I’ve been hearing from various Ruger fans the opinion that “the SR-9 is a better value than the Glock 17 and is just as, if not more, reliable out-of-the-box”.
I know pretty much zero about Ruger pistols, but is the SR-9 all that it’s hyped up to be? It would seem to be a tall order to surpass G-17 reliability. As a G-17 owner, I was curious as to the gerneral opinion of the Ruger gun.
Key words…
Everyone tries to justify what they bought or own.
I’d like to know what the hell they are basing the assertion on that the SR9 is more reliable than the G17.
We should ask some current owners that had to wait months to get authorization to ship their guns back to RUGER for a call back safety repair. When they did finally get them back, they had GLOCK like tirggers, only heavier. I have not met too many that were happy with the results or the process. Time will tell if they are as dependable as a G17. If you buy one, let us know.
Just like with the M&P I fail to see how anyone can state that a new pistol (SR-9 was introduced 10 months ago) is just as reliable as a handgun that’s been around for 24 years and is in use by over 60% of the nations LE departments.
Now I’m not saying it’s perfect and has been flawless but the G17 really does set the standard and it is what everything else will be judged against. How some can compare 24 years worth of service to 10 months I’ll never know but during the last class I took the instructor made a comment about the M&P that I think applies here as well. He said, “it’s a great gun but it will be a long time before it proves to be as reliable as the G17.”
The SR9 might be fanstastic but claims that it is as reliable as a G17 are downright goofy.
I’ve had two G17’s, and my older one has probably passed 30,000 rounds without ONE FTF. My 3rd Gen G17 doesn’t have that kind of round count, but it has also been flawless regardless of what junk I feed it. On the other hand, I have had a handful or FTF’s and FTE’s with other Glock models (a G26 and 27, as well as a G19 and a G30) but we’re talking just a few (my log book would tell the exact number, and possible reason) reliability issues that almost all had explanations other than the pistol. However, the G17, the original; I don’t know if there is a production combat pistol with a better service record and reputation for reliability than the G17 - and I know that the G19 has a cult following and this isn’t to dis the G19. I just had one of the bad ones years back.
p.s. Ruger auto pistols can pack sand until they’ve proven themselves for a decade. Until then, keep making good revolvers . . . . although I’ve always selected a S&W any day of the week when buying a wheel gun.
Disclaimer: I own and love my Glock 17. I have disliked many things Ruger ownership and management have done for years. I own and believe that Smith revolvers (in combat calibers) are the best, hands down, notwithstanding the generally well made GP-100.
The pattern on recent Ruger releases seems to be that a one year beta test is required for initial production/design flaws to be eridicated, and the product to stand on its own merits. Unfortuanately, it’s the initial buyers within that initial one year of market release that are performing the unpaid beta testing for Ruger.
The SR9 may well turn out to be a superb, cost-effective pistol, but any claims of equal, let alone superior durability and performance over that of the Glock 17are certainly premature at this point.
Best, Jon
You mean the weapon that was just recalled a short time ago because it would go boom when it wasn’t supposed to?
First, a disclaimer:
I don’t like Glocks. I don’t. They shred my hands like a cheese grater and they have a trigger that is uglier than Rosie O’Donnell dry-humping Whoopie Goldberg.
…but the 9mm versions WORK. The G17 has a reputation as being one of the most reliable out of the box handguns EVER made. It has earned that reputation. As much as I dislike parts of the Glock design and some of what Glock the company has done over the years, that doesn’t take away from the fact that they make a darn good handgun.
People arguing that the Ruger offering is just as reliable out of the box are making arguments based on a sample of 1. The Ruger hasn’t been out even a YEAR yet, has it? And yet there are people saying it’s just as good as the G17? I think not. I’d say let’s wait until the Ruger has been out there in issue numbers for a number of years before we make that judgment. Let’s see how they fare in the hands of SERIOUS END USERS rather than people who fire less than 500 rounds a year before we make that judgment.
I’m a big M&P fan and I recommend them heartily because I’ve had good experience with them and every decent source out there says that they are doing quite well as issue weapons in police departments…but I’m still not ready to say that they’re equal to the G17 in reliability…and the M&P has been out longer than the Ruger offering and is actually in a lot of police holsters.
To my knowledge no LE agency has adopted the Ruger offering as a duty weapon.
I know pretty much zero about Ruger pistols, but is the SR-9 all that it’s hyped up to be?
I can’t speak to that because the only experience I have with them is fondling one at a gunshow. I have no intention of buying one, if that tells you anything…
The number of years a gun has been on the market doesn’t tell you anything about how reliable it is. However, it does give consumers the ability to assess the quality of the pistol over time.
The number of pistols of a particular brand being used by LE doesn’t tell you much about how reliable it is, either. Anyone with broad experience watching numerous agencies around the country, big and small, rural and urban, select and purchase handguns knows that reliability is not the biggest factor. However, popularity among LE does put more guns on the firing line being fired under controlled conditions, which in turn brings to light problems faster.
If you want to know whether a bunch of Aug’08 production SR9’s is more or less reliable than a bunch of Aug’08 production G17’s, you need to buy a bunch of each and shoot them with identical ammo under identical conditions. The fact that the Glock has been out longer doesn’t give it any bonus points. If the SR9 runs better, it runs better.
The reason a particular brand/model’s reputation for reliability is worth considering is because it’s just that, a reputation that it has earned. The G17 has been running like a sewing machine with very few hiccups since it was introduced. Does that mean that every G17 produced this month is going to be perfect? No. Look at the recent issues SIG has suffered with its takedown levers … up until this year, no one ever heard of failing takedown levers; now they’re everywhere.
But it’s a pretty safe bet that the G17 is going to work. The SR9 is a completely unknown quantity, beyond the fact that its engineers failed to take into account “falling on the ground” when designing its safety mechanisms. :rolleyes:
I certainly know if I was given a choice between the two, the Ruger wouldn’t even come out of the box …
I never understand why we have to compare one gun to another but I guess we all do it. Let the Glock and Ruger stand on it’s own merits, good or bad.
I am with JohnWayne, I don’t like the Glock. Not because it is a bad gun but because I don’t like the look and feel. I have not had the opportunity to shoot an SR9 but if the look and feel is better than a Glock, and is just as reliable, then it is a better gun for ME.
Probably just the natural inclination to want the “best” of something. No one can claim their gun is “most reliable” without tacitly comparing itself to every other gun on the market.
So the SR9 had a recall. Remember when Glock failed the DEA testing? Remember the slam fires? Those problems, yrs after they were proven, led to the six part product “upgrade” of /92. Remember the frame rail problems a few yrs ago that had you call in to see if your gun needed that Glock “upgrade” (new frame)? How about the NYPD problems? LAPD problems? Indian State Police problems? There have been plenty of Gen4 problems. Didn’t Oakland PD just pull their new Gen4 Glocks for having the same probs as their old Gen3 Glocks?
Yep, the Ruger SR9/40 doesn’t have the record of problems the Glock has. Not as many out there as long, give 'em time to catch up.
You saved me a lot of typing…
My sentiments almost word for word.
I’ll just add that whenever something positions itself against Glock it should tell you something: that the Glock is the top of the heap and whatever is being compared to it is a wannabe.
I think that John Wayne777’s post pretty much summed things up. Unless I really felt that Glock’s ergonomics/reliability/durability/accuracy/after-market support were bad (which I don’t) to the point of significantly impeding my effective use of the tool, given that there’s really not even a price advantage with the Ruger, why would I even remotely want to consider it as a replacement for my Glock(s)? While I certainly don’t buy into the “Glock Perfection” mantra, they’ve been fielded long enough for establishmnt of a superb reputation, and I believe that pretty much all the bugs have been worked out of the Gen 3 9mms (and most of the other Gen 3 offerings). While thay haven’t necessarily handled some of the operational hiccups that have occurred over the years with aplomb, they basically have handled them.
I like (and trust) my overbuilt P89 and my GP100 and Security Six revolvers. I remain unimpressed with their polymer semi-automatic offerings, and especially so the SR series. I’ve pretty much considered them to be in the same parallel universe as the Smith & Wesson Sigmas and their progeny…
Best, Jon
Doesn’t that have more to do with Glock subsidizing the purchase cost than actual performance? Or is that just a fall back line of Glock haters?
Of course that being said, it cannot be denied that Glock’s is a time proven design.
Please stop necroposting on the Ruger SR series.