Gaston's Ego?

[Mike Irwin]

"Can you Glock haters go back to your usual whining about how Glocks shoot busloads of nuns while sitting unloaded in a safe....right before they blow up?
I'm just not up for a new attack on a world class weapon."

Uhm...

(scratching head, perplexed once again...)

So which do you want people to do, Bam?

Bash Glocks?

Or not bash Glocks because you're not up to it?

If it's Gaston that's being bashed, instead of the guns, are you OK with that?

Or not?

Just trying to make you happy...


Seriously, and quite frankly, I think this is an interesting question, and it does come up from time to time.

There's really no set way that any company has approached it over the years.

Some years they make guns with the name of the cartridge developed by the competitor emblazoned on it, and other years they simply rename the cartridge in their catalogs to get around the issue totally.

As for the .45 Colt being stamped on the side of an S&W, what other cartridge name could be stamped there and still convey the cartridge that's to be used?

You've sort of got to use the Colt name in that case.

In the case of many of the S&W developed rounds, you got several naming elements...

.38 S&W Special, which is easily shortened to .38 Spl., and etc.

 

[Tamara]

FWIW, .40 Glocks used to say ".40 S&W" on them, and the original .357SIG Glocks said ".357SIG" (I had a G33 that did.)

I know the "S&W" disappeared off the 22/23 after the Sigma snafu with S&W, but I'm not sure about the "SIG"...

 

[treeprof]

I think the 9mm, .40 and .45 have colloquial meanings that make "Parabellum", "S&W" and "ACP" largely superfluous in cartridge designations. Is Glock's decision to (at least no longer) put those designations on their firearms in deference to that? Probably not. In the case of "357" the colloquial reference is to .357 Mag, and not 357 SIG. But, the use of "357" in 357 SIG was itself a marketing ploy to make the 125 gr .357 Mag = 125 gr 357 SIG link, so that's partly SIG/Federal's cross to bear.

Everyone's going to posture and market in order to position their product most favorably, and the fact that we typically don't use formal cartridge designations in reference to 9 mm, .40 and .45 is testament to their unquestioned success in the marketplace. The .45 GAP will never replace the .45 ACP when referring to the ".45", and in that sense it will always occupy a 3rd tier position (behind even the .45 Colt) in the minds of most. If Gaston gets his jollies from seeing it in print and the odd dusty box of ammo, s'ok w/me, because I seriously doubt he's going to see it on a lot of pistols.

 

[Detritus]

ummm, just a point.. since i don't care one way or the other about Glocks in general, and the .45Gap cartridge is to me nothing more than "another raindrop in the pond".

BUT,

We (the US) are NOT who this round was designed for! MOSTLY the ".45Glock" was/is meant for sales in counties where a private citizen can not own a .45ACP b/c that is a "military round" (same places are the main market place of the .380 chambered Glocks as well). in such locales a "standard" .45 cal pistol that is available to the public is a GREAT marketing step.

so No i don't think the .45Gap has a niche here in the states, but then again neither did/do the glocks in .380, b/c we have acess to better rounds. but where access to the likes of 9mm PARABELLUM (i beleive the "luger" appellation was a post WW1 comercial thing) and .45ACP is limited or non-existant, the glock round will get a foothold.