .357sig is a 125gr bullet going about 1350 fps. By contrast, the 9mm +P+ is a 127gr bullet going at 1210 fps.

And shooting a 140gr projectile at that speed out of a pistol sounds like a great way to shorten pistol life, if not end up with a kB.

And I dont understand your point about bridging the gap between 9mm and .357. One is an auto cartridge and the other a revolver cartridge. There isnt any gap.

[molonlabetn]

You've picked an oddball as representative of the calibre. In fact the typical loading for the .357sig is a 125gr bullet going about 1350 fps. By contrast, the 9mm +P+ is a 127gr bullet going at 1210 fps.

And shooting a 140gr projectile at that speed out of a pistol sounds like a great way to shorten pistol life, if not end up with a kB.

And I dont understand your point about bridging the gap between 9mm and .357. One is an auto cartridge and the other a revolver cartridge. There isnt any gap.

Of course there is less contrast when comparing a max (actually, above max) 9mm load, with a light .357sig load (yes, 125gr @ 1350 is light for .357sig... it's the baseline), the load I linked is a std pressure target load with the same power-factor as a 180gr .40s&w at 1050fps, easily handled by any pistol designed for .40s&w.

The point is that when loaded to identical pressures, the .357sig handily produces 20-30% more velocity, or the same velocity with a 20-30% heavier bullet, than 9mm.

And there is indeed a gap, for many folks who want the legendary performance of the .357magnum in a higher-capacity, more controllable 9mm platform.

Back to .45GAP (sorry about the thread drift Mike)... it does far less in terms of bridging any 'gap', since it is not really satisfying any middle-ground which previously existed other than the grip-frame of a Glock 21 being a couple millimeters too thick.

[Marswolf]

First the 45 GAP. I tend to look at my Federal catalog for "standard" ammunition. Now there are all sorts of non-standard loadings, but big manufacturers tend to load what sells to the average guy.

In the 230 gr. bullet FMJ, the 45 GAP is 880 ft/sec. The 45 ACP is 890 ft/sec. That's right, the GAP is slower.

I just don't see a need for the 45 GAP. Again, there is nothing wrong with it. It's just a solution to which there is no problem.

The 357 SIG is a bit different. That round give a significant increase in energy compared to either a standard 9mm or a 40 S&W. Yes, you can load a 9mm to close to 357 SIG specifications, but you are firing a hot round in a pistol probably not intended to continually shoot them. The 357 SIG handgun, OTOH, is engineered for those forces with every shot. I've shot SMG rounds from my Beretta 92, but I wouldn't advise doing it all the time.

And some LE has been interested in the 357 SIG compared to the 40 S&W for it's significantly increased penetration of such things as car windshields. That's why it's more useful to the Highway Patrol than for city or county LE.

[Guest Mugster]

USGI spec .45ACP FMJ ammo is 230gr @ 830fps +/- 15 with a 5" barrel. I've clocked most of the el cheapo ball available...umc, blazer, wwb...it all goes about that speed. It is a very mild load compared to what you can load the .45ACP up to. Just goes to show you what a manstopper that .451 caliber 230gr bullet is.

I typically go 8.2 to 8.4 grains of accurate #5 for 900ish fps in 230 grain weight projectiles. That simulates +p loadings pretty close on felt recoil and speed. Anything more than that starts to be a beast recoil wise. You can go on up to 8.6 or 8.8 depending which reloading guide you look at. The .45 GAP won't be able to match that...it just won't hold enough powder to do it.

[molonlabetn]

First the 45 GAP. I tend to look at my Federal catalog for "standard" ammunition. Now there are all sorts of non-standard loadings, but big manufacturers tend to load what sells to the average guy.

In the 230 gr. bullet FMJ, the 45 GAP is 880 ft/sec. The 45 ACP is 890 ft/sec. That's right, the GAP is slower.

I just don't see a need for the 45 GAP. Again, there is nothing wrong with it. It's just a solution to which there is no problem.

No disagreement here.

I'd be interested to find out the lengths of the test barrels, though. Most .45GAP tests specify 4" barrel, and the ACP 5".

In the Speer tech brief on the cartridge, see Fig. 1 on page 3: http://www.speer-bullets.com/pdf/45GAP%20Tech%20Brief_150dpi.pdf

There is an approximately 20-30fps difference between the GAP and ACP with the compared loads, in favor of the ACP, but the ACP has an inch longer barrel in the tests.

Speer developed the cartridge, and does not see fit to load it with 230gr projectiles. But, it certainly can be done, as you know... and with max loads is very competitive with Speer's +p loads in .45 ACP (a'la Double-Tap), not just standard pressure loads.

I personally see the GAP as actually very similar to the .40s&w in terms of its performance using a given bullet-weight... the only difference is the diameter (thus negatively affecting ballistic coefficient and magazine capacity).

I'm not arguing that the GAP is a winner, by any means (I got rid of mine for several noted reasons)... but it's no slouch either. .45ACP is simply a well-rooted, solid performing cartridge, so it's no failure to capture that performance in a smaller package... the failure was in the lack of a market for it.

I forsee it going the way of the .41magnum in the shadow of the .44magnum.

[molonlabetn]

USGI spec .45ACP FMJ ammo is 230gr @ 830fps +/- 15 with a 5" barrel. I've clocked most of the el cheapo ball available...umc, blazer, wwb...it all goes about that speed. It is a very mild load compared to what you can load the .45ACP up to. Just goes to show you what a manstopper that .451 caliber 230gr bullet is.

I typically go 8.2 to 8.4 grains of accurate #5 for 900ish fps in 230 grain weight projectiles. That simulates +p loadings pretty close on felt recoil and speed. Anything more than that starts to be a beast recoil wise. You can go on up to 8.6 or 8.8 depending which reloading guide you look at. The .45 GAP won't be able to match that...it just won't hold enough powder to do it.

Here's one: http://www.doubletapammo.com/php/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=21_41&products_id=161

[The Rabbi]

Of course there is less contrast when comparing a max (actually, above max) 9mm load, with a light .357sig load (yes, 125gr @ 1350 is light for .357sig... it's the baseline), the load I linked is a std pressure target load with the same power-factor as a 180gr .40s&w at 1050fps, easily handled by any pistol designed for .40s&w.

The point is that when loaded to identical pressures, the .357sig handily produces 20-30% more velocity, or the same velocity with a 20-30% heavier bullet, than 9mm.

And there is indeed a gap, for many folks who want the legendary performance of the .357magnum in a higher-capacity, more controllable 9mm platform.

Back to .45GAP (sorry about the thread drift Mike)... it does far less in terms of bridging any 'gap', since it is not really satisfying any middle-ground which previously existed other than the grip-frame of a Glock 21 being a couple millimeters too thick.

Speer only lists 125gr bullets on its website for .357.

Winchester lists 105gr and 125 gr for .357SIG.

Federal only lists 125gr bullets for the .357SIG.

Remington lists only 125gr bullets for the .357SIG.

And all of them are in the 1350-1375 fps range.

So unless you are buying some off-brand ammo from a fly by night maker, I don't know how you can say those are light loads.

As for pressures, Accurate lists pressures in its reloading guide. The 9mm loads run from about 26,000 CUP to 32,000 CUP. The .357SIG loads run from 33,000 to 40,000 CUP. And the .40 S&W loads run to a maximum of 35,000 CUP.

The 147gr projectiles are rated to go just 1050fps but still produce over 38,000 CUP. Upping the velocity to 1350 fps will produce something I'd rather not think about going off inches from my face.

So the .357sig loads produce far more pressure than the 9mm, and even more than the .40. Shooting the loads you seem to prefer seems a surefire way to wear out the gun or even spark a kB.

[Guest Mugster]

Here's one: http://www.doubletapammo.com/php/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=21_41&products_id=161

They also list 1010fps for that same bullet in .45acp. Based on my chrono and years of experience with .45acp, I'd say those numbers are optimistic at best and sheer BS otherwise.