Why hasn't Glock manufactured a compact .45 acp model?

[Shenaniguns]

I'm with you on this one. I see this question posted atleast 2 or 3 times a month on GT, and I just laugh and keep my mouth shut. I don't really care what the technical definition of the word "compact" is to different people. I don't even care what Glock chooses to call it. It is what it is, which for all intents and purposes is nearly identical size when comparing these 2. For the most part I get what the OP means, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. Say what you will, the G36 is a compact 45. If you've ever owned or shot a G30, which Glock calls a Sub-Compact, you know that it's nowhere near Sub-Compact territory either. Carry on...

Glock also called the 4.5# connector a 3.5# connector for over 10 years before correcting it

[DRAB_81]

Glock also called the 4.5# connector a 3.5# connector for over 10 years before correcting it

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Pump your brakes there big fella, let's not get carried away now. You don't get a free pass just because I agree with you this time.

[greybeard]

Oops, here I was thinking in terms of just .45 pistols

[Striker]

I want a compact frame and subcompact barrel.

Then you either want a Glock 38 in .45 GAP, which I wouldn't, or you want a Smith & Wesson M&P 45c or M&P 45 mid. Because Glock doesn't make the gun you want in .45 acp and as many times as it has been asked for, they don't seem to be responding to whatever demand there is for the gun. In fact, I think the Glock 38 was their response to the demand.

[Quiet]

When Glock first released the Glock 29 & 30, they were marketed as compacts.

When Glock released the Glock 36, they changed how they marketed the Glock 29/30.
They changed the Glock 29 & 30 to "subcompacts", so they could market the Glock 36 as a slimframed "subcompact".

When compared physically, the Glock 29/30 are more akin to the compact sized Glock 19/23/25/32/38 than the subcompact sized Glock 26/27/28/33/39.