Paragraph 5. 
http://www.gunsandammomag.com/ga_handguns/ga_rugersr9_0801/index1.html
So who’s going to be the first schmuck to try some +P’s or even place their hands on a 40S&W model. I have a feeling Glock will no longer be the center of the kaboom spotlight anymore. Castings are acceptable for slides and frames, and even barrels on rimfires and scatter guns. On a high pressure autoloading pistol though?
No thanks Ruger. God gave me 10 fingers and I’d like to keep them all.
I played with a preproduction unit and there was nothing wrong with the barrel. When is comes to casting Ruger does a very good job.
And for the record, I didn’t like the gun. :eek:
Ruger does alot of casting for other gun companies, and industies. I’m sure that they know what they are doing. I think they also do MIM, or metal injection molding.
So, would you mind giving us your professional education and experience that allows you to judge a part that you have never seen, let alone been privy to its design and manufacturing, unsuitable for its job?
You are saying two things:
That you put complete faith that gun rag info is 100% correct.
And that even if (1) above is true, that you are technically qualified to judge the merits of something you have never personally examined.
And here’s another newsflash: most barrels are made from rolled bar stock, then gun drilled, reamed, rifled, and chambered. Rolled bar stock starts out as a casting.
So you think it’s a good idea?
I’d never consider buying a ruger centerfire firearm anyway, so… who cares?
Aww, did I piss in your Cheerio’s Mr. Condescending?
Maybe the gun rag is incorrect, but until that’s proven, your “argument” is just worthless conjecture. Prove the magazine wrong or quit talking.
Yeah, rolled bar stock may start out as a casting, but a Vltor MUR was a cast part at one time too. So F’ing what? No where does it say the Ruger barrel was rolled, so what really is your “point”? The Ruger barrel is machined from a casting, not a hot or cold rolled blank.
Maybe you just lack reading comprehension, or maybe you just don’t understand that there’s a difference between a rolled part and a machined casting. I highly suggest you do some more research before you come in here and blow your top like a toddler again.
Wow, I wonder if they have developed a casting process that is sufficient for barrels? That would be interesting news.
I have looked at these pistols and they seem well thought out. The samples I have seen had excellent ergonomics. The only thing I didn’t like was the heavy trigger (quite a bit like the M&P 45). After they have been out for a while I might pick one up for the collection.
Here is the quote from the link above:
"The SR9 barrel starts as a casting, then is bored, reamed, honed, rifled and the outside is profiled. It has no problems with lead bullets–no Ruger handguns do. The barrel is stainless steel and through-hardened; it should last you a good long time. The slide as well as the cam block in front of the magazine well are also through-hardened. "
If that process has been used to make Ruger’s barrels for the 85, 89, and 90s-series pistols, then its certainly up to the task. And, I am NO Ruger fan.
Ruger designed the original 85 in an attempt to sell it to the military (we got the M9 instead). In testing, they actually plugged the barrel (not that crazy of a test - barrel in combat can become plugged) and fired a NATO 9mm round; reports were the gun did not come apart.
I hanlded the gun recently. I was not impressed (for other reasons). I’ll keep my Glocks, CZs and Steyrs - but NOT because the Ruger’s barrel starts out as a casting.
Lets keep it level guys…
honestly, i own a few rugers(a mini 14, 2 10-22s, a target competition Mk II, and a 50th single six), and i ve NEVER liked a ruger factory trigger pull.
This is Ruger’s first centerfire autoloading pistol to use a cast barrel.
In fact, the only notable non rimfire (semi rimmed) pistol that I know uses a cast barrel is the CZ-70, which is chambered for the extremely anemic 32ACP.
I bet that is an error in the magazine article.
I said as much in my original post, if not in so many words. There is almost always significant gap between gun writer and manufacturing engineer.
I had a P94 for a long time and lots of rounds through it. I can’t say I’d worry much about the SR9’s quality or strength either way even though I don’t want one.
This is a nice little net discussion with former Ruger employee Ed Harris that I’ve always found interesting and informative that you guys might like to read.
Their contact page is scrambled on my computer for some reason, but if someone gives me Ruger’s e-mail address I’ll gladly find out for sure.
Ruger has always used cast barrels. Even in the P90 which is probably one of the most accurate out of the box DA/SA 45 autos.
The barrel should be the least of your worries with SR9. The horrible trigger is what would bother me. It feels like an off shore made caulk gun to me.
I searched this out awhile ago, and no Ruger centerfire auto pistol uses a cast barrel, except possibly the SR-9. Only some of their rimfires use cast barrels.
Over at the Ruger forums there is a retired Ruger employee who states that all P-Series pistol use cast barrels. I have read this elsewhere as well.