I got a chance to shoot one of the pre-production Ruger SR40 pistols last summer out in AZ. I liked the gun, for the most part, and asked Ruger if they’d be so kind as to send me one of the production guns when they became available.
Well, I’ve had the gun for about four months now and just reached the 5,000 round mark this morning with no cleaning of the pistol or the mags. There have been no malfunctions of any kind up to this point.
When I first got the gun, I pulled it apart and cleaned and oiled it and then commenced to shooting. Somewhere between 1,750 and 2,000 rounds, I noticed that one of the cam block pins had snapped in two. The gun was still working fine but I asked Ruger for a new pin. While I had the gun disassembled, I did put some oil on the frame rails and on the barrel hood. But that was 3,000 rounds ago and the gun is currently as dry and filthy as a dirt road.
The gun has had a mix of factory and handloads through it to include a couple boxes of WOLF 180gr steel and some 155gr cast LSWC target loads. My initial plan was to get the gun to 5,000 rounds and then pull it apart for a detailed and thorough cleaning. But I think now I’ll just keep on shooting it and see if it’ll eventually choke.
First time I’ve seen inside one of the SR pistols, damn. Didn’t know they were that close to Glock design. Still not interested in anything produced by Ruger.
How’s the trigger on it after 5k dirty rounds? Two of my friends who have them say “gritty” and fifty different gun rags say “gritty,” but they’re testing a new-condition pistol.
Also, have you found the mag disconnect to be super annoying?
The trigger is actually pretty usable. It’s got no overtravel and the reset is very crisp and positive. The trigger isn’t really “gritty” but it does stack a little right before the striker is released. And it’s sort of spongy or mushy like pretty much all striker fired guns.
My brother had an SR9 for a while. It wasn’t a bad gun, and the trigger was pretty much like a Glock. However, I just don’t see why you would buy a Ruger. You don’t save much over the cost of a Glock and the Ruger SR series doesn’t have the track record of reliability that Glock does. IMO.
The magazine disconnect is a block in the slide similar to a firing pin block safety. When the mag is inserted, it unlocks the firing pin. The trigger is still active and the striker can still be released with no magazine in the gun.
I really don’t have any opinion on the magazine disconnect. I can take it or leave it. But I do like the fact that the Ruger system doesn’t interfere with the feel of the trigger or anything like that.
The gun was still running fine with the broken pin and may have continued to run indefinitely. As stated, there have been no malfunctions with the pistol up to this point.
For me, the thin grip profile was not comfortable or conducive to a good strong grip (although that was supposed to be a selling point: it was supposed to be “1911-like” in its grip). Also, I strongly disliked the trigger: its pull weight was too heavy, it was gritty/crunchy-feeling, and it did not seem to reset as quickly or as “positively” as the Glock I used to own. Finally, I did not like the thumb safety. The fact that it’s there at all is annoying, but worse yet, they made it too small and for a 1911 shooter, it’s not quite in the right position to be able to easily sweep it on/off with your thumb (although I suppose one could adapt to this over time).
My comment about the OP’s gun magazine style reorting revolves around my perception (perhaps misplaced as I do not know him personally) of his relationship with the manufacturer. He states that not only does he maintain a close enough relationship with the manufacturer and/or its marketing department to be invited to their facility to inspect and fire a pre-production/prototype weapon. Once production models were finalized he requested that the manufacturer send him a weapon apparantly to test and evaluate, the request was granted because of the unspecified special relationship between the OP and the manufacturer and/or marketing team. Typically this process has occurred between the firearms manufacturer’s marketing department and a contributor to a firearms magazine. It is well known that this type of review often results in either a less than thorough review or even pure marketing hype and glosses over the shortcommings of a weapon which might be otherwise presented by an unbiassed reviewer.
Ninjamedic has a point. We certainly welcome firsthand reviews of firearms, but the language in the original post is a potential cause for concern. Gun companies send stuff to people on forums all the time…in fact, some forums out there are really more of a means of generating free gear for the “reviewers” than anything else…and while there’s nothing inherently wrong with someone getting a product specifically to do a review about it, that should be stated clearly.
