What's gotten into Ruger not making ugly centerfire autos?

[kcub]

The SR's look decent. Any good?

Now if they can melt it down to pocket size...

[Dragger34]

My daily carry is an SR9c, IWB, 1-2 o'clock position, most reliable weapon I have ever used in my life. Holds 11 rounds(double stack) of 9mm hollows, full size sights, light, accurate, no failures in over a thousand rounds. When I get home or put it in my glove box I slip the 17 round mag in for 18 rounds and a full-size grip.

[lee n. field]

Pocket sized is the LC series, Kel Tec clones. Which I wish they'd scale up in to a .45 ACP model.

[Dragger34]

I used to own a Kel-Tec PF9, I wouldn't call the LC a Kel-Tec clone.

The LC9 has a safety switch and is more reliable and more accurate than the PF9.

[rotten mick]

While I agree with the blitz on guns going on and all manufacturers producing as fast as they can the quality control has slipped.......but ruger still makes a damn fine gun as always. As for pocket guns, IMHO while a pocket gun is better than none... none appeal to me at all. A few more oz's and slightly bigger gun give you more ammo with out the need to carry a 2nd magazine and a more accurate gun especially when under stress.
As for a pretty gun, I'll take function over looks. To me its like putting a $3,000 paint job and $5,000 in rims on $2,000 car.

[lee n. field]

I used to own a Kel-Tec PF9, I wouldn't call the LC a Kel-Tec clone.

OK, "homage" then.

Ruger (among others) copied Kel Tec's unique design. Arguably improved on it.

[57K]

I have an SR9 and an SR45. All things considered, I don't think there's a better polymer framed striker-fired pistol made. Kind of ironic since Bill Ruger had nothing to do with its design, although he was responsible for the polymer compound that Ruger uses. There have only been a couple of polymer pistols made where the polymer frame also included polymer rails. It started with the P-95, then the P-97 and then the P-345, so I believe their polymer is as good or better than anyones.

With the SR9/40/45, Ruger made a bit of a departure in using a steel/removable camblock as the SA XD/HS Produkt HS-2000 did originally, copied from the SIG/Sauer P-22X series. The rails at the rear of the frame are steel and imbedded into the polymer. The forward rail system is polymer and Ruger has already proven that their polymer has very good structural properties. The slide has contact with the frame, front mid and rear, rather than the mid and rear frame positions typical of other polymer framed pistols like the Glocks, M&Ps and others.

With 300 - 400 rounds fired for break-in, the trigger becomes good enough that there's no point in messing with aftermarket trigger kits. If you want to enhance it further, all you need to do is remove the mag. disconnect safety that's in the slide, which can be done in under 5 minutes, and then polish all of the contact points on the trigger bar. With few exceptions, I've owned or fired every poly pistol made. Combined with it's manual safety, I like Ruger's trigger fire control system better than any, and like Ruger's later model revolvers, the SR9/40/45 break down into sub-assemblies. These pistols are simply nothing like anything Ruger has ever made in a handgun.

[Que]

I guess many folks consider P Series centerfires like the P85/89 and P90 to be ugly. I'm not among them. Besides being built like tanks (how many times have you head that?) I have always found them be very attractive pistols with strong Teutonic styling. As someone who creates functional shapes for a living I appreciate that aesthetics are very subjective, and, to each their own.

As to Rugers more recent styles, they are designed more towards carry rather with polymer technology, so the more snag-free melted shapes were a logical natural progression/evolution.

[Walt Sherrill]

The older Ruger centerfire pistols LOOKED BIGGER than they were. I had that discussion with a friend, and we compared (tape measures in hand) several different guns. The Rugers where right with the other guns.

The new Rugers seem to have been touched by someone very competent at industrial design. The guns LOOK right, for a change. They also feel right.

I'm a Glock fan, and have several, but I think the Ruger SR series does the "Glock" thing better than Glock. The only drawback to the Ruger design is that Glock does it with far fewer parts -- which, over time, MIGHT mean fewer things to go wrong..

(When I first got my SR9, I ordered the Ghost trigger. After going through the photo-rich tutorial I decided to let my gunsmith do it, instead. That wasn't necessary with my Glocks. (I think there are more parts in the SR9's fire control unit than in the entire Glock pistol. That's only PARTLY a humorous comment...)

I do like the SR9 and may eventually get an SR9c.

[kcub]

Tell me more of this ghost trigger. Is this all that's needed?

http://www.brownells.com/handgun-par...prod42110.aspx

[Uncle Malice]

A few more oz's and slightly bigger gun give you more ammo with out the need to carry a 2nd magazine and a more accurate gun especially when under stress

The primary purpose for carrying a second magazine is not for ammo capacity, but for failures. It didn't matter if I have 7 rounds in an m&p shield or 15rds in a 19, I almost always have an extra magazine on the weak side.

[Pilot]

I still think they are ugly, and clunky, and I am a Ruger fan with several of their other firearms, but not their centerfire pistols. Yes, of shot some SR series pistol, and other than the distracting billboard loaded chamber indicator the triggers were not to my liking. For me, there are lots of better choices out there.

[spacecoast]

To be honest I don't see much difference between the SR45 and the older P345.

P345


SR45

[ClydeFrog]

I looked at the blue steel & stainless versions of the SR9 compact yesterday at a local shop. They are okay but I think Id go with a full size SR9 or maybe the newer SR45 .45acp for a carry gun.
Id bet that Ruger will roll out a SR45 in a compact pistol in 2014 too, .
The older P89, P94 & P90s were robust & offered decent marksmanship.
Author & tactics trainer Massad Ayoob compared the P series Rugers to Ford pick-ups. He also wrote that the small PDs he worked for issued the Ruger 345 pistols as duty sidearms.
My good friend owns a P89 9x19mm & a P97 .45acp that he has no problems with at all. He also uses reloaded ammunition in his handguns.

Im a fan of the M&Ps & the PX4 models mostly but overall, I don't think a Ruger SR pistol would be that bad for a entry level gun or a carry gun.
FWIW; the SR9 took a few firearm industry awards when it first came out.

ClydeFrog

[tahunua001]

I own an SR9C, it's my daily carry gun. I like it a lot to say the least. still not as good as a springfield XDM in my opinion but for it's price range it's unbeatable.

as for the comparison between the SR and P series. a side by side view like that is a little deceiving. the P345 is much thicker and larger in hand than the SR45. also, the SR got rid of those horrible slide mounted safeties and changed to a striker fired design rather than DA/SA.

[Walt Sherrill]

Tell me more of this ghost trigger. Is this all that's needed?

http://www.brownells.com/handgun-par...prod42110.aspx

I think so, but visit the Ghost site and go through the installation instructions. It's quite a bit more involved than doing a similar task on the Glocks. (I've done several Glocks, but upon going through that instruction guide, I chickened out and let my gunsmith do it. I have a gift for misplacing small parts, and the fire control unit of the Ruger has a BUNCH of small parts.) He told me, afterwards, that the instructions were helpful, but that it might have omitted a small step or two.

My SR9, bought used, was one of the earlier ones. The SR9c has a much-improved trigger, and it could be that later SR9 full-size models have included that revised trigger. If you've already got one, then the kits the way to go.

With mine the kit greatly increased the crispness and break of the trigger, but I felt no real change in trigger weight. That improvement alone was worth the part and gunsmith charges (which weren't that much.)

Another poster wrote:

To be honest I don't see much difference between the SR45 and the older P345.

True, but the P345 was the last in a long line of slowly enhanced guns, and arguably the best looking of the bunch. Compare the new SR guns to the earlier P-series, metal and polymer, including the P95, and you see a more-significant difference. I had a P95; good gun, but it looked like a tank.

[spacecoast]

I had a P95; good gun, but it looked like a tank.

I still have one, great gun. Curious (maybe not) that it fits the same Fobus holster as the P345, which I also own.

[ritepath]

Who ever said their new centerfires aren't ugly.

My sr45 is pretty homely compared to the p89.

[scottl]

Who ever said their new centerfires aren't ugly.

Not all of them.

[57K]

To be honest I don't see much difference between the SR45 and the older P345.

You might want to look again. The camera angle for the SR45 pic wasn't at 90 degrees like the P-345 pic, but it's still pretty easy to see the differences in bore axis. With your hand on the SR45, it's much closer to the centerline of the bore which further aids in recoil control as does Ruger's excellent polymer compound.

As pointed out already, the SR45 is also a thinner pistol that doesn't give up anything in structural integrity compared to competitor's pistols or the P-345. Even with the SR's grip being thinner, it still takes a 10 round mag. vs. the 8 round single-stack in the P-345. And since the longer slide with its .3" longer barrel will likely be inside your pants using IWB carry, the SR's slightly longer length is moot as far as carry goes, while being capable of producing slightly higher velocity/performance than the 4.2" barrel of the P-345. I've owned the P-345 and liked it, especially the locking system, but IMO, it's just not the pistol that the SR45 is.

kcub, you can buy the Trigger Reset Bars directly from: http://www.ghostinc.com/ There are further enhancement parts from:http://gallowayprecision.com/ruger-p...d-sr40c-parts/
I installed the Ghost 3.5# Ultimate in my SR9, but after I put at least 300 rounds through the SR9, the Ghost Trigger Reset bar just wasn't necessary so I took it out and put the factory part back in that works as well or better. Polishing the contact points on the trigger bar is worth doing regardless of what TRB you have in the pistol. While the Ruger has more parts than a Glock, that's pretty much moot as well. The Ruger breaks down into subassemblies so I don't know how they could have made it any easier to work on. IMO, the way to go as far as TRBars are those like the Rocket that have a tab on them that must be filed down to create an over-travel stop. They are also available in heavier pull weight versions like the Tactical that's rated 5#. Unless you add one of the TRBars that accomplish the over-travel stop function, the others are pretty much pointless.

The higher the performance of the ammo you shoot through an SR, the faster the striker spring will lighten to its inevitable weight. In 9mm, I mostly shoot +P velocity type handloads and its striker spring lightened a little faster than the one in my SR45, but the SR45's is getting there and mine is one of the most accurate .45 ACP pistols I've ever fired. So, in conclusion, if you want an over-travel stop, a Ghost TRBar that includes it is worthwhile. Polishing the contact points and removing the Mag. disconnect safety along with putting 300 - 400 rounds through your pistol will likely give you a trigger that's about as good as it gets for a combat pistol while retaining sufficient pull weight for safety.

[spacecoast]

As pointed out already, the SR45 is also a thinner pistol

You might want to check again, the specs I have say 1.2" for the P345 vs. 1.27" for the SR45.

So the P345 is the same height, 3/8" shorter, slightly thinner and a few ounces lighter than the SR45. Nevertheless, I've never found the recoil on the P345 to be the least bit objectionable, in fact it's a very soft-shooting pistol compared to some heavier .45ACP pistols and revolvers. It has some very effective recoil-minimizing technology which may or may not be present in the SR45, don't know.

[57K]

Well, if you look and see where Ruger measures to get the 1.27" dimension you'll find that it is the frame mounted ambi safety.

[6.8]

I like the look of the older P series. I find the newer SR series far too Giraffe like. YMMV

[priell3]

I love my P95. Don't call it ugly.

A friend of mine has an SR9C. Nice gun.

[Beretta686]

To each their own and I'll never knock Ruger for quality. But I can't imagine anyone calling a Ruger center-fire automatic "ascetically pleasing" (aside from their 1911) unless they're used to a Hi-Point or a Raven Arms type gun.

Rugers are great guns that go BANG every time with boring reliability, but they have yet to make an autoloader that's easy on the eyes.

Ruger has always struck me as a sporting arms company that made semi-autos as a "me too item" rather than a core competency:
Mini-14 to the AR-15.
MP9 to the MP5.
SR45 to the Glock.
LC to the Kel-Tec.

If owning a Ruger auto-loader makes you happy, that's great. With my own Rugers, 10 years later, I'm still thrilled with my .44Mag Super Redhawk hand cannon and 22/45. But for a serious auto-loader, I believe there's better, more ascetically pleasing guns out there.

And that's why Moses brought a Glock down with him back from the mountain top, as a panacea to cure all evils on the shooting world.