LOL... comments on anything???
The details of the SR9 recall have just been posted on the Ruger website. Here's a link...
Any comments on the Glock style trigger???
Well, since Ruger copied KelTec for the LCP, why not copy Glock's trigger while they're at it?
As for the SR9, have you even examined and compared the Glock trigger and internal parts with the new SR9 fix? I don't think so and neither have I. Until we have, I'd suggest holding off commenting until we know for sure and how it was done.
And lastly, why don't you give credit where it's due. Ruger stepped up to the plate and is fixing their problem, unlike your favored Kel-Tec company, who just passes out parts to customers to fix their guns, instead of doing a little retooling.
Seriously, I know you're the head man around here, but all your "copy" talk every chance you get is starting to discredit you... at least in my humble opinion. We all know you don't care much for Ruger... ease up a little. You don't see the LCP folks coming here and disrespecting your pocket pistol as you do every chance you get with Ruger. We can talk about the two companies and their products, but come on, you're almost bordering on Ruger bashing....
Humor is obviously lost on some, but:
I don't know anyone who doesn't recognize the LCP as a straight-up copy of the P3AT. I have no problem with Ruger copying the unpatented KelTec design, but just because a design isn't patented doesn't mean Ruger didn't copy it. Yeah, they made some cosmetic changes to the frame and tacked on a slide hold-open, but it's still a copy, and clearly so to anyone who looks at the gun side-by-side (and I have).
Ruger's gun could fire when dropped, a patently unsafe condition that was the result of an utter engineering failure. They really had no choice but to "step up to the plate" if they wanted to stay in business and not be sued out of existence by all the people with extra holes in themselves.
Ruger has made some good firearms in the past. But pretending they are doing anything startling or original with the LCP or the SR9 is silly. These are just copies, whether mechanical in the case of the LCP, or conceptual in the case of the SR9.
I'm certainly not the "head guy" here. That title without question belongs to js.
Maybe Ruger's lawyers should stamp those warnings on the barrels of their guns, too. Then they'll have a complete owner's manual cast right into the gun, and they can save a few bucks on printing costs.
Properly engineered modern handguns do not fire when dropped.
The only thing those warning pics are missing is the stick figure guy with holes in him!
The evolution of firearms is similar to the evolution of life. There are certain effective traits that show up repeatedly in convergent evolution, using the parts and structures avaliable. Occasionally, a new trait is developed, but overall, form and function dictate change and design.
I looked at the Kel-tec and LCP drawings, and though they are similar, there are improvements made to the Ruger that give it new traits within the overall structure of the firearm design. The design is an improvement on the Kel-tec. It is also a better-made firearm; of higher quality. That has been the remark of every reviewer.
Thus, calling the LCP a "copy" of the Kel-tec is simplistic, and does not take into account the obvious differences in the two firearms, in relation to the general structure of that genre.
Ruger has always striven to produce the highest-quality firearms. The LCP is back-ordered all over the USA. One can find Kel-tec's in abundance in almost any gun shop. That in itself says something to the quality and design of the weapon. I had to wait over four months to get one. I specifially did not want the Kel-tec, after examining it. Well, that's evolution for you.
The SR9 may have a "Glock style" trigger, but exploded drawings will show you that the two have enough differences to be two, distinct "species".
Personally I am not as impressed with Glock as others may be. I have had two of them and the one I have now is the only firearm that I would be willing to sell. But I do acknowledge the quality and popularity of the manufacturer. There is no reason not to purchase a Glock if one is so inclined.
I see many people on these forums who are all too willing to "bash" a particular manufacturer, for reasons unknown. I believe that such tendentious statements limit the value of information on a forum. Many neophytes come to these forums seeking credible advice about firearms. When they read someone ranting against a manufacturer they must come away with doubts that are really not justified. That can only work to the pejorative of the purpose of the forum.
Honestly, I have never met anyone who didn't like Ruger. Ruger is one of the great American success stories. And they NEVER build junk.
I will absolutely own both an SR9 and and LCP when they become more readily available.