I think we have to take into account that Ruger's new line of pistols, the SR9, 40 etc. are relatively new. Previously their guns were deemed too large clunky for CCW etc. Their semi-autos have never made it big in the LE Community and a lot of people like to go with guns that have been vetted for by the LE community.


When it comes to the SR9 and SR40, I do not think they are in the same league as the others you mentioned. I think Ruger could have done things a little differently with the guns and had a better result. The sights on the SR9/40 are lack luster, there's no stink'in reason to put adjustable sights on a pistol of that sort, the safety IMHO is too small, I think Ruger chose the size specifiaclly to be able to meet some legal requirements in nanny states and placate those that like the safety, at the same time making it small enough not to bother those that wouldn't use it. I think it's too small to be used as a safety while carrying and I've seen a lot of people have trouble with it and a lot of people that like striker fired pistols don't like external safeties.

The LCP was an easy success as it took an all ready successful design and improved on it slightly, and the LC9 is running on the coat-tails of that "borrowed" design.

Originally Posted by VAMarine

I think we have to take into account that Ruger's new line of pistols, the SR9, 40 etc. are relatively new. Previously their guns were deemed too large clunky for CCW etc. Their semi-autos have never made it big in the LE Community and a lot of people like to go with guns that have been vetted for by the LE community.


When it comes to the SR9 and SR40, I do not think they are in the same league as the others you mentioned. I think Ruger could have done things a little differently with the guns and had a better result. The sights on the SR9/40 are lack luster, there's no stink'in reason to put adjustable sights on a pistol of that sort, the safety IMHO is too small, I think Ruger chose the size specifiaclly to be able to meet some legal requirements in nanny states and placate those that like the safety, at the same time making it small enough not to bother those that wouldn't use it. I think it's too small to be used as a safety while carrying and I've seen a lot of people have trouble with it and a lot of people that like striker fired pistols don't like external safeties.

The LCP was an easy success as it took an all ready successful design and improved on it slightly, and the LC9 is running on the coat-tails of that "borrowed" design.

Agree with you on this one, but want to add that it is tough to get into the polymer/striker fired pistol game these days. There's a lot of competition out there in that market, as we all know.

Originally Posted by VAMarine

I think we have to take into account that Ruger's new line of pistols, the SR9, 40 etc. are relatively new. Previously their guns were deemed too large clunky for CCW etc. Their semi-autos have never made it big in the LE Community and a lot of people like to go with guns that have been vetted for by the LE community.


When it comes to the SR9 and SR40, I do not think they are in the same league as the others you mentioned. I think Ruger could have done things a little differently with the guns and had a better result. The sights on the SR9/40 are lack luster, there's no stink'in reason to put adjustable sights on a pistol of that sort, the safety IMHO is too small, I think Ruger chose the size specifiaclly to be able to meet some legal requirements in nanny states and placate those that like the safety, at the same time making it small enough not to bother those that wouldn't use it. I think it's too small to be used as a safety while carrying and I've seen a lot of people have trouble with it and a lot of people that like striker fired pistols don't like external safeties.

The LCP was an easy success as it took an all ready successful design and improved on it slightly, and the LC9 is running on the coat-tails of that "borrowed" design.

Well said I agree...I do think that the SR9 was a step in the right direction but their was ample evidence out their for them to get it right ie. Glock to name THE one...The SR9 is trimmer than it`s predecessors but the grip doesn`t make and as you have said there`s other things that need attention...All said I have read that Ruger is buried in new orders for guns and is way behind in production so I`m guessing the SR9 isn`t on the top of the list....Jim

Originally Posted by cashinin

Well said I agree...I do think that the SR9 was a step in the right direction but their was ample evidence out their for them to get it right ie. Glock to name THE one...The SR9 is trimmer than it`s predecessors but the grip doesn`t make and as you have said there`s other things that need attention...All said I have read that Ruger is buried in new orders for guns and is way behind in production so I`m guessing the SR9 isn`t on the top of the list....Jim

Maybe, maybe not. I have seen a lot of them turn up at the range and at matches, I think a lot of first time gun buyers are going out and buying them, but I think that after some time many will be replacing them with something else.

I remember when the first came out, the trigger wasn't too bad, then the recall occurred and the triggers got worse, I knew a lot of unhappy persons over that one.

All in all they aren't "bad" guns, but I don't think they're nearly...refined as they could be. With a little extra effort I think Ruger would have a better series of pistols that could run against the M&P, Glock etc.

Now as for the SR1911, if the guns have a good rep after a couple of years on the market for reliability etc. They will have a solid winner, the SR1911 is all ready a solid buy just by having Ruger's backing and history of fielding either a stand up product, or a stand up product after a recall...as the SR1911 has made it this long without a recall, I'd be willing to call the SR1911 a solid entry into the 1911 world.

Originally Posted by VAMarine

Maybe, maybe not. I have seen a lot of them turn up at the range and at matches, I think a lot of first time gun buyers are going out and buying them, but I think that after some time many will be replacing them with something else.

I remember when the first came out, the trigger wasn't too bad, then the recall occurred and the triggers got worse, I knew a lot of unhappy persons over that one.

All in all they aren't "bad" guns, but I don't think they're nearly...refined as they could be. With a little extra effort I think Ruger would have a better series of pistols that could run against the M&P, Glock etc.

Now as for the SR1911, if the guns have a good rep after a couple of years on the market for reliability etc. They will have a solid winner, the SR1911 is all ready a solid buy just by having Ruger's backing and history of fielding either a stand up product, or a stand up product after a recall...as the SR1911 has made it this long without a recall, I'd be willing to call the SR1911 a solid entry into the 1911 world.

Yep the SR1911 is on my short list...I know 2 people that own them and love them and have put thousands of rounds through them with no issues plus the fit and finish is very good...I haven`t purchaced one because I always look at price when buying a gun and I haven`t had a chance to get one at my buy figure of about $625....I am starting to wonder if they will ever come down in price...I`ll wait another year...it`s not like I don`t have anything else to keep my intrests up....My HK USP is a joy to shoot...

Are you active at the range and what do you like to shoot?

Originally Posted by cashinin

Yep the SR1911 is on my short list...I know 2 people that own them and love them and have put thousands of rounds through them with no issues plus the fit and finish is very good...I haven`t purchaced one because I always look at price when buying a gun and I haven`t had a chance to get one at my buy figure of about $625....I am starting to wonder if they will ever come down in price...I`ll wait another year...it`s not like I don`t have anything else to keep my intrests up....My HK USP is a joy to shoot...

Are you active at the range and what do you like to shoot?

I try to make it out once a month at least for matches, do a bulls-eye league in the winter, try to attend one or two classes a year and get some trigger time in when teaching so I guess I'm "active" at the range.

As for what I like to shoot, mainly 1911s but my HKs are really starting to grow on me. With a little more refinement (both self refinement and some changes to the guns) on them and the 1911s will probably find themselves shelved for a good long time.

I recently got back to shooting after a very long layoff....I try to get to the range once a week to get back into form...Eyes aren't what they used to be so I`ll have to work with it...

I`m shooting my S&W Model 41 which I enjoy and of coarse my HK USP and a few others...My problem is I really don`t like indoor ranges but living north I`m stuck with them in the winter...Anyway good talking to you ...shoot em straight..

The Ruger co was all about producing a cheaper gun to undermine other in the gun market, to streamline the production line with guns that are more machine friendly. Sometimes in the race to be cheaper you make guns that don’t make the grade

Edit: in a market of gun shortages like we have now the less desirable guns get a second look from the general public

I partially agree... but if the guns produced are more durable...less expensive like many of Rugers lines...I think that's key and what most people are looking for..

GP100 and SP101 are dollar of dollar better than say the S&W revolvers IMO....Rugers 22lr. pistols and rifles are very good guns at great prices....Rugers single action revolvers are some of the best....Their shotguns are of high value as their large center fire rifle line is...So in essence the only guns I see that don`t keep up the above is the SR semiautos....I`m not saying they are bad guns by any means just not up to Ruger standards....IMO..Jim