Thread: What Wrong With Ruger SR9?

Help me understand:

What's wrong with the Ruger SR9?

It has never been taken serious by the military or law enforcement to my knowledge.

The popular choices that get all the attention are:
1. Glock
2. Springfield XD
3. S&W M&P
4. Sigs
5. Beretta

Why not the all American made Ruger SR9?
It seems to be a fine pistol, lower cost and fits my hand better than any other.
I don't own one or trying to defend it, but just curious.

A guess has to do with caliber. First offering was only in 9mm and most L.E. agencies have moved to the .40 as their minimum caliber. I know they now offer the Ruger SR40, but all the other guns you list come in .45ACP as well. Also, the SR9 has an exterior thumb safety, where as the other guns listed do not- they have some type of internal safety. Might just be too new as well... it needs time to be proven as a reliable "combat" handgun. Just my guesses.

I checked one out at a gun shop and the trigger was very heavy. Improve the trigger and maybe it will sell.

I have a sr9 and do love the ergonomics of it the trigger is a little heavier feeling than the other brands listed above. I also hear that the other brands listed give ridiculous discounts/trade in deals to police dept. so they choose that brand with all police dept. having budgets that might also have something to do with it. Maybe Ruger isn't as willing to deal even though there msrp is already lower

My problem with mine is the whole gun seemed to be designed for idiots. Way too many safety measures.

My first gun was the sr9. It looks great and felt great in my hand. It shot fine but the trigger is gritty and heavy. I had the gun for 8 days and the shot it once at the range and the magazine release fail completely. It would not engage with the magazine. This bummed me out. Sent it back and swiftly sold the gun when it came back from the factory. The bottom line is that it's not a reliable gun and it has a tarnished history of major recalls. I loved the sr9 but the glock just felt (to me) right despite the odd grip style

I think most Ruger firearms are designed to try and make them idiot proof but in my experience there is no such thing. Ruger is a probably afraid of lawsuits hence all the extra safety features

Originally Posted by MIKEV311

I think most Ruger firearms are designed to try and make them idiot proof but in my experience there is no such thing. Ruger is a probably afraid of lawsuits hence all the extra safety features

I remember a number of years ago when Ruger suffered a MAJOR lawsuit. Part of that lawsuit was the stupid warning printing on the side of their barrels. Ruger collectors distinguish guns before or after the warning label. This is probably why they have so many safeties as well.

For what it's worth I have a new SR9 and really like the gun. Have shot maybe 1000 rounds through it and so far it's been A-OK. Took it to Norpoint and rented an XD9 and an M&P 9 to compare it with. The XD actually shot better for me, the M&P not quite as good. YMMV

Originally Posted by Racehead

The XD actually shot better for me, the M&P not quite as good. YMMV

Any ideas why the XD shot better and the M&P not?

Originally Posted by skydiver

Any ideas why the XD shot better and the M&P not?

As far as the XD goes I would say it was 2 things, one it felt better in my hand than the SR9 which has a very narrow grip ( bought it for CCW ) and two I just liked the sites better. Much easier to see and to re-acquire target quickly with. The M&P one has me confused though. It too felt better in my hand than the SR9, very close to the XD imo. The sights were just fine, I didn't like them quite as well as the XD but every bit as much as the SR9, however I was very inconsistent with it. The difference was so great that I was frankly quite astonished at my lack of performance with it. I had a buddy with me who shot all 3 as many times as I did and his results mirror'd mine. Maybe it was a bad example ? It was a rental gun so maybe it just had a few too many rounds through it ? I really have not been able to come up with a logical reason for my lack of performance with this gun. I'm in NO WAY saying that it's not just as well made as the other two or that maybe someone else's results might have been quite different than mine. For me it was what it was though.

Just to add, I have never seen, nor heard of any PD or agency using the XD. Not sure why, but that seems to be the way it is.

The XD is a relatively new gun (here in the US, anyway). I think police departments don't change their issue guns very often because of the involved cost/training. Glock always says they are the most carried gun in law enforcement, which is probably true. Depending on the size of a L.E. agency, you're looking at thousands of dollars to do a swap out with whatever the current issued firearm is. Plus, you need to retrain the officers and certify your department armorers to repair the new weapons. And, all new holsters, mag pouches, spare magazines, etc. I dont have the actual stats infront of me, but I think its safe to say most officers go their entire career without ever discharging their guns, other than regular training. Probably hard to convince the mayor/board members/counsel to approve new handguns when the current ones are doing the job. Im just rambling off topic now

Originally Posted by FullCaliber

The XD is a relatively new gun (here in the US, anyway). I think police departments don't change their issue guns very often because of the involved cost/training. Glock always says they are the most carried gun in law enforcement, which is probably true. Depending on the size of a L.E. agency, you're looking at thousands of dollars to do a swap out with whatever the current issued firearm is. Plus, you need to retrain the officers and certify your department armorers to repair the new weapons. And, all new holsters, mag pouches, spare magazines, etc. I dont have the actual stats infront of me, but I think its safe to say most officers go their entire career without ever discharging their guns, other than regular training. Probably hard to convince the mayor/board members/counsel to approve new handguns when the current ones are doing the job. Im just rambling off topic now

Oh, I know, I work for a department that uses Glocks, and has for a while. But newer firearms, such as the S&W M&P are already doing well with Police Departments, mine had a lengthy, discussion regarding the M&P vs Glock, the only real Pro that the M&P guys had was that it was an American made gun, so the discussion ended there. But the XD has been around longer than the M&P, and as I said before, I know of no agency or department that uses it, while many that I know of are picking up the M&P. Not sure why the XD is not popular, but it isn't.

Ruger has always been considered a consumers firearm, and for the most part they are designed and manufactured as such. The Ruger P-85 was breifly in the running for the new 9 MM Service Pistol, but it was a short lived dream. It was the reason the Prescott, Arizona plant was built much larger than was actually needed at the time, just in case they got the contract. Bill Ruger ended up storing his car collection there instead.

The only exception was the Ruger Mini 14. The first year of production it wasn't even sold to the general gun buying public, only law enforcement. No one bought it except in the AC-556 versions. Some prison systems bought them for use by officers in guard towers. After the first year Ruger realized the public wanted them more than law enforcement did, and sold them accordingly. Now it is one of the companies best selling models, and is avaliable in many configurations. Especially since the old man croaked, and Ruger is now offering Tactical Models with 20 round magazines.

As was mentioned Ruger has gone overboard with safeties on a lot of their auto pistols. They fear law suits since they lost the one big time, with that idiot that was playing Quick Draw McGraw in the mirror with a Single Six, and wound up in a wheelchair for the rest of his life because of it. Juries like to reward idiots with large sums of money. Ruger makes good guns, but nothing the military has ever been really interested in.

Don't forget the pc4 and pc9. Designed with the police in mind (Police Carbine).
Seems Ruger always seems to miss the mark on the "assault weapon" by just a little bit.
I've seen a number of police officers with p series pistols. Usually the decocker models.
MY sr9 has been flawless through the 6k rounds or so I've put through it. There is maybe some test somewhere that the ruger couldn't pass?
Could be the safety thing.... but doesn't the beretta have a safety? I know the 1911 does....