Why hasn't the .50 GI caught on?

[jmr40]

Other than just being to say "mine is bigger than yours", it serves no useful prupose.

 

[PabloJ]

I'm just curious as to why the .50 GI seems to be such an obscure round, since it seems to fit a niche that I would think would be very popular. I've read time and time again that the reason some people carry a .45 is because "they don't make a .50"...but they do!

Is it because this round is propriatary and nobody but GI can make guns for it? Is it because the round just hasn't caught on with a major manufacturer and people don't want to pay $3K for a 1911 or $1200 (Glock+Conversion kit) for a Glock-ish? Is it because the lack of capacity even in a Glock platform (8 round in a magazine flush with the G21, compared with 13 in .45) isn't made up for by the extra 0.05"? (or is that issue an engineering issue).

I just think it's an interesting round, and it offers something different - a bigger bore than the current "big bore". It's just not caught on yet.

Most gringos prefer Desert Eagle .50AE in gold tiger stripe attire. There was another California Stainless pistol with similar lockup to DE chambered for cut down .308Win case. I much rather have the California Kool Pistola unlike the Desert Eagle it has good balance and does not feel like lead brick. Prices I'm sorry to say are horrendous to working man's wallet.

 

[flyskater]

50 GI is damn expensive. The Glock 21 barrel conversion cost more than the gun. Their 1911, you gotta take a second mortgage and take from the kids education fund to afford it. I would like a 50 GI, but there are other alternatives out there that will get the job done.

 

[Ogreon]

Perhaps the next step is some new system that delivers a projectile in some way that eliminates the human failings. Until then, further developments in conventional handgun cartridges (especially what appear to be retrograde developments like the .50GI) are going to be false promises.

So, why isn't .50 GI more popular? Because it doesn't fix what's wrong.

The .50 NR. No recoil. No bang. No problem.

 

[Okie45]

In Oklahoma, all ccw must be .45 caliber or less, so thats a reason right there that I wouldn't own one.

 

[Gress]

Hi everyone, and sorry for a long first post and for resurrecting this old one, but I just came around this discussion and found it interesting with many good points made from all sides.
To me the answer to why .50GI cartridge did not catch up is that it was not meant to. It was designed IMO as a vehicle to drive sales of the guns and conversion kits for a company. And boy does this company excel in designing and building guns which are truly just pieces of art. So AFAIK it is proprietary and only available through this one company and if you want to use it you’d need to buy one of the company offerings.
Does it mean that the cartridge is not successful on the market due to design flaws? Obviously not, as there is no known data on how it would perform given an option to enter mass market. I think the cartridge is very interesting idea and gives lots of possibilities for a reloader. I voted for this round by buying a Model 1 and I am telling you that it is the most pleasant round to shoot. I have few pistols in .22, 9mm, 38, .357mag, 10mm, 45acp and while all these guns are fun to shoot too, my Model 1 in .50GI makes me smile every time I shoot it. Now, not to start a discussion on stopping power etc., I suggest still to take a look at the table (derived from GI site) which shows how .50GI is positioned vs other calibers with respect to these two hunting indeces.

Again, it is not for “stopping power” or “big and slow vs. small and fast” discussion, but merely for some type of a numerical measure to show what this round could actually deliver with different loads. I am sure that the guys from Guncrafter Industries have developed many more loads beyond those listed, but even those listed are different enough to have all the fun. BTW, the one which I did not include in the table, but like the most to shoot is GI 230 grain CHP, 7.1 grains of Bullseye, 1.220” OAL, velocity of 1000 fps. (TKO 16.5 and Thorniley scale of 68)
If you reload, the cost per round is not too bad either. I am averaging at 37c per round with me losing 20% of brass all the time (counted into this cost).
Now would 50GI be extinct? I sure hope not and do not see why would it either.

As for gun prices, those are in the middle of the range for semi to custom guns and deserve every penny IMO. You can easily spend this type of dollars on a quality 1911. And this is what this Model 1 gun is exactly. BTW you can buy it in 45acp too. This is what actually made me buy my gun. I shoot it in both calibers, but .50GI is having more range time.

So was this new cartridge even needed? What it does what others don’t?
It is like a Volkswagen W12 / W16 engine. It is only available in VW upscale cars. Why did not it catch up? Similar to this discussion here it was many opinions and technical debates on what does it offer vs other existing solutions and yet the fastest street car and the most expensive one on the market Bugatti Veyron is using W16 engine to delight of few lucky ones to even drive it. Can a Toyota do what this car does in real life road environment on city streets? You bet… But, there are and always will be other cars to serve other than utilitarian needs, if we call them needs..

 

[Girodin]

New rounds tend to be uncommon and thus more expensive. Thus, to catch on they need to either really do something better than other common cartridges or have a serious push from ammo and/or gun manufactures. The 50 GI has neither of those going for it.

Better new chamberings than the 50 GI have not been well accepted.

If I was going to change one of my 45s it would be to a .460 Rowland.

 

[MachIVshooter]

I wonder how many niche chamberings have been created over the years that are now extinct. Will the .50 GI be next?

A lot. And more to come, no doubt.

The .50 GI's shortcomings have been well noted thus far. Case in point, there have been developments that did properly address the woes of the .45 ACP and they still didn't catch on big. The 10mm is one such example: Increased capacity, MUCH increased horsepower, but still well short of "mainstream" 30 years later (though it has been gaining ground the last few years). The .50 GI, on the other hand, offers no ballistic improvement whatsoever over a good .45 load (and certainly nothing over the 10mm, .45 Super or .460 Rowland), and significantly decreases magazine capacity. Add the ridiculous cost, and what you have is a cartridge that might hang in there indefinitely as a proprietary critter. The .50 GI is to the .45 ACP as the .45 GAP is to the .40 S&W.

GI was trying to capitalize on the relative success of the S&W .500 magnum and the Desert Eagle with it's .50 AE chambering. They failed for both practical and economic reasons.

 

[Gress]

New rounds tend to be uncommon and thus more expensive. Thus, to catch on they need to either really do something better than other common cartridges or have a serious push from ammo and/or gun manufactures. The 50 GI has neither of those going for it.

Better new chamberings than the 50 GI have not been well accepted.

If I was going to change one of my 45s it would be to a .460 Rowland.

Agreed. on new being more expensive. BTW why "tend"? They are new and hence uncommon. IMO 50GI actually does one of the two things you mentioned though as it is better suited for a 1911 frame than other large bore conversions while giving more options than plain 45acp. I hope it will not be extinct, as it is real fun to shoot with all other practical aspects of it being equal or better than 45 met. I also do not know how to judge which caliber is "better"... I can only compare them with regard to specific objectives. And I like choices, don't you? Because of this I am also considering 460 Rowland conversion. One thing for sure though is that GI gun built around .50GI round will outlast a regular 1911 with Rowland conversion.

 

[Gress]

Perhaps the reason 500SW Mag, 50AE and 10mm (to some extent) are only relatively successful due to them being more powerful than necessary for defense applications with all the negatives of this extra power. So they serve smaller market. 50GI on other hand was never meant to deliver that magnum type of horsepower, so it does not. I think many are confused about it. The way I see it, it is a caliber to be used almost as a 45 (in same form factor gun) but with extra flexibility on different loads with heavier bullets. Truly an instrument for a reloader to use to his likings.

 

[Sam1911]

Perhaps the reason 500SW Mag, 50AE and 10mm (to some extent) are only relatively successful due to them being more powerful than necessary for defense applications with all the negatives of this extra power

I'd agree with that in regards to the 10mm, but no one buys .500 S&W Mag or a .50 AE as a defensive handgun (unless we're talking about dangerous animal defense, where that power is needed).

 

[1911Tuner]

I wonder how many niche chamberings have been created over the years that are now extinct.

A bunch of'em. A perfect example of a fine cartridge that's barely managed to hang on is my all-time favorite, the .41 Magnum. It's survived only because of a sufficient number of people who refuse to let it die, even though it doesn't really do anything any better...and in many cases not as well...as other, well-established cartridges.

 

[NG VI]

The .50 GI is to the .45 ACP as the .45 GAP is to the .40 S&W.

The .45 GAP is way more practical than the .50 GI.

The way I see it, it is a caliber to be used almost as a 45 (in same form factor gun) but with extra flexibility on different loads with heavier bullets.

I can't imagine the short case and very short overall length limitations of the .50 GI relative to bore size lends itself well to load flexibility. I'd imagine some of the bullets that work well in the .500 S&W are longer than the GI case.

.50 bore sized cartridges aren't all that common, and they tend to either be heavy revolver or lever rifle short-range big game hunting rounds, or long-range target rifles, neither of which have much projectile overlap with a light for caliber defense/service-type caliber.

The .50 GI is basically an upsized .380 ACP, as far as I can tell. Limited to the shortest previously available bullets in its caliber or even shorter ones, at velocities below what you'd ordinarily see from even light loads in the rest of the calibers that share the bore size with it.

It looks really fun and neat, but for practical purposes, eh, none of what it does can't be done better by a leaner, faster, more appropriate bullet from a narrower service caliber.

 

[Skribs]

The .45 GAP is way more practical than the .50 GI.

I beg to differ. The .45 GAP is supposedly a smaller round than the .45 ACP, but if you look at the pistols chambered in it, you'll notice a huge decrease in capacity compared to their .45 ACP brethren. Glock 21 vs. 37 you're looking at 13 rounds vs. 10, XD you're looking at 13 rounds vs. 9. I'd have thought the .45 GAP should have the same capacity as the ACP, but it loses about 25%.

The .50 GI, on the other hand, offers a wider platform than you can get with .45. How necessary that ends up being is up to the individual to decide.

It looks really fun and neat, but for practical purposes, eh, none of what it does can't be done better by a leaner, faster, more appropriate bullet from a narrower service caliber.

The proper loads (not the CHP rounds) meet the FBI requirements for penetration. So you end up with a wider bullet and less capacity...hey, that's the same tradeoff as the jump from .40 to .45.

 

[silicosys4]

In regards to the table posted above, Post #31:

Since when does a 300 grain slug moving at 860 fps constitute a ".44 mag level load"? My 300 grain loads are moving out of my redhawk at 1375fps... Good luck getting that out of a .50GI.

Also, I get a chuckle out of those gaping 300 grain hollowpoints that don't leave the barrel with enough velocity to actually open. Like the rest of the cartridge, it's more about visuals than about practicality.

 

[mavracer]

I wonder how many niche chamberings have been created over the years that are now extinct.

I don't know about extinct but IMHO the only truely successful cartridge introduced in the last 50 years is the 40 S&W every thing else is pretty much fallen into a nitch.

 

[Girodin]

IMO 50GI actually does one of the two things you mentioned though as it is better suited for a 1911 frame than other large bore conversions while giving more options than plain 45acp.

That is not doing one of things I mentioned. I said it must do something better (and I should have said "significantly better) than the cartridge it seeks to replace. You are in essence saying it, in one respect and for one style of weapon, is better than other replacement cartridges. That is not the same as being significantly better than the original.

Also I don't think it compares real well to the Rowland in terms of power. According to the table above the GI pushes a 275 gr. bullet 750 FPS. A Rowland can a 260 grain slug 1150 FPS easily. Given that the Rowland is likely to get expansion at that velocity and I question whether the GI is going to see much if any with such a low velocity, its whopping .05 staring diameter advantage is likely lost when talking about terminal ballistics.

 

[NG VI]

I beg to differ. The .45 GAP is supposedly a smaller round than the .45 ACP, but if you look at the pistols chambered in it, you'll notice a huge decrease in capacity compared to their .45 ACP brethren. Glock 21 vs. 37 you're looking at 13 rounds vs. 10, XD you're looking at 13 rounds vs. 9. I'd have thought the .45 GAP should have the same capacity as the ACP, but it loses about 25%.

The .50 GI, on the other hand, offers a wider platform than you can get with .45. How necessary that ends up being is up to the individual to decide.

It's a smaller round than the .45 ACP, so it fits into a smaller gun than a .45 ACP, while pushing the same bullets as the .45 ACP to the same speeds as the .45 ACP.

That it holds less rounds is a function of it's primary reason for existing at all, to fit into a smaller grip. Naturally a significantly narrower magazine isn't going to hold the same number of rounds of the same width as a wider magazine could, but it's all about compromises, and the GAP does not compromise on the bullet diameter, weight, or velocity, while gaining the ability to be chambered in existing pistols that cannot be chambered in ACP because of length considerations.

If the Glock 17 was the same exact size as the Glock 21, but with it's real-world front to back grip length, then the Glock 37 would hold 13 rounds, just like the 21.

But it's a smaller gun in all dimensions, which is why it holds less rounds of equal size.

None of which has any bearing on how practical the .45 GAP is (pretty practical, gives you ACP ballistics and projectiles in shorter grips) compared to the .50 GI, which is pretty impractical, since it gives you super light for caliber bullets at some of the lowest velocities achievable by a functional firearm cartridge.

 

[Skribs]

With handgun calibers, what matters is 1) did it penetrate deep enough and (distant second) 2) what's the size of the hole? Energy is simply what drives the bullet to penetrate in spite of its expansion.

I don't think the .50 GI offers a significantly better platform, much like the .45 doesn't offer much over 9, and the .40 (which is very successful) doesn't offer much over either. I think it's the next "tick" on the scale of 9-.40-.45, up to .50.

None of which has any bearing on how practical the .45 GAP is (pretty practical, gives you ACP ballistics and projectiles in shorter grips) compared to the .50 GI, which is pretty impractical, since it gives you super light for caliber bullets at some of the lowest velocities achievable by a functional firearm cartridge.

275-grain and 300-grain is super light for caliber? I thought it was a natural step up from 200-230 grain .45 rounds. The weight and velocity are important, but tertiary to penetration (primary) and expanded caliber (secondary), and the 275/300-grain loads do meet the minimum 12" penetration. So it offers the most important part. Like I said, the 175/200 grain CHP rounds are crap, they penetrate something like 8-9" IIRC. But I wouldn't call the caliber bad because of those loads.

 

[HorseSoldier]

I think it hasn't caught on because it doesn't really do anything super special besides carry the novelty of being fifty caliber, like others have noted. The souped-up-45 cal market is a niche one, and already has competition in it -- 45 Super, 460 Rowland, (sort of) 10mm Auto and 400 Corbon (if it is even still around at all) and whatever else. Not a big market to begin with, and 50 GI doesn't do anything that would break it out of that niche market.